Topic: Got a question you'd like to ask ILFORD?

[jojonas~]

there's this community interview thingie going on where everyone is free to submit two questions for consideration
http://emulsive.org/articles/emulsive-x-ilford-photo-community-interview-submit-your-questions

[John Robison]

Seems like a lot of trouble just to ask a question. Why can't I just contact Ilford directly and ask a question? Since they deal with consumers, who buy their products, and keep them in business they should have a full time person to either answer questions about their products or at least sort questions into topics that are delivered to the proper person in the company who has the answer. Questions that come up frequently could be addressed by a FAQ section of their site. Answering reasonable questions from customers in a timely manner is a necessary part of running a successful company. It should not take some special forum to do so.

[jojonas~]

So all kind of interviews are pointless as long as there is some way to make the contact yourself? I'm afraid I don't follow where you're going.
I think it's good that Ilford is getting exposure here.   

[jojonas~]

And engaging the film shooting community seems like a good thing too...

[John Robison]

So all kind of interviews are pointless as long as there is some way to make the contact yourself? I'm afraid I don't follow where you're going.
I think it's good that Ilford is getting exposure here.

I like Ilford products. Let's me make that clear. But, trying to get a technical question answered is like pulling teeth. That is where I'm going. Ilford is certainly not the only company to have poor customer communication. I suppose they are victims of the cut throat business models company's are forced to follow these days. Not enough money in the budget to hire a full time ombudsman to handle ( or direct to the proper person) customer inquiry's. The point I'm making is that asking Ilford (or any other company) a question should not need to be viewed as a special event and a wonderful 'privilege' bestowed on us, their customer. Especially specific technical or product handling questions not covered in available instructions either online or packaged with the product. The frequency that these questions would be asked would diminish with time as a data base of FAQ were built up that could be consulted for answers.

What do you think? Is that position unreasonable in our modern world?

[John Robison]

And engaging the film shooting community seems like a good thing too...

,
I agree! When company's that cater to our hobby (profession for some) run a online survey I'm interested enough to participate, every time I learn of such surveys. I personally think Ilford is a great resource in keeping alive film photography and wet darkroom work.

I'm not bashing Ilford. I just wish I could talk to the person there who knows why their mixed rapid fixer plates out silver particles so fast on the bottle after only a few times being used and if it is my fault what can I do about it. I'm not so interested in hearing what everyone else does (coffee filters?), I'd much prefer to have and expert answer from the photo chemical engineers at Ilford.

[Francois]

And engaging the film shooting community seems like a good thing too...

I'm not bashing Ilford. I just wish I could talk to the person there who knows why their mixed rapid fixer plates out silver particles so fast on the bottle after only a few times being used and if it is my fault what can I do about it. I'm not so interested in hearing what everyone else does (coffee filters?), I'd much prefer to have and expert answer from the photo chemical engineers at Ilford.

Wow! So I'm not the only one to whom it happened?
I also noticed that my latest batches of fresh fix smell really funky... as in match factory funky. But still, it fixes really fast, even faster than it did before! (I clear a piece of film in under 15 seconds).

I also tried the filter thing. Doesn't work.

[John Robison]

And engaging the film shooting community seems like a good thing too...

I'm not bashing Ilford. I just wish I could talk to the person there who knows why their mixed rapid fixer plates out silver particles so fast on the bottle after only a few times being used and if it is my fault what can I do about it. I'm not so interested in hearing what everyone else does (coffee filters?), I'd much prefer to have and expert answer from the photo chemical engineers at Ilford.

Wow! So I'm not the only one to whom it happened?
I also noticed that my latest batches of fresh fix smell really funky... as in match factory funky. But still, it fixes really fast, even faster than it did before! (I clear a piece of film in under 15 seconds).

I also tried the filter thing. Doesn't work.

My high school chemistry class was a long time ago but the 'match factory' smell must come from some sulfur compound. Is it cloudy too? I've had that happen also but mostly just a lot of black specks that get all over the emulsion if I don't filter them, solid black on the side of the glass too. If this is my fault I'd like to hear from them if there is any solution to the problem. I'd just like to hear it from the experts at Ilford. It is likely that Francois and John are NOT the only two users in the whole wide world who have this issue with Ilford Rapid Fixer Concentrate.

