Afraid that I just don't understand! Would any of you with a new Ford automobile, expect Chevrolet to answer you if you asked Chevy how to set the "Ford" clock", I think not, but I may be wrong with some in this group. Ilford, in my opinion, is under no obligation to supply you with information about developing any of their films in anyone else's developer. The fact that they do so has a lot to say about their ethics. The same, of course, applies to Kodak as well as others. To me, this seems "unique" to this industry, so let us cut Ilford, Kodak and others some slack, as folks say.........Regards!
New Ilford Film Development Chart
-
A
- Thread starter mshchem
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Classic Hasselblad 500 C/M 6x6 all manual Medium Format film camera system
- Started by pdccamerqs
-
For Sale Horseman SW612 w/Rodenstock 45mm f4.5 Apo Grandagon, Ground Glass
- Started by djdister
-
For Sale Canon 28mm f/3.5 LTM plus finder in case
- Started by Steve Goldstein
-
Want to Buy Durst Printo / or any Table Top Processor
- Started by juniejun
-
Want to Buy LF/WTB: Ilex No. 5 Shutter
- Started by Jurgen Estanislao
Forum statistics
If I was a Chevy dealer and someone came in, pissed off because they couldn't set the clock on their Impala, I might take the opportunity to make a friend and help him out.
Well the practice, with Kodak and Ilford especially, would seem to have been to test and publish that particular film manufacturer's development times in another maker's developers in the past. Ilford would now appear to be signalling the end of that practice. However in recent years there are now many players in the developer and film fields and testing one's new films in the complete range of other makers' developers becomes more time consuming.
From a strict return on investment aspect, a film manufacturer has to weigh up its potential losses from failing to persuade a potential user who uses other than that film manufacturer's developers to try its new film because it is perceived to be showing no desire to get such users "on side" and the investment in carrying out tests with other developers. I'd have thought that the cost of testing for at least the main "other-makes" developers would have been small in relation to the benefit in securing those users' money
However that's just my feeling and those making what I think is Ilford's decision on this matter may have sound data making my feeling wrong.
pentaxuser
From a strict return on investment aspect, a film manufacturer has to weigh up its potential losses from failing to persuade a potential user who uses other than that film manufacturer's developers to try its new film because it is perceived to be showing no desire to get such users "on side" and the investment in carrying out tests with other developers. I'd have thought that the cost of testing for at least the main "other-makes" developers would have been small in relation to the benefit in securing those users' money
However that's just my feeling and those making what I think is Ilford's decision on this matter may have sound data making my feeling wrong.
pentaxuser
MattKing
Moderator
Ilford and Kodak and other manufacturers used to have large, well resourced testing departments - sufficient to permit them to do value added things like testing other manufacturer's developers with their films.
Now, with those resources being so much reduced, I expect those value added services are just not practically possible, at least not at a cost that would be justified given the effects on sales.
In addition, in days gone by, there were no resources like the Massive Developing chart - people were forced to rely either on their own experience, or manufacturers' printed materials. In today's world, where many people seem to go first to independent internet resources, without even glancing at what the manufacturers suggest, it doesn't surprise me that Harman has elected not to do that testing work and share the results.
Now, with those resources being so much reduced, I expect those value added services are just not practically possible, at least not at a cost that would be justified given the effects on sales.
In addition, in days gone by, there were no resources like the Massive Developing chart - people were forced to rely either on their own experience, or manufacturers' printed materials. In today's world, where many people seem to go first to independent internet resources, without even glancing at what the manufacturers suggest, it doesn't surprise me that Harman has elected not to do that testing work and share the results.
I mostly use 120 film. In Black and white for the last 20 years it's been TMY and TMX. I was bitten by the Acros bug a while back along with FP4 Plus. I still grab TMY most of the time. I shoot very little sheet film currently but I will be buying Ilford as it's terrific film and reasonable cost.
I have XTOL times for all of these products. It's not a big deal.
I do so love film, it really is a different experience than digital. Both are great fun.
