Not me. I dob't want to be or sound contrarian. I'll develop the contact sheets this evening and try to post examples...
Bad Pan F ??
Maybe yours is fresher or maybe it's your developer.
Am I the only one hoping a moderator will fix the subject line to something less suggestive of failure on ILFORD's part?
Kodak was Perfection itself!
I've had issues with Ilford's QC. In the 90's I've had badly streaked negatives. It was so bad that it must have been a sabotage by an employee or a defective machine scratching the films. 15 years later I found out I wasn't the only one, thanks to the internet.
Also, my HP5 films behave differently from time to time. I'm not sure what to think about that. It's still my favorite film, though.
All in all, I trust Ilford 100% and I love their products. But i've run into QC issues.
And I miss their plastic bulk rolls packaging. I ised to collect them and they were enough a reason for me to choose Ilford films over Kodak's and their tin cans.
To get back on topic, I used ilfosol-3 for 11 rolls of Pan-F and 12 rolls of FP-4. Lovely results. I haven't had such nice results in a long while.
I also used ilfosol-3 on HP5 a few years back from which I printed 20x24s just last week. Deep blacks and very sharp grain. Ilfosol-3 is one very underestimated developer.
Bad Pan F ??
I think their QC has gotten a lot better in recent years.
Originally Posted by NB23
I have to agree the Ilfsol 3 really is a great developer, just expensive in large ribs. HOWEVER (and I don't recommend doing this but..) I've successfully re-used the developer up to 6 times not just one shot with a 30 second increase each dev without much change in the films outcome. Shocking! But I wouldn't do this without personal testing and doing it all in the same day. Just nice to know it CAN be economical to use. But yes, great developer!
Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
"...better in recent years"?
I don't know. I've used both Ilford and Kodak films and papers for near 30 years and never once had a problem with either brand that couldn't be traced to something I did wrong.
I'm not buying any of this anecdotal nonsense.
As always I am willing to look at the issues, I would be pleased for NB23 to show me the replies regarding his long list of QC's from ILFORD itself.
With all due respect I'm sure he is very knowledgeable regarding photography, and his views genuinely held, but its amazing his in depth knowledge of our manufacturing processes and QC rates.
As always, we will remain diplomatic and open minded the vast majority of QC's are CGI ( customer generated issue ).
Where we have a QC ( very, very, very rare ) and it is our fault we always acknowledge this to the customer ( in writing ) and replace the goods.
Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology LImited :
Strange I was using the Internet 15 years ago (infact had been for a few years by then) and have never heard of all these so called QC issues with Ilford, that doesn't mean none rather that they are exceedingly rare.
I've been using Ilford products since well before Simon joined the company, I began with FP4 and HP4 although I used some ex-Government surplus FP3 and HP3 bulk rolls as a teenager at school. I dread to think how many rolls and sheets of Ilford film I've shot over the years as well as boxes of paper and I've never seen a QC problem.
What explains, for instance, that the 2005 expired pan-f I shot recently is perfectly well developed and even has the manufactured markings bright and clear while fresh Pan-F often comes out washed out?
Under the above circumstances, the "latent image" theory just doesn't stand.
My error? Maybe. But hundreds of posts on the internet from people having the same issue can't
possibly all be wrong at once. And even you acknowledged the Pan-F issue. But if 2005 film behaves so nicely and fresh film does on an aleatory basis, what is the explanation?
Unstable film? Maybe. That would make it a manugacturing issue.
I would tend towards another theory: selling not so fresh film with a stamped dates that show it's fresh. Maybe? That would make it a QC issue.
I would really apreciate an explanation on why this film behaves so erratically. In my case, the latent image stability theory has been proven wrong many times.
I have discussed the latent image properties of PAN F and PAN F + before.
PAN F+ is NOT unstable and your theory regarding date stamping an 'old' roll is laughable.
We coat each of our films on a regular basis, some monthly, some bi-monthly and some tri-monthly
and one of our film products ( not PAN F+ ) twice per annum, remember 35mm, 120 film and sheet film are all separate coating events. This ensures that we do not hold too many rolls of extremely expensive coated parent roll material in stock, that would be very bad business, it also ensures that we have extremely fresh film leaving the factory. Every coated parent roll is date registered, and when it is finished into cassettes the coated batch has to have the exact same expirey date on it, its all computer controlled, sequentially finished and called TQM ( total quality management ). Whilst waiting to be finished it is stored under controlled conditions. If a scan of the individual bar code on the parent roll that is to be finished is taken and its not sequential with the last roll ( of the same type ) the process control system cannot be initiated.
Please do not get me wrong, I'm not miffed, you are entitled to whatever opinion you hold and I do not doubt for second they are geniunely held, my issue is that I know the massive amount of hard work and systems that have been put in place to ensure the ultimate in quality control and the money we have spent ( and continue to spend ) to ensure 100% customer satisfaction. I know every single week how much 'waste' we have, that is coated product both film and paper that never finds its way into a box due to our no compromise QC systems, its one of our key KPI monitors.
And the secret is, the better your QC from start to finish the lower the waste will actually be.
Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology LImited :