FP4+ in ULF disappearing, what is closest?

[Jim Chinn]

I have used Ilford for for all my sheet film up to 11x14. Do they not cut all the sheet film from the same master rolls?

I can understand if Ilford is going to sell film to re-cutters (photowarehouse etc) it does not make sense to compete against itself by selling the film in name brand packages for a higher cost. (one of the reasons they have got into trouble in the first place). If the rolls are still being produced to cut Ilford branded 4x5 and 8x10, it seems it would make sense to profit on the sale of a roll to the re-cutters and not incur the cost of packaging and cutting niche format sizes yourself.

However, if 4x5 and 8x10 are all cut from the same master roll as ULF sizes and master rolls are not going to be available it leads me to one of two conclusions. Either Ilford is going to be ending production of all their sheet films or the new management is not the sharp tacks that I had heard about.

I do know that if ULF formats are not going to be available as rebranded from someone, I will have bought my last sheet film in any format from Ilford.

[Joe Smigiel]

Yesterday in response to Fred Newman's and J and C's announcements I placed an order for some 5x7 and 11x14 Efke PL25 film. I've never used this film before and am curious to all the references about it needing careful handling. Is it an unhardened film? If so, shouldn't it be OK if a hardening fixer is used? Any other special considerations to be aware of when using this film?

I was going to place an order for several boxes of 5x7 HP5+ next week before I heard this news. It makes no sense to me now to have a different film for 5x7 and 11x14 formats as others have stated. As of yesterday, I no longer have any use for Ilford products and will cease supporting or recommending them. Film, paper, chemicals. You name it. I'll be looking for alternative sources now for everything photographic.

As I read in another post, the bulk rolls of ULF films are 40" wide x 4000' in length. I can understand why Ilford might not want to cut this to the ULF sizes all the time, but surely making a run of 11x14 once per year to keep their customers happy shouldn't be too much for a company to do especially if they are already set up for it. Also, if a recutter is willing to take on such an endeavor, why eliminate that availability? It must certainly be easier to pack a large roll of this stuff and send it off to a recutter than it would be to cut and package thousands of boxes of the stuff down to formats like 4x5 through 8x10.

[neil poulsen]

Ilford just emerged from bankruptcy. Since it was a management buy-out, I'm pretty sure that they are savvy regarding these types of decisions. After all, it's their own money. Regardless of what they decide on some of these issues, I'm going to support them with my business. I like their products.

Hopefully, they will continue to sell to re-cutters. We'll have to see. I wonder if they can garner a contract so that the resellers won't cut sizes that Ilford still offers.

[tim atherton]

"As I read in another post, the bulk rolls of ULF films are 40" wide x
4000' in length. I can understand why Ilford might not want to cut this
to the ULF sizes all the time, but surely making a run of 11x14 once per
year to keep their customers happy shouldn't be too much for a company to
do especially if they are already set up for it."

why don't you just ask Kodak to do it for these various ULF sheet sizes? They have pretty big rolls of film too...

[Joe Smigiel]

"why don't you just ask Kodak to do it for these various ULF sheet sizes? They have pretty big rolls of film too..."

I have. They'll do special orders but I don't have a spare $5000 to put down on a film order. I'm talking about making a limited standard run once per year (or as often as the market would support it) without having an individual needing to buy an entire special order run.

[phil sweeney]

Jon, I was not aware of these things - thanks. Why not stock up from photowarehouse and ward off the inevitable for a few years. Cannot we use this film for at least 3-4 years?

[Sal Santamaura]

As far as 11x14 goes, why not put together a group interested in Tri-x and split up a special order from Kodak occasionally? Kodak seems to have a catalog number for that item (significant to accountants, believe it or not) and has been willing in the past to fulfill such requests. Tri-x is available in 8x10 and all smaller sheet sizes down to 4x5, so those who wish to could standardize on one emulsion.

[Jim Chinn]

If this is the same bunch of incompetent managers that got them into trouble in the first place, I don't see much of a future for ilford.

[Ken Lee]

Sandy -

I am trying to get away from TMY because of the magenta dye, which takes far too long to wash away for my taste - even with hypro clearing agent. (Why should one have to bother ?)

I have read elsewhere that for J&C 400, you recommend using Pyrocat at 2:2:100 (rather than 1:1:100) May I ask why that is ?

I developed some J&C 400 along with some TMY, at 1:1:100, and found that the J&C 400 was indeed a bit under-developed. However, the lack of magenta dye was heavenly to witness.

[Joe Smigiel]

"As far as 11x14 goes, why not put together a group interested in Tri-x and split up a special order from Kodak occasionally?"

That's been done. The problem with doing this with Kodak films is that they just changed their film base with TMX for sure and also for Tri-X I believe about a year ago, unannounced I might add. The new base does not pass UV radiation hardly at all and so it makes these films essentially useless for alternative process like Pt/Pd or VDB, etc. That's why I switched over to Ilford HP5+ in the first place.