The last few weeks I've been shooting 120 Fujichrome in various formats. On a light table or scanned and printed on a inkjet its glorious!
I have XTOL times for all of these products. It's not a big deal.
I do so love film, it really is a different experience than digital. Both are great fun.
The last few weeks I've been shooting 120 Fujichrome in various formats. On a light table or scanned and printed on a inkjet its glorious!
What I think I can conclude is that the interest in this particular thread on developing times for Ortho Plus with non Ilford developers is almost zero which may help explain why my question to Ilford and its reply to me which I took the trouble to show has had a slightly underwhelming reception. 
pentaxuser
pentaxuser
What I think I can conclude is that the interest in this particular thread on developing times for Ortho Plus with non Ilford developers is almost zero which may help explain why my question to Ilford and its reply to me which I took the trouble to show has had a slightly underwhelming reception.
pentaxuser
I for one appreciate that you reached out to them, and I also appreciate Ilford's clear and timely response. Thanks.
Thank you. I had wondered if the Ilford reply on the 5,10,20 wash would signal the end of the film washing debate we occasionally get but I am happy to say that despite the 5-10 mins reference to continuous water wash that Ilford makes, the 5.10,20 remains. Useful as a discussion when on a wet Sunday afternoon we get boredI for one appreciate that you reached out to them, and I also appreciate Ilford's clear and timely response. Thanks.
pentaxuser
I didn't see the attachment on wash times. You are correct, we could spend the next 10 years discussing washingThank you. I had wondered if the Ilford reply on the 5,10,20 wash would signal the end of the film washing debate we occasionally get but I am happy to say that despite the 5-10 mins reference to continuous water wash that Ilford makes, the 5.10,20 remains. Useful as a discussion when on a wet Sunday afternoon we get bored
pentaxuser
Sorry Yes there was an attachment with the Ilford e-mail that showed the new Ilford Ortho Plus instructions and it did refer to the 5,10,20 washing method. It might be that these instructions are already on the Ilford site. I would be surprised if Ilford sent me anything that is not in the public domain. I doubt if I warrant that kind of privilegeI didn't see the attachment on wash times. You are correct, we could spend the next 10 years discussing washing
pentaxuser
Regarding whether Ilford supplies development data for their films in other brand developers... do people even rely on Ilford's times for their own developers as anything more than a starting point?
I see this a lot on Reddit's analog forums, kids asking for specific dev times and being sent to the Massive chart - when "take your best guess and start testing" seems like the right way to go. So much of this depends on your process, agitation, and your eye to come up with negatives that suit your final output, be that enlarging with condensers or diffusion, contact printing or scanning. I just don't see the importance of Ilford providing data that's not likely to be optimal for the end user anyway.
I see this a lot on Reddit's analog forums, kids asking for specific dev times and being sent to the Massive chart - when "take your best guess and start testing" seems like the right way to go. So much of this depends on your process, agitation, and your eye to come up with negatives that suit your final output, be that enlarging with condensers or diffusion, contact printing or scanning. I just don't see the importance of Ilford providing data that's not likely to be optimal for the end user anyway.
That's a great video. She's an inspired motivational sort. I will be venturing forth with some Fujichrome, in 120 in the next week. I've got a lot of Ilford, and Kodak black and white film in my fridge, but I guess I will have to try the ortho now that this sparkling young person has given me such a great pep talk.
. She needs to put that darn darkslide in her pocket
.While I watched her I found myself "rooting" for her. She was a tonic and needs to be available on the Canadian equivalent of the U.K. National Health Service for those who are a little depressed or even just sad. I saw my granddaughter in her in about 12 years further down the line. Oh and a great deal of sense there as well as being informative.
I'd have like to have seen a portrait of her in those clothes to reveal what a pink coat and red gloves will look like on Ortho Plus.
pentaxuser
I'd have like to have seen a portrait of her in those clothes to reveal what a pink coat and red gloves will look like on Ortho Plus.
pentaxuser
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |