Ilford vs Kodak B&W

[ignatiusjk]

Has anybody tried Ilfords FP4 in 4x5 size or Ilfords "Delta" b&w films? I'm trying t orun a comparison between Ilfords b&w and Kodak's Tmax 100. I usually use Tmax 100 with very good results but am intrigued by Ilford.I generally shoot 4x5 b&w landscapes and like to make 16x20's.

[Michael_4514]

Well, they're both excellent films. I prefer Ilford myself, but it's just a matter of preference. I use Kodak too and get good results with it, and there are those who swear by it. I don't see any way you can answer your question except by trying both and seeing which one you like better.

Mike

[Gem Singer]

Ilford Delta 100 and Kodak T-Max 100 are fabricated grained films, and Ilford FP-4+ is a conventional grained film.

The two types of films have subtle differences in characteristics.

Choose whichever film you prefer.

Personally, I like conventional grained films, and believe that FP-4+ is one of the best.

[Lenny Eiger]

Has anybody tried Ilfords FP4 in 4x5 size or Ilfords "Delta" b&w films? I'm trying t orun a comparison between Ilfords b&w and Kodak's Tmax 100. I usually use Tmax 100 with very good results but am intrigued by Ilford.I generally shoot 4x5 b&w landscapes and like to make 16x20's.

As Gem pointed out, the films are different emulsions. I believe they are quite different, but that is a matter of opinion. It depends if you are developing and scanning or going into a wet darkroom.

Ilford's Delta is a closer match to the TMax, and developed in Xtol 1:1 in a Jobo, is slightly sharper. Delta is also much cheaper, about $3 per sheet of 8x10 vs $5 for TMax.

Kodak is strictly a "bottom-line" kind of company, will drop TMax (and any other product) the moment it isn't profiting them in the style they are accustomed to, and as such deserves no loyalty. As long as the Ilford product is equal or better, which I believe it is, then I will use the Ilford product.

I also use the TMY2 because there is no substitute at the 8x10 size that I know about.

Lenny

[Gene McCluney]

Kodak is strictly a "bottom-line" kind of company, will drop TMax (and any other product) the moment it isn't profiting them in the style they are accustomed to, and as such deserves no loyalty. As long as the Ilford product is equal or better, which I believe it is, then I will use the Ilford product.

I also use the TMY2 because there is no substitute at the 8x10 size that I know about.

Lenny

Lenny, thats harsh. You should consider that Kodak and Fuji are the ONLY film companies that have invested in NEW and IMPROVED film products across all lines in the last few years. While Ilford makes great products, when was the last time you saw them come out with a completely NEW or IMPROVED sheet film product? Kodak and Fuji are the only film makers still investing in new film technology. I seriously doubt that T-max films by themselves would be profitable for Kodak, rather they combine in the overall scheme of film production, which is profitable.

[D. Bryant]

Kodak is strictly a "bottom-line" kind of company, will drop TMax (and any other product) the moment it isn't profiting them in the style they are accustomed to, Lenny

Just like Ilford dropped Centennial Pop and several other Kentmere products.

Don Bryant

[Lenny Eiger]

Lenny, thats harsh. You should consider that Kodak and Fuji are the ONLY film companies that have invested in NEW and IMPROVED film products across all lines in the last few years. While Ilford makes great products, when was the last time you saw them come out with a completely NEW or IMPROVED sheet film product? Kodak and Fuji are the only film makers still investing in new film technology. I seriously doubt that T-max films by themselves would be profitable for Kodak, rather they combine in the overall scheme of film production, which is profitable.

You could be right. Perhaps it is harsh. It's hard to know. I tend to be very hard on Kodak, I have been frustrated for the last 30 years by the actions of this company. I have been a pro for a long time, there for the abandonment of the pro industry for the consumer one. Their history is checkered, to say the least. A lot of this has been stated in various topics on this forum, so I won't rehash it.

Ilford, on the other hand, has made a serious commitment to the black and white photo industry, what appears to be an all or nothing bet for them. I think this has engendered a response form many in the large format community, and appropriately so.

Lenny

[Frank Bagbey]

Nothing is too harsh to say about Kodak. Any lip service they are giving to the photo community will go poof as soon as the digiheads that run it now think it has run its course. I really hated to give up old TriX in 8x10 and 5x7 and 4x5, but recommend laying in a big supply of Ilford HP5. Look what they just did in the processing realm...
photographers are running around like ants trying to find out how to get decent film processing, decent slide processing, Kodachrome processing, black and white 35 developing...etc. etc. etc. etc!!!!!!!!! The hell with Kodak.

[Frank Petronio]

Ever since Ilford miscut several boxes of HP-5 to be too short and then, on the very next order boxed the inner and middle boxes facing the same way, I've avoided it unless it was free. Plus their customer service was lame when I told them about it.

Kodak may drop products that you like but they rarely mess up like that.

[John Bowen]

I usually use Tmax 100 with very good results

If you have a film you like and it delivers VERY GOOD RESULTS, why mess with it? I find testing film/developer combinations is one of the biggest wastes. It takes a lot of work to really get to know a film. You certainly won't be gaining any speed by switching from Tmax 100 to FP-4.

I can think of so many other things I'd rather be doing then determining my personal film speed, N, N-1, N+1 development times, proper proof time etc, etc, etc for a new film/developer combination.....or 3 UGH!

The ONLY time I'd think about switching to a new film, would be if they stopped making my current film!

Have Fun!