Ilford Quality

[John Kasaian]

I was wondering what the current thoughts of those here are in regards to recent production Ilford film, particularly FP-4+? I've used a lot of the stuff in the past, both in Arista and Ilford boxes and it is first rate IMHO, but lately I've been using up a stash of assorted older films I found hidden in the freezer. Meanwhile my stockpile Ilford is getting low (except for HP-5+ in 5x7 format) and I'll be needing to order some fresh stuff soon.

Is FP-4+ the same great film it's always been?

[Ron Marshall]

I am finishing a box bought about a year ago, it is the same as always.

[Vaughn]

So far so good! (new 8x10 FP4+)...I have also used the old FP4+ and Arista 125.

Vaughn

[Tomaas]

I purchased 10 boxes of FP4+ through one of the local shops and I have been shooting my way through them over the past few months. This is in both 5x7 and 8x10 sizes.

Beautiful film!

Tomaas

[Frank Petronio]

Yeah it's great stuff if they don't leave fingerprints on it or assemble the boxes with both layers facing out so they aren;t as light tight.

[reellis67]

This is my primary film, and I tend to order regularly (~ twice a year) rather than stockpiling. I've not seen any problems with it at all in 120, 4x5 or 8x10 sizes.

- Randy

[Alex Hawley]

I've been using it all this year in the 7x17 with no problems at all.

[BradS]

I have used about 100 sheets of FP-4+ a year for the past 4 years or so. Never any problem. I don't store it in the fridge or the freezer. I just buy it and use it. Works with everything, has great exposure latitude and is very forgiving of my less than meticulous processing methods (a characteristic for which I am very grateful). Consistently beautiful film.

[Lenny Eiger]

Is FP-4+ the same great film it's always been?

Yes, FP4+ has been consistent, but it isn't the same as the old FP4, which was far and away a better film. I wish they would bring it back...

Lenny

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I'm having a sizing problem with my FP4+ in 11x14. Simon is aware of it and is going to send me a test sheet from the new run to compare. Other than that great film!

Jim

[Ken Lee]

Yes, FP4+ has been consistent, but it isn't the same as the old FP4, which was far and away a better film. I wish they would bring it back...

What is the difference between the old and the new versions ?

[Richard Wasserman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger View Post
Yes, FP4+ has been consistent, but it isn't the same as the old FP4, which was far and away a better film. I wish they would bring it back...

What is the difference between the old and the new versions ?


Lenny, I'd like to know too. I am finishing up a LARGE supply of 4x5 FP-4+ I bought a few years ago when it looked as if Ilford was having longevity problems. Will I like the current FP-4+, is it dramatically different? This is my favorite film.
__________________

[Bobf]

Note the "+" or lack of it. FP4 (without the +) was the previous incarnation. FP4+ was re-jigged (I don't know why) from FP4 in 1990 (ref: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/aboutus/page.asp?n=139). There is unlikely to be much FP4 (without the +) lying about 18 years later.

Bob.

[Ole Tjugen]

No?

I've got FP3 and HP2 in the freezer - on glass plates. :)

[Bobf]

Ole: I swear you must have just about any film ever produced in your freezer(s)... Along with one of just about every camera ever made to use them with on your shelves and cupboards! Amazes me you find the time to dig holes in the North Sea... ;)

[Lenny Eiger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger View Post
Yes, FP4+ has been consistent, but it isn't the same as the old FP4, which was far and away a better film. I wish they would bring it back...
What is the difference between the old and the new versions ?
__________________

Let me preface my comments by saying I am not a film engineer. I can only speak from my own results. Further, I am getting close to the end of my process, but I am not at the end. Whatever I say, you must test for yourselves. I will say that my conclusions have been echoed by many of the notables in film and development - I called them on the phone and they were good enough to talk to me, albeit off the record.

As Kirk has stated, I'm not that great at representing myself (tho' he was kind enough to see the message thru it, thanks), so let me say that I am quite open to discussing this, these are only my opinions and I am not trying to diss anyone, or to be "the" expert on this. This is how I understand it...

I believe this all happened as a result of a higher contrast look seeming to take over. Kodak and Nikon and all have been pushing a commercial look. Ansel also printed in a very high contrast manner and many followed him.

There appear to be 4 levels of contrast out there, using gross generalization. The first is a soft, PH Emerson look (or the photoSecession), the second a darkroom print, perhaps styled after Walker Evans, a high contrast look, personified by Ansel and a hybrid - a higher contrast version of platinum, also achievable by inkjet, with some effort. My b&w style - for my own work - is in the last category.

If you want to print in a high contrast print, you need some range, but you don't need a lot of shades of gray. If a film manufacturer made the decision that everyone wanted only the high contrast style, they could easily take out most of the silver in the film. Ilford denies vociferously that they haven't done this - and I have no idea whether they have or haven't. I'm not going to call anyone a liar. Regardless, even if it had more silver, they have a top end and a bottom but the midtones are smashed together.

