The Future of Colour and B&W Film with Ilford...

[loccdor]

Unfortunately not for much longer, CMS 20 II isn’t long for this world. It’s been a bit since they off announced that they couldn’t get the stock anymore. Doubt there’s much left. They’ve been out of bulk and sheets for months now…

Adox still has Scala 50 / HR-50 they are recommending as its replacement since it can do 275 lp/mm.

 

[George Mann]

Adox still has Scala 50 / HR-50 they are recommending as its replacement since it can do 275 lp/mm.

That is more than CMS 20.

 

[loccdor]

That is more than CMS 20.

CMS 20 II was touting an 800 lp/mm figure last I saw. In any case, they're both high for most applications.

 

[thinkbrown]

Sorry to say, you are still adjusting scenarios to advocate your own approach.

@koraks put a lot more effort into responding to this than I will which I appreciate. I swear sometimes this place is less friendly than Reddit towards discussion.

I have a darkroom setup. I really like making prints. They take me a lot more time than scanning does. I scan my negatives with a DSLR and a macro table. I can scan a roll of 120 in ~8 minutes and then edit at my leisure.

Meanwhile I keep my photochemistry in a fridge because I don't use it on a daily basis. It takes time for things to come up to temperature and be ready. I have to clear off the shared counterspace in the basement of any laundry supplies. I've gotta cover up a few lights. This all takes more time than scanning the roll of film does and I haven't even gotten the safelight on.

This isn't speculation or advocation. It's the world I live in.

 

[MCB18]

Adox still has Scala 50 / HR-50 they are recommending as its replacement since it can do 275 lp/mm.

Yeah, no it can’t. If you look at the Agfa 80 data sheet, you will see that it can only hit 287 lines per millimeter if you run it through Agfa’s Aerial film developer and have a contrast ratio of 1000:1. And I am not sure what an acceptable contrast ratio for general photography would be, I am fairly confident that you would want something less contrasty than black or white on your film. There is another data point that says 101 lines per millimeter with a 1.6:1 contrast ratio. That is probably more realistic, but that also might be high. Unfortunately, I don’t have a setup that would allow me to test this in standard photographing developers, otherwise I absolutely would.

 

[George Mann]

CMS 20 II was touting an 800 lp/mm figure last I saw. In any case, they're both high for most applications.

These are inflated numbers that you will never see in the real world.

 

[MCB18]

These are inflated numbers that you will never see in the real world.

You would probably see it if you’re doing actual microfilm photography as intended, with the equipment and developer that goes along with it. But again, as with Aviphot, you would run into a contrast problem if you tried to get that in an actual photograph. As in, you would have zero midtones… you get black OR white at that point.

 

[skahde]

This isn't speculation or advocation. It's the world I live in.

All fine and true. Let's settle this here, I understand your point.

 

[MattKing]

Assuming a permanent darkroom setup with easy to reach utensils. Many people have multi-functional spaces (say, a bathroom) that needs more time to convert into a working darkroom, and to convert back to its original function.

Around 50 minutes setup time for me, and at least 75 minutes to take down and clean up afterwards.
Some of my stuff is stored three floors and a long hallway away.
Everyone's circumstances vary.

 

[MCB18]

Some of my stuff is stored three floors and a long hallway away.

Yup, that’s why I hardly ever print… getting all the stuff together is a PITA unfortunately… I also lost my 6x7 neg carrier and lens :/

 

[loccdor]

These are inflated numbers that you will never see in the real world.

Yes, but you can see them if your process isn't losing too much resolution at some other link in the workflow. It's definitely quite a bit higher than other films.

 

[George Mann]

Yes, but you can see them if your process isn't losing too much resolution at some other link in the workflow. It's definitely quite a bit higher than other films.

I and others achieve no more than 250-lp/mm with CMS 20 35mm film using the best prime lenses shooting real world scenes.

 

[loccdor]

Does Ilford have a product which would come close to that? 2X lpmm is 4X resolution. It's the difference between small and medium format in terms of the detail jump. My original point was just that Ilford seems to have a technical film gap in its B&W lineup.

Well, I guess Ilford is finishing Acros now, which is pretty close to that detail level...

