Ilford films, -the results.

So I finished the task, (see previous post) -though I did need to ask for a weeks extension. All of the images were shot over five weeks and I spent another week working late into the night producing over 100 10×8 proof prints. The final selection has not been made, but I present my favourites below. I would be interested to hear your responses,…

Although I was very lucky with some days regarding the changeable British weather, I also had odd days which were a bit of a disaster, with shutter problems on one camera, meter inaccuracies on another and a misaligned focusing screen on a new camera I purchased on ebay, which meant I lost a number of shots. I also discovered a couple of inaccuracies in the processing information for one of Ilford’s film developers and worked out a new ’stand’ process for a couple of the films and this has proved to work very well. All of this will give me enough material for a number of future blog posts.

This entry was posted in 35mm, Chromogenic film, Darkroom, Exposure, Film developing, General, Portrait, cameras, landscape, neg quality, processing, seeing and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

3 Comments

  1. Keith
    Posted 29/05/2014 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    Well done Andrew, obviously you undertook was a long task for Ilford.

    Which of the Ilford film developers did you find that the information was inaccurate?

    The stand development may also be of interest to followers of your blog.

  2. Alex
    Posted 02/06/2014 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    Congratulations on completing such a difficult job. I hope you will share your detailed objective conclusions with us.
    A comparative analysis of different films in some kind of spreadsheet form could prove to be a great source of information for many of us.
    And of course, the new stand development is always an interesting topic.

  3. Tom Kershaw
    Posted 16/06/2014 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

    Hello Andrew,

    Perhaps an odd question, but what was the aim of this comparison, simply to show a variety of results or make aesthetic judgements?

    I have considered doing something similar for my own purposes in the past but have now decided on using a small number of film & developer combinations, centred around XTOL. I would think about using DD-X if I didn’t want to work with a powder.

    Tom

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>