Any film out there can separate a 21 step tablet, quite nicely. How about a 2100 step tablet? The effect I see looks like steps 1582, 1583 and 1584 (on our 2100 step tablet) all return the same value. It's like you're playing a piano and every other key is hitting the same string, so you have only 44 real tones to work with instead of 88. I don't know how to quantify this - except by printing out a large sheet of every tone I can make on a b&w print and then photographing it. I haven't done it. I'm trying to solve it...

They think they have the perfect film, they are proud of the results of their efforts. I think the higher contrast crowd is likely pretty happy as well. However, everyone I speak to in the other 3 categories is unhappy.

I am getting nearer to what I want, with an 8x10, a modern lens and I am trying some filters - jury's out on that. Efke 25 is still the closest to old FP4, which I really like, but its slow and still not as good (except for the 2003 batch). All film I have tested exhibits this issue - lest Ilforad think I am after them. The TGrained films are some of the worst. That said, I am not perfect - there could be sosme combination that gets around this - Sandy has expressed he is very happy...

That's what I know so far...

Lenny

[Andrew O'Neill]

Is FP-4+ the same great film it's always been?

Yes.

[John Kasaian]

Let me preface my comments by saying I am not a film engineer. I can only speak from my own results. Further, I am getting close to the end of my process, but I am not at the end. Whatever I say, you must test for yourselves. I will say that my conclusions have been echoed by many of the notables in film and development - I called them on the phone and they were good enough to talk to me, albeit off the record.

As Kirk has stated, I'm not that great at representing myself (tho' he was kind enough to see the message thru it, thanks), so let me say that I am quite open to discussing this, these are only my opinions and I am not trying to diss anyone, or to be "the" expert on this. This is how I understand it...

I believe this all happened as a result of a higher contrast look seeming to take over. Kodak and Nikon and all have been pushing a commercial look. Ansel also printed in a very high contrast manner and many followed him.

There appear to be 4 levels of contrast out there, using gross generalization. The first is a soft, PH Emerson look (or the photoSecession), the second a darkroom print, perhaps styled after Walker Evans, a high contrast look, personified by Ansel and a hybrid - a higher contrast version of platinum, also achievable by inkjet, with some effort. My b&w style - for my own work - is in the last category.

If you want to print in a high contrast print, you need some range, but you don't need a lot of shades of gray. If a film manufacturer made the decision that everyone wanted only the high contrast style, they could easily take out most of the silver in the film. Ilford denies vociferously that they haven't done this - and I have no idea whether they have or haven't. I'm not going to call anyone a liar. Regardless, even if it had more silver, they have a top end and a bottom but the midtones are smashed together.

Any film out there can separate a 21 step tablet, quite nicely. How about a 2100 step tablet? The effect I see looks like steps 1582, 1583 and 1584 (on our 2100 step tablet) all return the same value. It's like you're playing a piano and every other key is hitting the same string, so you have only 44 real tones to work with instead of 88. I don't know how to quantify this - except by printing out a large sheet of every tone I can make on a b&w print and then photographing it. I haven't done it. I'm trying to solve it...

They think they have the perfect film, they are proud of the results of their efforts. I think the higher contrast crowd is likely pretty happy as well. However, everyone I speak to in the other 3 categories is unhappy.

I am getting nearer to what I want, with an 8x10, a modern lens and I am trying some filters - jury's out on that. Efke 25 is still the closest to old FP4, which I really like, but its slow and still not as good (except for the 2003 batch). All film I have tested exhibits this issue - lest Ilforad think I am after them. The TGrained films are some of the worst. That said, I am not perfect - there could be sosme combination that gets around this - Sandy has expressed he is very happy...

That's what I know so far...

Lenny

Interesting observations Lenny! I shot some FP-4 a long time ago, I think Photo Warehouse was selling some remaining stock. I wasn't at the point where I could appreciate any difference though. I am curious if you consider TXP 320 a high contrast film, or not? Or Fomapan 100?

[clay harmon]

i ran into the same size problem in the Ilford FP-4 11x14 last year. They forgot to undercut the nominal dimensions by 1/16" and delivered boxes cut exactly 11"x14", which unfortunately, will not fit into any holders. I contacted Simon Galley, and he sent a replacement box, even though the original oversize box had been purchased through the now vilified J&C photo. I can't say enough good things about how responsive Ilford has been to this problem.


I'm having a sizing problem with my FP4+ in 11x14. Simon is aware of it and is going to send me a test sheet from the new run to compare. Other than that great film!

Jim

[Jim Fitzgerald]

i ran into the same size problem in the Ilford FP-4 11x14 last year. They forgot to undercut the nominal dimensions by 1/16" and delivered boxes cut exactly 11"x14", which unfortunately, will not fit into any holders. I contacted Simon Galley, and he sent a replacement box, even though the original oversize box had been purchased through the now vilified J&C photo. I can't say enough good things about how responsive Ilford has been to this problem.

Clay, I 'm confident that my issue will be resolved. I've had to undercut my film to get it into the holders.I needed to shoot with my recently built 11x14. How could I wait? Simon told me I'd have to wait for the film to be run and then check the size? I didn't understand that but it is what it is. I know how to measure.

