Ilford vs Kodak B&W

[Gudmundur Ingolfsson]

I have almost always preferred Kodak films. Mostly because they were the most forgiving in the processing. Tri-x was the roll film of the sixties,seventies and eighties and to top that they give us the Tmax films in the late eighties. The E-6 films they brought on the marked in 1978 were a true revolution and increased the use of color illustrations in the print media dramaticly. Fuji would then give us even better chromes in the nineties. But we would also reward them for it. I recently calculated that during the thirty some years I shot on chromes professionally (till Kodak decided to force Digital on us with the help of Phillips and Canon) I alone bought a million $ worth of their film. I now they do not even stock any B/W products in Iceland anymore. So much for loyalty to the good customer. I can have all Ilford products I want. So guess what Kodak forces me to prefer now?

[Bruce Watson]

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.

What, are you not paying attention? Is building a new B&W coating facility lip service? Is XTOL lip service? Is 400 PortraNC lip service? Is TMY-2 lip service? Is the fact that they took the UV blocking layer out of TMY-2 at the behest of the alternative printing crowd mere lip service?

What kind of crazy attitude is it that condemns a company for performing actual R&D and bringing new products to market, while supporting a company that is doing very little R&D and bringing hardly anything new to market?

Ilford/Harmon hasn't brought a new film to LF, or even updated an emulsion for LF in decades from what I can tell. No doubt someone will correct me if I'm wrong; please do. Kodak has updated every one of their emulsions during that time, some of them several times. And yes, they've dropped a few emulsions during that time too, like Plus-X. But Ilford/Harmon won't even give us Delta 400 in LF sizes where Kodak gives us TMY-2; it's pretty clear there's a market for a modern emulsion 400 speed film in LF sizes. But I'm not going to condemn Ilford/Harmon for it; I figure they have their reasons, whatever they may be.

I'm just saying, Kodak ain't the great Satan here. Neither is Ilford/Harmon, and neither is Fuji. They are all doing the best they can in difficult times. But to say that Kodak is just giving lip service when they are the providing the lion's share of new products is just willful ignorance, anger, or spite, and that attitude does nothing but hurt film and hurt LF.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Kodak also reformulated Tri-X a few years ago too, didn't they?

[Helcio J Tagliolatto]

What, are you not paying attention? Is building a new B&W coating facility lip service? Is XTOL lip service? Is 400 PortraNC lip service? Is TMY-2 lip service? Is the fact that they took the UV blocking layer out of TMY-2 at the behest of the alternative printing crowd mere lip service?

What kind of crazy attitude is it that condemns a company for performing actual R&D and bringing new products to market, while supporting a company that is doing very little R&D and bringing hardly anything new to market?

Ilford/Harmon hasn't brought a new film to LF, or even updated an emulsion for LF in decades from what I can tell. No doubt someone will correct me if I'm wrong; please do. Kodak has updated every one of their emulsions during that time, some of them several times. And yes, they've dropped a few emulsions during that time too, like Plus-X. But Ilford/Harmon won't even give us Delta 400 in LF sizes where Kodak gives us TMY-2; it's pretty clear there's a market for a modern emulsion 400 speed film in LF sizes. But I'm not going to condemn Ilford/Harmon for it; I figure they have their reasons, whatever they may be.

I'm just saying, Kodak ain't the great Satan here. Neither is Ilford/Harmon, and neither is Fuji. They are all doing the best they can in difficult times. But to say that Kodak is just giving lip service when they are the providing the lion's share of new products is just willful ignorance, anger, or spite, and that attitude does nothing but hurt film and hurt LF.

Bruce,

I agree. And TriX, for itself, is worth supporting Kodak.
A note of sadness is Kodak's aftersales and technical support in Brazil: very bad.
The opposite is true for Fuji: their support is excellent, so is the price for Acros 120 here...

Helcio

[Greg Blank]

I process in PMK, the film and developer choice will have more to do with which you find the best for you. As inexpensive as B&W film is try them all

I found that FP4 did not give me the degree of sharpness I like and in general did not like its contrast, I use to like Delta 400 because although it was 400 speed it was sharp for large prints. I have shot most of the available films. Tmax films don't stain well in PMK or less well than Delta. If you were able to compare FP4 and Plus X 4x5 they would be similar, but PXP would be sharper....I think Too bad kodak discontinued two of the best films I actually liked. PXP and VPS.

So I Chose Delta 100 when Delta 400 was discontinued. I bought $600.00 worth of 100 Delta in 4x5 and 8x10.

If I had no choice and could only shoot old style film I would buy Fuji Acros, IMOP it
edges FP4 and has near as I can tell a close to perfect sensitometric plot for asa 80-100 with three developers, PMK, D23 and HC110B.

Now if they could make it as sharp as Delta 100 it would be a clear winner,....plus selling it as cut sheets instead of ready loaded film.

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.

[jeroldharter]

I don't really want to get in on the Kodak bashing theme but, come on. Any company that exists needs to and should want to be profitable. They do not exist for our pleasure or to satisfy our needs. People seem to want from Kodak what they don't expect from anyone else. For example, Kodak should indefinitely provide unprofitable products, develop new products, provide top notch customer support in Brazil, blah blah, blah. How many Brazilian film companies are developing new products and providing customer support in the US? None comes to mind.

