Changes to Ilford paper

[Bob._3483]

Ilford are showing such disgusting total disregard for consumers that an Ilford director has been active on APUG for a couple of weeks now answering questions and generally being helpful. Erm... no... wait a minute... that doesn't make sense... does it???

Perceptol (not a developer much used by LFers, although I hear it is liked by some for portrait work) is back in production and has been available in the UK for a couple of weeks and I believe has just become available in the US and Canada.

As is well known by everyone here, Ilford have been asking photographers what size ULF film is wanted. They will be cutting ULF sizes directly instead of relying on third parties to cut it. What they are deciding now is which sizes and which emulsion(s) based on consumer feedback. Everyone will be able to order it through their normal suppliers instead of relying on one or two outlets.

I don't know how they can live with themselves, showing such lack of interest in what the consumer wants...

[sigh]

Back on topic. This close to the management buyout, I doubt they will be messing about too much with production etc. I expect they are too busy making sure everything is ticking along and that delivery and stock levels are back to normal. However, I have switched from MG-IV to Kentmere recently so can't offer any personal observations... If it is indeed slower, that's not much of a problem as it was already pretty fast. Only Kentmere is faster in my (admittedly limited) experience. More interesting would be what other effect a different emulsion composition might have on toning etc.

Cheers,

[Bob._3483]

Stop press.... Ilford says in answer to a different question on APUG that they have not made any emulsion changes since the MBO.

Cheers,

[steve_782]

"I always thought that one of the good things about analogue/traditional was that these kinds of differences make for a unique original hand-made print. Surely it's what gives a silver gelatin print its je ne sais quoi. The whole point of using traditional materials is not to make the same print you made last time."

No. Would you accept this with film? Every batch had a different ISO speed by a factor of +/- 1.5? I don't think so. Would you accept a deviation in grade of paper so that one batch was grade 2, the next batch was 2.5, the next batch was 3, the next batch was 1.5? Probably not.

The shadow speed and grade with paper should be as consistent from batch-to-batch as film ISO and contrast. The selling point of papers from Kodak and DuPont to commercial photographers was consistency. You could reprint a negative exactly if you kept good printing notes.

As for the idea that you can't replicate a print the next time so it's "hand made." Let's just say this. If you were selling the print commercially - you wouldn't get away with that idea. If you don't know how to make match prints, then you need more practice printing - and if you think inconsistency is "artistic" you're fooling yourself.