FP4+ in ULF disappearing, what is closest?

[Jon Adams]

With Freestyle changing their LF & ULF films and Photo Warehouse saying they will be shortly as well (due apparently Ilford no longer selling big rolls to custom cutters/resalers) we will be losing my favorite 125 speed film in formats larger than 8x10.

I like to shoot the same film from 4x5 to 12x20 and if I have to change the bigger film it will carry over to the smaller.

What is available out there in these ULF formats that is closest in performance to FP4+? I like how it works & if I can't get it I want something as close as possible. Not something like Bergger that can't really be expanded. With any luck not some that have emulsions so sensitive they scratch if you blink in the darkroom.

Anyone with experience here is welcome and especially so if you have tried, tested & had good experience in a replacement that works well. It will be 6 months to a year before I will have to get more but when I do if I can't get what I am used to I will have to change. Might as well start getting info so I can check out the likely candidates.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I am in the process of doing the same thing, although I will keep shooting TMY for 8x10....anyhow, I have a friend who shoots efke for Azo and swears by it developed in Pyrocat HD. JandC right now has short dated Efke film at very good prices, which might be a good time to give it a try and test. Also I have heard good things about the JandC 400 film and will be giving that a try too. I know it is not 125 but I figure since I am changing films, might as well give a try to one that has some faster speed.

[Oren Grad]

Go study the JandC Photo website. You will want to become very familiar with it. Then take a look at the B&W Film/Paper/Chemistry forum over at APUG. There's been a fair amount of discussion over there about the various films supplied by JandC.

In ULF, no matter which supplier you go to, the choice is basically Efke 100, Forte 200 and Forte 400. I see that JandC is currently listing Efke 25 as well in 11x14 only, but an ISO 25 film is going to be next to useless for most ULF workers. The Forte films appear under a variety of private-label brands, but underneath the labels, it's all the same stuff.

[John Kasaian]

I don't want to play the role of Chicken Little, but I received the new Freestyle catalog in yesterday's mail. Arista.edu (p.14)which I think is relabeled Fortepan or Bergger is well represented while Arista Pro is listed as "Still Available---While Supplies Last!"(p.17) I checked Freestyle's website and Arista Pro is still cataloged(e-cataloged?) and not on clearance or anything to suggest that its on the way out other than the "While Supplies Last" notice in the printed catalog. Of course you can still get Ilford in the Ilford box from the Freestyle catalog(p.16) and now they've also cataloged Foma sheet film in 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10 sizes. There is also a "coming soon" notice of Arista.edu Ultra(??)

I'd really like to Czech out the Foma;-)

[sanking]

In ULF the only film with the expansion and contraction capability of FP4+ is EFKE Pl 100. In some ways I like it even more than FP4+, though the emulsion is a bit tender.

Forte 400 (JandC 400) give more emulsion speed, but does not come close to EFKE PL 100 in terms of expansion and contraction potential.

[Oren Grad]

This was linked over in APUG, but I guess not here yet:

photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BrDw (http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BrDw)

It's Fred Newman reporting that Ilford has just informed him that they will no longer fill orders for 12x20 HP5 Plus, and that 11x14 is gone as well once current stock is sold.

I wonder whether this means custom orders as well.

[Jim Galli]

What Sandy said. I'm so pleased with the Efke 100 in Pyrocat HD I'll never look back.

[David Flockhart]

Efke PL100 gives me richer negs than I ever got out of FP4. They are ever much more expressive in the darkroom. Also, I'd have to take exception to the 'but an ISO 25 film is going to be next to useless for most ULF workers' comment. (Not that it matters at all what 'most' people would do (since when is photography a group activity?)). The only film I've found richer than PL100 is the PL25 and the difference in my experience is strong. I prefer this film in 11x14 whenever there is enough light or time to use it. If Efke ever cuts it in 8x20 then I'm in. The prints from PL25 exude depth.

[Pete Watkins]

I live in the UK and after seeing what happened to MG Rover yesterday I find it hard to believe that Ilford managements attitudes are as crass as the management of The Rover group. A company which has just struggled back to life should be willing to sell as much of the stuff that it produces as possible. It would be nice to buy a British product (Ilford have refused to supply 11 x 14 to the home market for some years now) but if the company is going to adopt this attitude they can get stuffed. I ain't happy!

[David A. Goldfarb]

I'll also put in my vote with Efke PL100. It needs to be handled carefully, but it's a beautiful film.

[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.

[clay harmon]

Quote " 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."

They did NOT change the base on the new Tri-X. I was part of a custom order of 12x20 after Kodak went to the new emulsion, and it passes UV radiation just like the old stuff. I am a platinum printer, so I have ample proof to know this to be a fact. It is true that the new Tmax 100 has this problem, however. Useless for alternative processes.

[Joe Smigiel]

Clay,

You are obviously correct about the Tri-X if your experience bears out the fact it is on the same base as always. Please note that I did not say Tri-x had definitely been changed but rather that I thought it might have ("...and also for Tri-X I believe "). I did speak to a Kodak rep last year about the UV problem and they told me TMX and another film (the specific emulsion of which I've obviously forgotten) had been changed. Perhaps it was Plus-X. I know it was not TMY. I just remember he specified two films available in ULF sizes had been changed to the new base.

However my conversation with the Kodak rep was not reassuring. It left me with the feeling that all the Kodak sheet films would be heading down the same path as TMX sooner or later. That's just conjecture on my part but I certainly felt it was coming based on the way the conversation went. That's why I went with Ilford at that point.

In that conversation the Kodak rep also informed me the change to the TMX base was made to make the manufacturing process easier. It had nothing to do with changing the film's sensitivity or other pictorial qualities.

I suppose the lesson to be learned here is to buy whatever quantity of your favorite ULF film you can afford and freeze it because it may not be manufactured in the near future or its characteristics may suddenly change without notice.

[Joe Smigiel]

Clay et. al.,

I just googled to find which films had the UV base and found a post I made back in October to the alternative process list regarding the conversation I had with the Kodak rep. It was new Plus-X and TMAX 100 that have the UV blocking base, not new Tri-X. Here's the URL for that post plus a link to a test I ran with several emulsions (New TMX, old TMY and HP5+) with van dyke brownprint if anyone is interested:

http://www.usask.ca/lists/alt-photo-process/2004/oct04/0292.htm

Again, sorry for misspeaking. That's twice today in this forum...they're getting more frequent....wish I could edit/remove such things on this forum. But I can't so I hope you will accept my apologies.

[clay harmon]

Joe,
Believe me,I worried about the UV issue with the new TriX before we got it, because we placed an order for 44 boxes before we heard about problem with the Tmax 100 base. We heard about the issue about 4 weeks after we placed the order. Much to my relief, everything turned out okay. It is frustrating that Kodak made this change on the TMX emulsion without any warning. I would have been steamed if I had just bought a bunch of boxes of this emulsion only to discover the problem through painful personal experience.

The current situation with ULF film is really weird. It is almost like the manufacturers are panicking about film in general, so they react by cutting out the one little niche in which they could probably keep a pretty healthy profit margin. Anybody with thousands invested in huge cameras and expensive lenses would probably not be as price sensitive as someone buying film for a 35mm point and shoot. I figure ULF film will probably make a nice boutique market for some company that doesn't try to follow the thundering herd into the digital canyon.

I gotta wonder if Kodak truly thinks that they have or can secure a long-term competetive advantage in what is essentially a consumer electronics market over a Sony or Panasonic or the like (who have been kicking butt for decades). If you use the computer industry as a model, you will have a bunch of companies cutting their profit margins to zero or negative in a scramble to capture market share, and then acting shocked when their cash runs out.

Oh well, at least a freezer is cheaper than a box of film.

[sanking]

"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 ? "

--Ken Lee, 2005-04-16 09:22:28

Ken,

My dilution recommendations are made primarily to provide a time of development that is neither too long or too short. If time is too short we risk uneven development, if too long inconvenient, and possibley additional B+F stain.

For my own work I like times in the 8-15 minutes range. Nothing magical about these times, but they give me a nice comfort zone.

[Ralph Barker]

FWIW, I asked my contact at Ilford USA about the continued availability of Ilford films in ULF sizes and got the following response:

"The production of Ultra Large Format Sheet film is still an integral part
of the ILFORD plans for the Black and White business. Black and White Photo
is the core of what we are now doing and we will continue to follow our
Mission Statement of being 'Best in Black and White'. To be 'Best in Black
and White' means that we have to support the true stalwarts of real
photography of which the ULF users are an important part."