I am not trying to stick up for Kodak. But if I want to buy one of their products it is available and has excellent quality and support documentation freely available on the internet. I was frustrated when they stopped making paper. I was also frustrated when Ilford went bankrupt and essentially dropped Cibachrome, and when Agfa went bankrupt and when Forte went bankrupt, and when Pentax got out of the film camera business, and when Contax bailed, and... Perhaps we should be complaining about Yashica and Minolta?

I find it mind boggling the sense of entitlement some people have. Please PM me so you can send me some of your photos for free.

[Helcio J Tagliolatto]

I don't really want to get in on the Kodak bashing theme but, come on. Any company that exists needs to and should want to be profitable. They do not exist for our pleasure or to satisfy our needs. People seem to want from Kodak what they don't expect from anyone else. For example, Kodak should indefinitely provide unprofitable products, develop new products, provide top notch customer support in Brazil, blah blah, blah. How many Brazilian film companies are developing new products and providing customer support in the US? None comes to mind.

Jerold

You didn't understand me: I use and love Kodak products. Kodak had two plants in Brazil: a big one in São José dos Campos and a small one in Manaus. If you don't know, Kodak used to make all their BW paper at that plant before they ended production. Here there is Kodak photofinishing everywhere, so they must provide support and a decent call center, otherwise they should cease marketing here.

Hélcio

[jeroldharter]

Jerold

You didn't understand me: I use and love Kodak products. Kodak had two plants in Brazil: a big one in São José dos Campos and a small one in Manaus. If you don't know, Kodak used to make all their BW paper at that plant before they ended production. Here there is Kodak photofinishing everywhere, so they must provide support and a decent call center, otherwise they should cease marketing here.

Hélcio

You're right. Sorry about that. I did not mean to pick on you. I was just making a point about economics. I remember that my last batch of Polymax was made in Brazil. So thanks!

I once spent 6 months traveling in South America and wanted to get to Brazil. At the time, there was some sort of issue between the US and Brazil so that Americans could only get visas to Brazil while in the United States. So when we were in South America we could not obtain a visa. We were allowed to visit Iguazu Falls for one day only but I don't think that is typical Brazil. I would love to go to the Amazon and fish for Peacock Bass. But I digress.

[Greg Blank]

Not sure who you were speaking to as no quote appeared with your post, Ill take the bull by the horns:

I don't really want to get in on the Kodak bashing theme but, come on. Any company that exists needs to and should want to be profitable. They do not exist for our pleasure or to satisfy our needs.

The heck they don't. Any company supplying a product has the option of supplying what is bought or not. If it meets your needs is secondary to the company goals
of profit <its is true, but if that company fails after the decision to stop supplying a personal need well then the individual has a right to say *P* on them. I *do* buy some Kodak stuff, I have no overtly negative feels towards Kodak.

I buy Kodak stuff less now but, I at on point bought about 1,000 usd worth of Kodak RA4 paper per year. If they had not discontinued, Elite paper, Azo paper etc etc etc who knows, how much I might willingly spend. One should not spend impractically.

People seem to want from Kodak what they don't expect from anyone else. For example, Kodak should indefinitely provide unprofitable products, develop new products, provide top notch customer support in Brazil, blah blah, blah. How many Brazilian film companies are developing new products and providing customer support in the US? None comes to mind.

I seem to recall that Kodak out sourced B&W paper production to Brazil. Then discontinued B&W papers.

I am not trying to stick up for Kodak. But if I want to buy one of their products it is available and has excellent quality and support documentation freely available on the internet. I was frustrated when they stopped making paper. I was also frustrated when Ilford went bankrupt and essentially dropped Cibachrome, and when Agfa went bankrupt and when Forte went bankrupt, and when Pentax got out of the film camera business, and when Contax bailed, and... Perhaps we should be complaining about Yashica and Minolta?

I find it mind boggling the sense of entitlement some people have. Please PM me so you can send me some of your photos for free.

Bad business models seldom work & photographers tend to foment them by slavering over potential clients or achieving a specific look, the "glamour" of photo seldom matches the reality. When one gets over the idolatry of why one thinks one's vision is special then one can have fun again with any art and be less concerned about what fails. If someone sent you free images what would you do with them

[Ron Marshall]

What, are you not paying attention? Is building a new B&W coating facility lip service? Is XTOL lip service? Is 400 PortraNC lip service? Is TMY-2 lip service? Is the fact that they took the UV blocking layer out of TMY-2 at the behest of the alternative printing crowd mere lip service?

What kind of crazy attitude is it that condemns a company for performing actual R&D and bringing new products to market, while supporting a company that is doing very little R&D and bringing hardly anything new to market?

Ilford/Harmon hasn't brought a new film to LF, or even updated an emulsion for LF in decades from what I can tell. No doubt someone will correct me if I'm wrong; please do. Kodak has updated every one of their emulsions during that time, some of them several times. And yes, they've dropped a few emulsions during that time too, like Plus-X. But Ilford/Harmon won't even give us Delta 400 in LF sizes where Kodak gives us TMY-2; it's pretty clear there's a market for a modern emulsion 400 speed film in LF sizes. But I'm not going to condemn Ilford/Harmon for it; I figure they have their reasons, whatever they may be.

I'm just saying, Kodak ain't the great Satan here. Neither is Ilford/Harmon, and neither is Fuji. They are all doing the best they can in difficult times. But to say that Kodak is just giving lip service when they are the providing the lion's share of new products is just willful ignorance, anger, or spite, and that attitude does nothing but hurt film and hurt LF.

Amen!!!