Unidentified Film maybe Ilford

My brother-in-law gave me all his old unexposed film including a short bulk roll of FP4 and a bulk loader loaded with ? He thinks it is either FP4 or HP5. There were also a couple of bulk loaded cassettes that he thought came from the roll in the bulk loader. So I shot it at 250 ISO and developed with some HP5 rolls that he had shot years ago (he moved and no longer has a darkroom)
So the film came out underexposed. It has no brand name and no frame markers. It is a hard film, that is harder to cut than Kodak TMax, more like cutting Technical Pan but is also a normal thickness base. Any ideas of what this film is because I always thought that Ilford brands there film and has frame markers.
In addition to testing for the type of film I also checked out the use of a digital 16-45 lens on my film Pentax and was pleased that it worked nicely above 21mm.

In addition to the mystery film and some the bulk loader and FP4 17 meter roll there was also a roll of Panatomic X which I have not used in many years and a few rolls of factory rolled B&W. He gave me all his film except his 120 TriX as he still is holding on to an Autochord (not bad for a brother-in-law)(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Foma films in bulk rolls do not have any mark in the edges.
Tomas

If I remember correctly, Ilford bulk rolls were not identified. Some recent PanF+ that I've been doing some film testing with recently did not have markings. Best guess from what you told us is that it is the FP4+. It has a true speed of 64-80 in most soups that I've used it with and would likely behave as you described.

craigclu said:

If I remember correctly, Ilford bulk rolls were not identified. Some recent PanF+ that I've been doing some film testing with recently did not have markings. Best guess from what you told us is that it is the FP4+. It has a true speed of 64-80 in most soups that I've used it with and would likely behave as you described.

Click to expand...

Dear Craig,

No, the true ISO speed of FP4 is 125-160 in most developers. It may fall to 80 or less in fine grain developers or rise to 200+ in some speed increasing deverlopers. Anyone capable of ISO film speed testing can confirm this.

You (and others, including myself) may prefer to overexpose by 1/3 stop or more in the interests of tonality, which is fine, but that is NOT the same as true ISO speed. The distinction is important.

It is also important how you meter. Do it properly, with a spot meter reading the darkest shadow in which you want texture, and you can almost always use the full ISO film speed. Use broad-area or incident light metering, and yes, you will often need to give an extra 2/3 stop to 1 stop, as you suggest. But that's usually a question of metering technique, not true film speed.

Sorry if I appear either aggressive or pedantic, but I have something of a taking against those who misuse the term 'true' film speed, which has to mean ISO as far as I am concerned. Anyone familiar with the history of film speeds must surely accept that all the imperfect but replicable systems tried are vastly superior to personal opinion, and that ISO and its antecedents (ASA, DIN and Kodak) are the best of them.

Cheers,

Roger

Back when I was using FP4+ more often, I was using FG7 (without SS) as my primary developer. You are correct in guessing that I was using incident metering (my primary method). My incident rigs agree with my spot meter on a gray card in most light and my habit has been to simply incident meter, fudge a bit for the subject matter if needed and with this system I've never seen full rated speed with FP4+ in the FG7 (also D76, DDX, DS-10) and recently with very limited testing, with PyroCat variants. A close friend has had similar experience (he's a spot-only guy).

I am sensitive to shadows not falling away into deep, texture-less black in most things that I do and I suppose that I should break old habits and meter as you suggest. I imagine I'm accomplishing the same thing but interpreting things at the speed ratings I need to use to approach the FB+0.1 ?

I'm afraid this thread is looking hijacked....Sorry!

Dear Craig,

Thanks for being so reasonable, and not taking offence.

With that metering technique, yes, your EI strikes me as entirely believable, because you are only measuring the illumination in either case, not the light actually reflected from the darkest part of the subject. You are also going on what you like best, which as I said, normally implies maybe 1/3 stop extra for most people. The latter knocks the EI down to 100, and another 2/3 stop for not metering the shadows seems likely.

On the other hand, I normally develop FP4 in DD-X (true IS0 an easy 200) and rate it at 125 when spot metering. If I place the darkest shadows with detail 3 stops down (i.e. set the meter at 1000 on my Gossen Spotmaster 2) I get what I want in the way of shadow detail. Going 3 stops down arguably underexposes by about 1/3 stop, so I'm overexposing by about 1/3 stop. If I use the Pentax spot meter instead of the Gossen, and use the I.R.E. 1 index, I can afford to rate the film at 160. In D76 I'd expect an easy ISO 125 (HP4 generally runs a tiny bit fast) so I'd use 650 on the Gossen and 100 on the Pentax.

As I say, I had no intention of being unduly aggressive or pedantic, but although ISO film speeds are not perfect, they are the best we have. To refer to anything else as a 'true' speed is less than fair, because too much depends on individial technique and preference. I can rate FP4 at anything from 1/3 stop to a full stop faster than you, and, I would cheerfully bet, get exactly the same shadow detail, because of variations in metering technique and developer choice; but ISO speeds are replicable by anyone, unlike my speeds and yours.

Cheers,

Roger

FP4+ speed

ISO speeds are of course the standard. I agree with Mr Roger Hicks (who has infinitely more experience than me), FP4+ tests at 160-200 for me in Sprint Standard developer (a liquid developer supposedly similar to D76 1:1 but using phenidone rather than metol), as well as Xtol 1:1 and Ilford Ilfotec DDX. This is with 4x5 developed in a Combitank. I ran the test in Sprint 3 times just to be sure and tested using 2 different densitometers, and my meter (Pentax digital spotmeter) was calibrated and compared to about 7 other meters. I do tend to "pull" it and shoot at 125 specially since most of the time I am metering the most important element in the scene or the highlights in snow scenes, and letting the shadows fall where they may. I get good shadow detail using this technique.

Sincerely,

Hany.

craigclu said:

If I remember correctly, Ilford bulk rolls were not identified. Some recent PanF+ that I've been doing some film testing with recently did not have markings.

Click to expand...

I used in the seventies Ilford Films sold as bulk. They all had edge markings.

I just developed a roll of Ilford FP4 plus from a 30 m bulk roll and it have edge marks.

Sound like 2 questions are worth asking.
1. To Ilford as to when they started edge marking bulk loader films
2. To brother-in-law as to when he obtained the film

This might help to establish it as Ilford film or not as the case may be.

pentaxuser

Dear All,

All ILFORD photo film is edge marked.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :