rexmarriott
-
Posts
128 -
Joined
-
Last visited
1 Follower
-
I've also taken to metering Fomapan 400 at 200 and developing as per 400 in Ilfosol 3 and the results are a lot better than if I follow Fomapan's recommendations. As it happens, I just bought some more bulk film and there was no Fomapan 400 in stock, so I got Kentmere 400 instead for about £75 for 30.5m. This is a film I can shoot at box speed. My first impressions are favourable. Perhaps there is life after HP5.
-
What of Fomapan 400? The price of a 30m roll in March 2022 was £40.25; today it costs £56, an increase of 39.1%. After the holiday, I think I might be getting in touch with Ilford.
-
Today being a bank holiday I'm at a bit of a loose end, so I've been rummaging through old invoices to find out how much the price of Ilford HP5 has risen in the UK in recent times. I bought a 30m bulk roll in June 2022 for £69.17. The cost today, from the same supplier, is £105. I believe that this is a 51.8% increase in price 10 months. Gor blimey.
-
I checked out prices for bulk rolls of AgfaPhoto APX 400. The Kentmere is cheaper here.
-
I've got a bulk roll (30m) of Kentmere 400 on order. Cost me £75. I'm also now using Kentmere paper instead of Ilford MGRC. As I understand it, Kentmere is now owned by Harman Technology, who also own Ilford. The Ilford Photo website says Kentmere 'follows the same high quality processes that are used to make all Ilford Photo films and papers.' If so, that'll do for me.
-
Today I turned to my trusted darkroom supplier to order a bulk roll (30m) of Ilford HP5 Plus and found it now retails at £105. It seems like yesterday that I was paying £60. I like this film, find it versatile and have got used to it, so it's with a heavy heart that I conclude that I can no longer afford it. I've been using Fomapan 400 recently. I find that if I shoot it at 400 ISO I get images that are seriously underexposed, so I have to overexpose by at least 1 stop. The other alternative for bulk loading I see is Kentmere 400. Does anyone feel the same way as me about HP5? If so, what has been your chosen alternative? This is probably going to be a UK only thread, but you never know.
-
Developing fault with 120 film: what is this mark?
rexmarriott replied to rexmarriott's topic in Black & White Practice
Thank you, Rodeo Joe. Clearly, it was high time I revisited my technique; I'm going to put your advice into practice. -
Developing fault with 120 film: what is this mark?
rexmarriott replied to rexmarriott's topic in Black & White Practice
Thank you, Rodeo Joe. I started processing my own film 8 years ago. I think I got my method from a leaflet that came with a Paterson developing tank, and refined it on the basis of my reading. Am I using the daft figure of 8 method? I hold the tank in both hands, invert it, twisting it at the same time, then right it, twisting again, and then bang the bottom of the tank 3 or 4 times. I have, from time to time, had problems with 35mm film whereby the sprocket holes show as light ghosts within the frame, along the long side. I read up on this, and found various different suggestions as to the cause. The one that sounded the most plausible was that the agitation was too vigorous and the ghost sprockets were caused by water gushing through the holes. In response to this, I adopted a gentler approach, and have not seen the ghosts again. All of which is to say that I'm now split as to how vigorous the agitations should be. What do you say? -
Developing fault with 120 film: what is this mark?
rexmarriott replied to rexmarriott's topic in Black & White Practice
This sounds spot on, Dustin. I will make the necessary adjustments this evening. Many thanks. -
I've twice recently come across this fault that I had not seen before - cloudy blotches, here along the left-hand edge of the negative. On the two occasions I've seen this I was using different cameras and different films (Ilford HP5 and Kentmere 400), so I'm assuming that the fault lies with my developing process. Can you help me identify the cause?
-
I'm going to use up the cassettes I've bought, and then I am going to use your suggested method, Niels. I never fully rewind the film, preferring to cut the end of the film in the light, so I might not need a film extractor, but...
-
... I am keen to try out this work-around, JDMvW. Thank you for sharing that. When using non-reusable cassettes, even though I leave some film hanging out, I see a need for a film retriever: when the bulk roll ends and I inevitably wind the last roll fully into the cassette. Waste not, want not!
-
Since my original post I've had a reply from Kaiser, acknowledging that it is possible that parts of the felt they use may come loose over time and suggesting I check the felt each time before use.
-
So, Niels, if I understand correctly, I could buy a single roll of film and, when exposed, instead of prising the cassette open, pull the film out and load it straight on to a developing reel. When I reach the end, I would cut the film, leaving a little bit protruding onto which I would tape my bulk film. In this way, I could continue using the cassette indefinitely. In your experience, do these regular cassettes moult less than the reusable ones?
-
Sage advice, thank you.