 

[blee1996]

However much I love film photography and develop my own film, I have not done darkroom wet print since college time. It just needs too much dedicated space and equipment, even for a single family house. Compound with the steep price for photographic paper, I have to say this is most likely becoming even smaller niche over time.

On the other hand, recently I signed up for a community college photography course in order to use their darkroom so I can do wet prints again.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Watch out! Darkroom printing can be addictive.

 

[dcy]

Around 50 minutes setup time for me, and at least 75 minutes to take down and clean up afterwards.
Some of my stuff is stored three floors and a long hallway away.
Everyone's circumstances vary.

Setup + cleanup is less than that for me, but I instead am limited by outdoor lighting conditions. I can only make my bathroom dark enough when it's dark outside. Whoever designed my house did not think that en-suite bathrooms should have doors. My bedroom has tall windows that would be inconvenient to block completely.

There's still a wall + entrance between the bathroom and the bedroom, and fortunately we live in a universe where light doesn't bend around corners the way sound does. I've positioned my enlarger so light would have to make a U-turn from the bedroom window, so I only have to worry about a bit of scattered light diffusing from the bedroom. That means the bedroom doesn't need to be pitch black; just "very dark". But it means I can only even attempt darkroom work late in the evening and that doesn't always work with other things going on in life.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Does Ilford have a product which would come close to that? 2X lpmm is 4X resolution. It's the difference between small and medium format in terms of the detail jump. My original point was just that Ilford seems to have a technical film gap in its B&W lineup.

Well, I guess Ilford is finishing Acros now, which is pretty close to that detail level...

They made litho and microfilm products in the past (but I think largely disposed of them to Anitec when they were both part of Ciba, then International Paper - Anitec had acquired GAF, then were themselves sold off to Kodak). The costs of making the product relative to sales and what people would be prepared to pay (as opposed to piggybacking on Agfa technical/ microfilm or aerial film materials) are the issue.

You can argue all you want about the high contrast test resolution results, but they often bear little meaningful resemblance to the extent of usable recorded and transmissible information within a given film/ emulsion developed to a normal contrast index for still camera use. In a lot of cases, a chromogenic neg will give document films (in the various ultra-low-contrast developers) a hard time for granularity and considerably outperform on useful sharpness and usable exposure scale.

Finally, many of the film-taster claims around the granularity differences between Delta 100, Tmax 100 and Acros (or Acros II) are rather moot, and often not based on well controlled comparative tests. The manufacturers' data adds to this confusion - Kodak's RMSg is based on D-76, while Fuji uses their Microdol/ Perceptol derivative for the same test and still only achieves (realistically speaking) a small difference. It's also entirely plausible that Delta 100 and Acros II share much more technological commonality than some would like.

 

[dcy]

I've gotta cover up a few lights. This all takes more time than scanning the roll of film does and I haven't even gotten the safelight on.

This isn't speculation or advocation. It's the world I live in.

This reminds me of an issue I had with scanning early on. Initially I had a scanning setup that did not properly block stray lights, so I had to wait till the evening and turn lights off to be able to use it. I didn't fully appreciate how much that was slowing me down until I bought a better setup that lets us scan with the lights on in daytime.

All this is to say that, real-world limitations like having to block lights, move things to another room, clear a table, or wait for particular days or particular times all have a very real cost on ones ability to process negatives.

 

[skahde]

However much I love film photography and develop my own film, I have not done darkroom wet print since college time. It just needs too much dedicated space and equipment, even for a single family house.

I build my seventh darkroom just this summer. Only one of them was a dedicated room (which was heaven!) and I mostly printed in some cellars which in some cases didn't have permanent electricity, often no heating except a trayheater for the developer, no solid floor only rammed earth which got flooded one year and were I had to use foldable tables for the trays or hang black foil from the inside of a caged cellar-section to get it dark.

If the bug really bit, you will find a way to print! All it needs is dedication, determination and an enlarger.

 

[Agulliver]

As I've been on the cusp of having the funds to buy a nice house, one of the criteria I've been looking for has been a space that could be easily converted to a darkroom. I believe there are no domestic homes in my town that have a cellar or basement. We just don't have them in England. Certainly not in properties built after the 1890s. My bathroom is postage-stamp sized and in common with 99% or British bathrooms has no electricity supply within. In any case, there's literally no physical space to store the enlarger unless I risk it in the garage which is a couple of minutes walk down the road in a block of 20 garages. Some of us really do have to wait until circumstances get better. I have printed at my mother's house where my enlarger currently resides, but it takes a good hour and a half to black out the windows and set things up....and longer to clear up after.

