Information on the Ilford P4 400 Surveillance Film

[malthusiantrap]

I scored a cheap 150 ft Ilford P4 Surveillance film today and I can't find any information about this film on the net. I still have some Neopan in my bulk loader so I can't open the box yet.
So, I'd like to ask the members here who have experience using this film the following:
1. Will this fit in a standard watson bulk loader?
2. Does this have perforations?
3. Will the centre spool go into the loader?

Also, what do you think about the results of this film? What do you think of this film on HC-110 or Rodinal?
Thanks.

Kelvin

 

[ChrisN]

If the Ilford surveillance film in a 150-foot roll is anything like the Kodak surveillance film in 150 foot rolls, then the answers to your first three questions will be: No, Yes, and No.

 

[johnamazement]

I've just finished a roll of this and:

1. I have a Computrol loader like this one. Which is pretty similar to a Watson I believe. If the spindle that holds the roll of film is the same (just a metal shaft) then it should be fine.
2. Yes.
3. Yes (see 1 above). My roll was on a large metal core rather than the smaller plastic ones they use for normal film which was a bit of a fiddle to get on to the spindle in the changing bag, but it does fit. Just make sure it slides all the way down so you can get the knob which holds the big film compartment cover screwed back down. I found that if you tighten this too much the roll will not turn inside the loader so you'll need to slacken it off a little to load the film canisters.

One thing you should be aware of is that the film base itself is much thinner than standard 35mm film and cannot be torn. That means that you also have to be careful that the film is securely on the take-up spool when threading it into your camera as it has a tendency to slip off when you take up the slack.

I couldn't find much information on this film when I started using it either but I've been using HP5+ development times as a starting point and have got good results exposing it at EI 200 and developing in D76 for 11 minutes.

Hope this helps.

 

[Coldkennels]

I just finished a 100ft roll of the P3 and my experience with it was similar to Johnamazement's. It's on a very thin, very flimsy base - be careful loading it into reels for developing, because if it sticks it will crinkle very easily.

My developing for the P3 was all Rodinal (cheap, cheap, cheap), and I found out half-way through the roll that I preferred it at 1600 over the box speed. My processing was 14mins at 20º in Rodinal 1:50, and 31:30mins (with normal gentle 15sec/min agitation) at 20º in 1:50 again.

I don't know how P4 differs to P3, but I grew to quite like P3 once I started pushing it. The grain at 400 in Rodinal was a bit OTT no matter what I did with it, but the tonality was quite pleasant. Taking it that two extra stops surprised me, however. The grain doesn't seem to get more obtrusive, and it some cases it even seemed better. Other than the awkwardness of developing times, I couldn't see a reason not to shoot at 1600 (especially considering how dark winter is in England). The scans were good and it wet printed pretty well, so it actually became my standard film for the last month or two.

Just don't push to 3200. It REALLY isn't worth it. The results just become this huge disgusting mess.

 

[sevo]

Bulk loaders tend to be built for regular 100ft (30.5m) rolls. P4 should fit, provided that it is the usual thin base (once also used for HP5-72). It usually is perforated, but bulk film can be special ordered unperforated or single perforated, so you could be in for a surprise if you buy surplus from a unknown source...

 

[johnamazement]

I found out half-way through the roll that I preferred it at 1600 over the box speed.

I shot quite a bit at 1600 too. D76 1:1 for 18 minutes was nice: looked a lot like HP5+.

 

[Coldkennels]

I shot quite a bit at 1600 too. D76 1:1 for 18 minutes was nice: looked a lot like HP5+.

I don't know about like HP5+ (strangely, I've never shot much HP5), but like I said, it's certainly nice:





Shot at 1600; pushed in Rodinal 1:50 for 28:38 at 21ºC.
Exposure was probably around the f5.6 & 1/125 mark.

 

[malthusiantrap]

Thanks for the valuable information everyone! I think I might get another loader for this one as I have some tri-x coming in from freestyle.

Coldkennels, those photos does look fantastic. I like the tones. I might try pushing the P4 to 1600 and if I like it, I might dedicate the P4 to 1600.

 

[al1966]

This film looks interesting where do you get it from? also how expensive is it

 

[Coldkennels]

Coldkennels, those photos does look fantastic. I like the tones. I might try pushing the P4 to 1600 and if I like it, I might dedicate the P4 to 1600.

Thanks, Malthusiantrap. I'd be interested to see if P4 is noticeably different to P3, so you'll have to let me know how you get on.

This film looks interesting where do you get it from? also how expensive is it

I've only ever seen it on ebay unfortunately, and it seems to be appear pretty infrequently (if anyone knows a more reliable source, please share: I'd love to grab some more). And while the price obviously varies, it's consistently dirt cheap. Some of the cheapest B&W film I've ever used, and certainly cheaper than anything else from Ilford.

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

nice... pls show more images with exposure info if possible. thanks again

 

[johnamazement]

These were at 200 ISO, D76 1+1 for 11 minutes.

 

[Coldkennels]

A couple more at 1600:





Both from the same roll as before, so shot at 1600; pushed in Rodinal 1:50 for 28:38 at 21ºC.
Exposure was probably around the f8 & 1/125 mark (earlier in the day).

A couple at 800:




Shot at 800; pushed in Rodinal 1:50 for 21.00 at 20ºC. Exposure was something like f4 + 1/125 if memory serves correctly. Awkward lighting; a lot of that roll was all over the shop.

A couple at 400 (from Tumblr, not Flickr, hence the smaller size) :




Both of those were developed in Rodinal 1:50 for 15:30 mins at 19ºC. I have no idea what exposures, though; I'd take a rough guess at f5.6 & 1/250 (with a yellow filter) for the first and probably f8 & 1/125 (without a filter) for the second.

Edit: I should just point out that all of the above were with Surveillance P3, not P4. I have no idea what real differences there are between the two.

 

[al1966]

@ Coldkennels the fourth shot is cracking

 

[malthusiantrap]

This film looks interesting where do you get it from? also how expensive is it

I got mine for 30 bucks at a camera fair. Pretty good deal for 150 feet.