Ilford HP-5 4x5 with wrong dimensions

[Frank Petronio]

Earlier this year I took delivery of three boxes of mispackaged HP-5 -- the middle box had been inverted so it didn't form the tradtional double light-tight seal. No problems with the film but it was disconcerting to think that they would let that slip by. I wrote to Ilford and they asked for the batch numbers, but later in the Summer I got another batch of film with the same funky packaging.

But this is even stranger... when I was loading film into holders from the latest batch, I noticed the end of the film hit the holder a little different... but I shot it anyway and it was fine -- except Ilford cut the film about 6mm shorter on the long end!

It worked fine but....

I might have to go back to Tri-X, which had its own issues... I want to support Ilford but damn, that is just plain lousy quality control.

[PViapiano]

What issues have you had with the Tri-X, Frank?

[Ralph Barker]

Ilford (Harman) will often replace film at no charge when there is a manufacturing error. The elves that used to jump into the boxes to verify dimensions and such all went to work for Keebler during Ilford's receivorship.

[Michael Alpert]

I want to support Ilford but damn, that is just plain lousy quality control.

Frank,

I am sorry that you are having problems with HP-5. This year, I have gone through many many boxes of 5x7 HP-5 without any problems at all. So I think you've just had very bad luck. I would not hesitate to support Ilford. They are about the only company interested in the future of b&w film; and, in my experience at least, their quality control is fine.

[tim atherton]

unfortunately this kind of problem seems to have been occurring more frequently in the last year or so, which makes me wonder what it's indicative off?

I had a problem with thumb prints and marks on 8x10 FP4 (which was never properly addressed by Ilford - their rep just never got back to me)

And following that, I got a number of comments from others with similar (and different) problems - including both the problems Frank mentions

a. Film improperly boxed from the manufacturer

b. Film cut to incorrect size

I must say, before the Ilford shakeup I used their products for years and never came across any of these kinds of problems at all

[David A. Goldfarb]

Maybe it's indicative of the fact that they've been offering sheet film in more sizes lately, so now there is a greater probability of error from resetting equipment than there used to be.

Either that or you ordered 4x5" and accidentally received a box of 5x4" that was designated for the British market.

[Morten]

....
Either that or you ordered 4x5" and accidentally received a box of 5x4" that was designated for the British market.

The Brits are a odd kind.....

Morten :-)

[Frank Petronio]

The reason I switched to HP-5 was to support Illford, which appeared to be making a commitment to B&W photography. Now I am not sure what I'll buy next.

I never had a QC problem with Kodak film, ever, in over 20 years. As for Tri-X, my only issue with it is that I can never figure out the diference between Tri-X Pro and regualr Tri-X (when I used roll film) and how Kodak would often make changes to its characteristics without warning.

[BrianShaw]

Either that or you ordered 4x5" and accidentally received a box of 5x4" that was designated for the British market.

I actually make a point of keeping both sizes - 4x5 and 5x4 - on hand at all times; the 4x5 gets used for vertical shots (portrait orientation), the 5x4 is for horizonatal shots (landscape orientation).

[Ralph Barker]

Smart move, Brian. I do the same, as well as having both 8x10 and 10x8.