The one thing I would change about Ilford HP5 plus

[Ljós]

I really, really like this film, I used it for the last years (mostly 35mm, but also some 120), settling on HC-110 Dil. B. as a developer. (Yes, Ilford DD-X is also very nice, especially for "pushing"... but costly.)

Yup, it is grainier than the current Tri-x... but when it's nice it's NICE! Only one gripe with it: these dang "bar codes" Ilford prints between the frame numbers. (see pic below, I am not talking about the DX-coding of film canisters)
Anybody know what they actually do?

Of course they don't show up in the final prints - but I find them distracting on the contact sheets. And I wonder: do they actually have any use (any longer)?

Fuji and Kodak etc. seem to be doing just fine without them.

A minor nit to pick, but still. They are not humanly-readable, and while they are not digital in the true sense of the word, they somehow - to me - do not belong on my analog contact sheets.

So my question: what do they actually do? Anybody else prefer the "clean" style of, for example, Kodak?

Curious what you all think!
Greetings, Ljós

 

[ibcrewin]

If you run it through a Finnegan unit, it judges your shots for framing, exposure and creativity. 😉

 

[B.J.Scharp]

They're part of the DX coding. With modern DX-capable autoloading film cameras (like EOS film bodies, or the later Nikons), they should line up properly with the frames, and allow automatic scanners/printers to frame correctly.

 

[Ljós]

"They're part of the DX coding. With modern DX-capable autoloading film cameras (like EOS film bodies, or the later Nikons), they should line up properly with the frames, and allow automatic scanners/printers to frame correctly."

B. J., thanks for pointing out these film edge barcodes in fact do have a connection with the DX-encoding standard. So it is an optically imprinted (and hence until development latent) image - which means, however, that it is not meant (in fact impossible) to be interpreted by film cameras - but to be used for automated enlargement machines, after the development of the film.
Interesting. Ironic, also, that (according to Wikipedia), the edge barcode is a Kodak-patent 🙂

Now that BW film has found its niche, and probably most serious developing of FP4, HP5 etc. is done manually.... and considering that companies like Kodak and Fuji do without the edge barcode on their BW material -- wouldn't it be a great idea for Ilford to just drop it, too?
Hey, drop the ugly barcode, and call it Ilford HP6! 🙂

Maybe I should take this up over on APUG.org and see what Ilford's Simon Galley says.

 

[Vilk]

Simon is a gentleman so likely he won't quite tell you what he thinks about it.

:angel:

 

[B.J.Scharp]

One option you have is bulk loading it. I suspect the long rolls won't have the barcodes (or the frame numbers), don't know for certain though.

 

[jmcd]

B.J.Sharp: One option you have is bulk loading it.

Yes, I bulk load it and there is no bar code—great film!

 

[Ljós]

Yes, I bulk load it and there is no bar code—great film!

B.J. and jmcd, thanks for the information.
Don't think the barcodes will drive me to this measure (I don't wanna start the game of tracking down reloadable cassettes, or finding scratches on my film from overused felt strips -- then again others here do it successfully. Again, thanks for letting me know about this option!)

Greetings, Ljós