I finally got around to listening to this. Very impressive.
Recently, with Kodak's strange machinations, 8X10 Tri X has only been
available in 10 sheet boxes. One result is that 50 or 100 sheets cost MUCH
more than it used to when you could buy 50 sheet boxes. Soooooooooo, I
tried Ilford FP4 Plus which is available in 50 sheet boxes in 8X10. PMK is
my std dev for sheet film and I really love the results with the Ilford.
Here is a story from the 70s thru 80s that I may have posted before.
The only time I was truly embarrassed with a client is when I tried
some 120 Ilford b&w film given to me by a Tech Rep. They were trying to
get me to start using it instead of exclusively using Kodak films, which I
used, not because their image renditions were better, but that their
quality control was excellent (only two problems with Kodak films, both
times with sheet film and both times Tech Reps made good on the problem).
So, silly me, I figure that Ilford 120 b&w film given to me by a Tech
Rep would be reliable. I set up a photo session with a very important
society lady who I had met in my directing workshop, who was very active in
fund raising for the Metropolitan Opera, and who later ran the NY
Shakespeare Festival...and she was very attractive in a "patrician" way.
She brought some of her own very beautiful gowns and I called in a favor
from one of my top make-up artist/hair dresser friends. I had just
finished an advertising shoot on a wonderful painted backdrop (remember
those before Photoshop?). I had my 12X12 silk overhead and shot 2400 WS of
strobe light through it; beautiful glow!
When I viewed the processed negs, they were amazing! The tones were
great, she looked great, the bg and lighting looked great...except that
there were frame numbers in imprinted throughout all the images! When I
showed the tech rep he confessed that they had changed backing paper
suppliers who used a different printing process with a different solvent.
They must not have allowed the inks to dry thoroughly because the effluents
from the printed backing paper influenced the sensitivity of the emulsion
thereby causing density differences in the image on the negative in the
form of the printed frame numbers. Nice, huh?
So I had the charming challenge of explaining to this very important
woman why I had screwed the pooch. I did NOT enjoy the feeling and "we
were not amused" as Queen Victoria used to say. Needless to say, I stuck
with Kodak and never again had to apologize to a client! Of course, it was
Ilford's fault but it was MY responsibility. I should not have trusted
Ilford and I should have tested the film...my bad. But when you are handed
film by a Tech Rep, you might safely assume that he/she was certain that
they were handing out good product...yes? But we all know that "assume"
stands for making an "ass of u and me"!
You can bet that I test any Ilford film to this day that I buy before
shooting anything important. In the 20 years in my Manhattan studio I
always bought Kodak film by the case and tested one or two rolls from the
case before shooting a job. This turned out to pretty much be an exercise
with Kodak films because, other than tweeking the color balance (with a
specific lab) of the slide films, they were all good.
One might assume that the QC at Ilford is better now but, there is
that word again, assume, which I just can't do! They make lovely films but
I will continue to test.
What I hope to do is get those negatives sent to me from my NYC
archive, choose one or two of the best, and spend untold hours removing the
frame numbers so that I can, a quarter of a century later, send the lady a
lovely photo of her when she was much younger. Why wouldn't she enjoy
that?!?!
CHEERS!
BOB
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In episode 123 Viviane Li takes a tour of the Ilford factory and
interviews some of the production managers and staff.
This episode is completely devoted to the tour, and does not have the
usual hosts.
<
http://filmphotographyproject.com/podcast/2015/04/film-photography-podcast-episode-123-%E2%80%93-april-15-2015
--
Brian Reynolds | "It's just like flying a spaceship.
reynolds@xxxxxxxxx | You push some buttons and see
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what happens." -- Zapp Brannigan
NAR# 54438 |
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