[Francois]

Yep, cloudy. Since I have a fresh batch there are no flecks floating in it but it's still white-ish and there is a white sediment at the bottom or the jar. But the last batch was a veritable silver mine when I got rid of it!
Since I switch to a mason jar for the fixer, I guess I'll be able to scrub anything that attaches to the sides.

[jojonas~]

Okay I can agree that most businesses are tight lipped these days so there's maybe not heaps if much at all info to be had through thing like this. But that all depends on what questions you ask, I think. Like asking about planned products might not give more than a nudge and wink or flat no but asking more behind the scenes stuff how they work might give a more fulfilling answer.

[Dave Elden]

Yep, cloudy. Since I have a fresh batch there are no flecks floating in it but it's still white-ish and there is a white sediment at the bottom or the jar. But the last batch was a veritable silver mine when I got rid of it!
Since I switch to a mason jar for the fixer, I guess I'll be able to scrub anything that attaches to the sides.

My experience is that a) black material (presumably Ag) does deposit out from used Ilford Rapid fixer working solution on to the container (I use plastic, old Ilford fixer bottles in fact) and b) it has never been a problem on film or paper, i.e. I never find bits stuck to the emulsion after washing and drying.  So not actually a problem for me.
If you see white-ish sediment that may be sulphur, I notice that in well out of date solutions (stock or working strength) you will see that. Why you'd see it in fresh solution that is uncontaminated etc (i.e. pH hasn't been disturbed) I don't know but I would suggest not using fixer with any cloudiness if you are expecting "nominal" results (by all means experiment if not, you just may waste some film you didn't intend to...).

Dave.

[John Robison]

Well, I went ahead and asked a question on that site the OP linked.
I asked if, due to the popularity of using photo paper as negatives, would Ilford consider formulating a special paper designed for such use. The problems of using regular paper are; excessive contrast, limited range, and slow speed. I have no idea if these problems can be overcome, at least to some extent, or if the potential market is really large enough to support the R&D and production batch cost.
But it would be nice to have such a paper both for LF pinhole and lens photography.

[JoeV]

The sulfur smell is most likely sodium sulfide, a common ingredient in fixer. My older fixer has this problem of the sulfur compound separating out of solution. I wonder if the problem is this "new" fixer" has been sitting around too long? Hmm.

Regarding Ilford making a special paper-negative product, at one time I had asked an Ilford contact via the APUG forums (Mr. Simon Galley) on the prospects of an RC version of Harman DPP, and he nixed the idea right off. So don't hold your breath on a special paper negative product.

Personally, having worked extensively with both paper negatives and Harman DPP, I'd rather see an RC version of the direct positive paper, since that would open up the prospect of doing "instant" street portraits (develop, fix, quick rinse and dry in less than 5 minutes). Kind of like a wet polaroid process.

~Joe

[Dave Elden]

The sulfur smell is most likely sodium sulfide, a common ingredient in fixer. My older fixer has this problem of the sulfur compound separating out of solution. I wonder if the problem is this "new" fixer" has been sitting around too long? Hmm.
...
Personally, having worked extensively with both paper negatives and Harman DPP, I'd rather see an RC version of the direct positive paper, since that would open up the prospect of doing "instant" street portraits (develop, fix, quick rinse and dry in less than 5 minutes). Kind of like a wet polaroid process.

~Joe

Sodium bisulfite (sulphite) not sulfite maybe, at least in new fixer? Sulfide would produce the rotten egg smell (hydrogen sulfide), bisulfite will probably account for the "match factory" smell referred to by an earlier poster, sulfur dioxide. The label lists sodium bisulfite as an ingredient.

Re street portraits, you sometimes see these done by making a paper neg (RC) and then immediately rephotographing it to make the positive to give to the sitter, I've seen it in Havana and I understand you see this in Afghanistan as well.

Dave.

PS, anyone found the silver dropping out to be a problem with "standard" fixer (sodium thiosulphate not ammonium thiosulphate as used in rapid fixer)? I ask because the silver capacity of the rapid fixer is much higher (how much?) than standard fixer so maybe it is more likely the silver will drop out especially as the solution ages?

[John Robison]

Regarding Ilford making a special paper-negative product, at one time I had asked an Ilford contact via the APUG forums (Mr. Simon Galley) on the prospects of an RC version of Harman DPP, and he nixed the idea right off. So don't hold your breath on a special paper negative product.



~Joe

This is only my personal preference.
I'm only interested in a meterial made for process as a negative. The features of this paper would be;
Naturally low contrast.
An ISO speed, under daylight, of about 50.
Sensitivity such that I can use a safelight bright enough to actually see what I'm doing.
Cut to fit standard cut film holders.
An RC base with a semi matte surface.
I'm not sure that what I'm asking is even possibile or, if possible then economically viable.

[Dave Elden]

This is only my personal preference.
I'm only interested in a meterial made for process as a negative. The features of this paper would be;
Naturally low contrast.
An ISO speed, under daylight, of about 50.
Sensitivity such that I can use a safelight bright enough to actually see what I'm doing.
Cut to fit standard cut film holders.
An RC base with a semi matte surface.
I'm not sure that what I'm asking is even possibile or, if possible then economically viable.

This is just speculation on my part but daylight ISO50 + compatible with a normal paper safelight likely is not going to happen - at least with a panchromatic material. Maybe with an ortho emulsion and an appropriate SED safelight. But it begs the question why not just use film if you want a negative? Also would you get paper acceptably low if you shoot with a  yellow/grade 00 filter?

Dave.

[Francois]

I don't know but I would suggest not using fixer with any cloudiness if you are expecting "nominal" results (by all means experiment if not, you just may waste some film you didn't intend to...).

I did some clip tests and the funny thing is that it works even faster than the usual!
Not something you'd expect from expired solutions...

[Dave Elden]

I don't know but I would suggest not using fixer with any cloudiness if you are expecting "nominal" results (by all means experiment if not, you just may waste some film you didn't intend to...).

I did some clip tests and the funny thing is that it works even faster than the usual!
Not something you'd expect from expired solutions...

your film, your decision

[John Robison]

This is only my personal preference.
I'm only interested in a meterial made for process as a negative. The features of this paper would be;
Naturally low contrast.
An ISO speed, under daylight, of about 50.
Sensitivity such that I can use a safelight bright enough to actually see what I'm doing.
Cut to fit standard cut film holders.
An RC base with a semi matte surface.
I'm not sure that what I'm asking is even possibile or, if possible then economically viable.

Dave asked why not just use film?
The usual reason I use paper is that in large format, 4X5, 5x7, 8X10 and odd LF panoramic sizes, for hobby use, unless you have a lot of disposable income the price of film will break the bank in these sizes. This way I can  experiment with these sizes with home made cameras, both pinhole and with lenses. The other reason is to share with friends, grandkids and anyone else who interested.  It doesn't take a lot of equipment and can be done on a shoestring budget. If you can work under safelight it also makes loading and processing easier.
Does that make any sense?

[JoeV]

....
Re street portraits, you sometimes see these done by making a paper neg (RC) and then immediately rephotographing it to make the positive to give to the sitter, I've seen it in Havana and I understand you see this in Afghanistan as well.

Dave.

...(snip)...

Dave, I've made such a camera with integral darkroom, last year, and have gotten adept at making good portraits, in shaded daylight, but the process takes me nearly 20 minutes. An RC version of direct positive paper would speed up the process immensely.

~Joe

[Sandeha Lynch]

....
Re street portraits, you sometimes see these done by making a paper neg (RC) and then immediately rephotographing it to make the positive to give to the sitter, I've seen it in Havana and I understand you see this in Afghanistan as well.

Dave.

...(snip)...

Dave, I've made such a camera with integral darkroom, last year, and have gotten adept at making good portraits, in shaded daylight, but the process takes me nearly 20 minutes. An RC version of direct positive paper would speed up the process immensely.

~Joe

Cost apart, shouldn't Galaxy Photo Paper fill that gap?

(On my first coffee so I may be way off there.)

[John Robison]

I signed up for that Galaxy paper Kickstarter. I have the 25 pack of 8x10 and when I get a spare day I'll conduct safelight tests to see if it can really be used under a reasonable level of safelight illumination. Although it is made specially for reversal processing I intend to develop it in regular Ilford paper developer as a negative. Might work. But it is 2.5x the price of Ilford paper so no joy there. For 4x5 the best deal in Galaxy is 8x10 size, from which four sheets of 4x5 can be obtained. For contact prints you don't have to use the pricy Galaxy paper but substitute regular RC paper.

To Joe V,
If I wanted to do 'while you wait' street portraits I'd use a camera with cut film holders and the glove box with view port and battery powered LED safelight would be for developing and contact printing only. A setup using 2X3 cut film holders could be reasonably small with a home built plywood box camera mounting a 105mm f4.5 Kodak Anaston from a Kodak Tourist 6x9 camera. You would have to have a folding chair, tripod, tape measure, and the lens would be pre focused at the right distance. The home made glove box would have it own extendable legs. In place of a LED safelight it may be possible to install a small window covered with a ruby colored sheet of plastic. With your pre flashed paper and a bright indirect daylight at f8 you could probably use 1/10 or even 1/25 sec depending on the subject.

Not a Agfan camera but I think it would speed up and simplify the whole process. 

[Francois]

With all the people who want to have faster paper, I wonder if anybody has tried doing some peroxide vapor hypersensitizing with regular Ilford RC?

[JoeV]

....
Re street portraits, you sometimes see these done by making a paper neg (RC) and then immediately rephotographing it to make the positive to give to the sitter, I've seen it in Havana and I understand you see this in Afghanistan as well.

Dave.

...(snip)...

Dave, I've made such a camera with integral darkroom, last year, and have gotten adept at making good portraits, in shaded daylight, but the process takes me nearly 20 minutes. An RC version of direct positive paper would speed up the process immensely.

~Joe

Cost apart, shouldn't Galaxy Photo Paper fill that gap?

(On my first coffee so I may be way off there.)

Unfortunately, despite its name the Galaxy paper isn't a direct positive paper like Harman's. Instead, it's a faster speed conventional emulsion intended for reversal processing via partial development, acid reduction, chemical fogging and then a second development, followed by fixer and rinse; essentially like chemical photo-booth prints. I don't see it offering any time advantage over the conventional Afghan street camera method, because of the added steps.

But a Harman DPP in RC would be great; develop, stop, fix, a dunk in rinse aid and a few minutes in water, then squeegee dry - a finished print in maybe 5 minutes or so.

~Joe

[JoeV]

I signed up for that Galaxy paper Kickstarter. I have the 25 pack of 8x10 and when I get a spare day I'll conduct safelight tests to see if it can really be used under a reasonable level of safelight illumination. Although it is made specially for reversal processing I intend to develop it in regular Ilford paper developer as a negative. Might work. But it is 2.5x the price of Ilford paper so no joy there. For 4x5 the best deal in Galaxy is 8x10 size, from which four sheets of 4x5 can be obtained. For contact prints you don't have to use the pricy Galaxy paper but substitute regular RC paper.

To Joe V,
If I wanted to do 'while you wait' street portraits I'd use a camera with cut film holders and the glove box with view port and battery powered LED safelight would be for developing and contact printing only. A setup using 2X3 cut film holders could be reasonably small with a home built plywood box camera mounting a 105mm f4.5 Kodak Anaston from a Kodak Tourist 6x9 camera. You would have to have a folding chair, tripod, tape measure, and the lens would be pre focused at the right distance. The home made glove box would have it own extendable legs. In place of a LED safelight it may be possible to install a small window covered with a ruby colored sheet of plastic. With your pre flashed paper and a bright indirect daylight at f8 you could probably use 1/10 or even 1/25 sec depending on the subject.

Not a Agfan camera but I think it would speed up and simplify the whole process.

Good ideas, John. Here's a YouTube video I made last year about this project. I need to shoot an updated video, however.

https://youtu.be/76_p89JW7v4

~Joe