Jim

[Tony Lakin]

No?

I've got FP3 and HP2 in the freezer - on glass plates. :)

You need freezers in Norway:confused: :confused: ;)

[Bobf]

Clay, I 'm confident that my issue will be resolved. I've had to undercut my film to get it into the holders.I needed to shoot with my recently built 11x14. How could I wait? Simon told me I'd have to wait for the film to be run and then check the size? I didn't understand that but it is what it is. I know how to measure.

Jim
I read him as saying there was no 11x14 in stock to send you to test the size and would have to wait until some is cut for this year's ULF run.

I do agree tho' that they could have simply measured a sheet you sent them and decided there and then if it was the correct size or not. Then, if it is wrong, they could simply send you replacements as soon as the new film is cut. Instead, they send you a sample, you check it, you tell them what's what and finally they send a replacement - which does seem to be an unnecessary amount of too-ing and fro-ing...

They normally seem very responsive to complaints but the simplest solution seems to have eluded them in your case...

[Lenny Eiger]

Interesting observations Lenny! I shot some FP-4 a long time ago, I think Photo Warehouse was selling some remaining stock. I wasn't at the point where I could appreciate any difference though. I am curious if you consider TXP 320 a high contrast film, or not? Or Fomapan 100?

Isn't is so much a "high contrast" film. It's really that the midtone separation is squashed. The same is true of all film past 1990 or so. I don't know why or how they did this. Even if they have the same amount of silver, which i sincerely doubt, they behave like they don't. (Once again, in my experience.)

I don't think much of Fomapan at all. I just scanned some last month and was appalled. TXP is ok. I don't think its as good as FP4+. Nothing is as good as Efke. Bear in mind that my criteria is scanning, and not contact printing, or darkroom printing. Altho' it could be said that scanning is closer to contact printing, however. I am looking for tight grain and lots of richness (tonal separation).

Hope that clarifies a little...

Lenny

[Ken Lee]

Any film out there can separate a 21 step tablet, quite nicely. How about a 2100 step tablet? The effect I see looks like steps 1582, 1583 and 1584 (on our 2100 step tablet) all return the same value. It's like you're playing a piano and every other key is hitting the same string, so you have only 44 real tones to work with instead of 88. I don't know how to quantify this - except by printing out a large sheet of every tone I can make on a b&w print and then photographing it. I haven't done it. I'm trying to solve it...


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/tech/steps.jpg

What you are describing, sounds like banding. A continuous or analog distribution is reduced to a set of discrete steps. If you are evaluating film with a scanner (even the best of scanners), you're bound to see this, to some extent. Isn't it more an artifact of your scanning process, rather than the film itself ?

Given the work that has been done by BTZS enthusiasts (http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/PCat3/pcat3.html), and the technical illustrations supplied by Ilford (http://ivin.info/download/Films/FP4Plus.pdf), isn't it surprising that any b&w film might exhibit banding - or any kind of discrete behavior - within normal ranges of exposure and development ?

[Ole Tjugen]

Ole: I swear you must have just about any film ever produced in your freezer(s)... Along with one of just about every camera ever made to use them with on your shelves and cupboards! Amazes me you find the time to dig holes in the North Sea... ;)

It's precisely because I'm busy digging holes in the North Sea that I have all this film in my freezer and cameras on my shelves. Some day soon, I swear, I will take the time to develop the sheets I shot last summer - and then I'll shoot some new pictures. And I'll start the project I decided on this spring, which will take me the rest of the year doing macro shots with 4x5" and 5x7" - the end result will be 1x1.2m prints and has to stand up to very close scrutiny. ;)

[Lenny Eiger]

What you are describing, sounds like banding. A continuous or analog distribution is reduced to a set of discrete steps. If you are evaluating film with a scanner (even the best of scanners), you're bound to see this, to some extent. Isn't it more an artifact of your scanning process, rather than the film itself ?

Given the work that has been done by BTZS enthusiasts (http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/PCat3/pcat3.html), and the technical illustrations supplied by Ilford (http://ivin.info/download/Films/FP4Plus.pdf), isn't it surprising that any b&w film might exhibit banding - or any kind of discrete behavior - within normal ranges of exposure and development ?

Ken,
Thanks for trying, but this isn't banding. It's something that one can see by looking right at the neg with the naked eye. The grayscale appears smooth... there are no steps. It just isn't that sensitive. This is an issue that goes back to 1990. I can scan negs from before that period and get great results. Lots of variation.

I have some more things to try. I really don't want to discuss this anymore here. If ever I get nuts and start plotting this somehow I'll report back...

Lenny

[Robert Budding]

Ken,
Thanks for trying, but this isn't banding. It's something that one can see by looking right at the neg with the naked eye. The grayscale appears smooth... there are no steps. It just isn't that sensitive. This is an issue that goes back to 1990. I can scan negs from before that period and get great results. Lots of variation.

I have some more things to try. I really don't want to discuss this anymore here. If ever I get nuts and start plotting this somehow I'll report back...

Lenny

Everything worked better when I was younger, too.