Proper darkroom printing would be a lot more feasible if I had a dedicated darkroom or at least a space big enough to set up the Ilford dark tent. Other options are converting a loft, or using space at the back of a long garage in the future. Or a house with a sizeable utility room that could be made to be converted quickly into a darkroom. But we're talking about spending the better part of half a million quid to get that kind of space in a house....

I'd love to do more printing, even if it was only a handful of times per year for my favourite photos. My local camera shop sells Ilford and Kentmere paper, mostly to the students who have the luxury of the university darkroom. But it means I can get paper and paper developer any time I like on a whim. I just need a suitable space!

 

[perkeleellinen]

Space is the key reason why many younger photographers don't print. At least in the UK there is an acute housing shortage forcing many people to rent tiny places well into their 40s. It's not just the space to set up a darkroom but also where to store all the gear when not in use. In some of the places I've rented over the years there has been no storage space and landlords have kept hatches into the roof padlocked. In our current place I can only print when I bribe my son to give up his bedroom during the school day and that arrangement will certainly come to an end as he gets older.

 

[dcy]

My bathroom is postage-stamp sized and in common with 99% or British bathrooms has no electricity supply within.

I used to live in Tamworth, near Birmingham. I had forgotten that peculiarity of British electrical systems.

Proper darkroom printing would be a lot more feasible if I had a dedicated darkroom or at least a space big enough to set up the Ilford dark tent.

I hadn't heard of the Ilford dark tent. I just looked it up... Hmm... Have you considered grabbing one of those pop-up changing tents people use for camping?

https://www.amazon.com/Goplus-Changing-Bathroom-Clothesline-Portable/dp/B0C4D1MCVB

This example is $100 vs $380 for the Ilford dark tent, yet it is larger, and it pops up automatically. Obviously, I've no idea how well it works as a darkroom.

This gives me an idea. I could get one of the smaller ones and use it to block the entrance to my bathroom to make it darker. Something like this:

https://www.amazon.com/GMAK-Portable-Dressing-Changing-Shelters/dp/B0FHJTLJKD

 

[dcy]

Space is the key reason why many younger photographers don't print. At least in the UK there is an acute housing shortage forcing many people to rent tiny places well into their 40s.

Many parts of the US and Canada are like that, which is infuriating because there's so much land. It is entirely a self-inflicted problem. Housing in Toronto, Vancouver, LA, and San Francisco is awfully expensive.

To deepen the irony, LA and SF are supposed to be progressive parts of the US, yet the NIMBYs living there don't seem to make the connection that the biggest predictor of homelessness is the cost of housing.

EDIT: I am not saying that everyone living in LA + SF is a NIMBY. I am saying that NIMBY is a causal factor for the lack of affordable housing.

 

[koraks]

To keep the real estate question a little more focused on photography (let's not go off into the woods too far...) - I really wonder/doubt whether this is 'the' reason why there's not a whole lot of printing going on. If we gave every 20/30-something a house/apartment, how many would actually install a (makeshift) darkroom and start printing there? I bet it's not a whole lot. There are plenty of other factors that keep them from printing.

Of course, "but I don't have space for a darkroom" is a convenient way to end a conversation that starts with "say, how do you feel about printing your negs..." That doesn't mean it's the real reason. It's likely part of it, but for those with the interest, there's usually a solution or a workaround. I know several people who are dedicated to darkroom printing and who are facing a challenging housing situation. They somehow manage to find/make/fashion a place where they can do their printing. If there's a will, there's a way.

 

[dcy]

I think there's a sampling bias going on here. I think "I don't have enough space" could indeed be the most important reason... if you sample members of Photrio who do not print at home.

For me, the barrier to entry was not lack of space, but the intimidating cost and size of this weird device called an "enlarger", that apparently I am supposed to buy second hand from Craigslist or whatnot, in lord knows what condition, without knowing if I will get it to work, just to attempt a new hobby that I might not even enjoy.

EDIT / PS: Even now, the main barrier for me trying medium format is not lack of interest, but lack of an enlarger that can handle medium format.