PLEASE support the superior product

[johnielvis]

I just got my 11x14 txp today----my GOD.....the difference between this stuff and the ilford is black and white

EXCELLENT QUALITY--it is well worth the extra price premium in my opinion---if more of you would buy the good stuff we'd ALL get it cheaper too...but NO...everybody wants to use xray film "on the cheap" .... just to show that you're all geniuses

geniuses who think that their time is worth less than money---

absolutely foolish---PLEASE ORDER the stuff...USE it .... ORDER MORE....maybe you're discouraged with your results and are going to give up LF because it dissappoints...but MAYBE it's the product you're using.

if you use quality products, you will have that much less uncertaintly---AND better images...the way this stuff looks....man....and HANDLES.....and DONT scratch up!!!!....I can feel that it's thicker too...NICE NICE NICE....oh yeah.

so all you "smart cookies" out there....why not just TRY the good stuff for once and SEE what you've been missing...what's the matter--afraid you'll get ADDICTED????

I can quit anytime I want to....

[vinny]

oh, ilford film isn't any good. I wasn't aware. Now I have to empty my freezer, replace all that fp4 with kodak at 3x the price I paid for the ilford 3 years ago. Thanks for the tip.

[Ole Tjugen]

Send all surplus Ilford stuff to me please - I'll even pay postage for it!

Honestly, I prefer Ilford. By a VERY wide margin.

[Joanna Carter]

Just to be awkward, my favourite B&W film is Fuji Acros. I have several boxes of the stuff, in QL sleeves, in the fridge. Virtually no reciprocity and tonality to die for… but at a price

Other than that, Ilford's Delta 100 runs a very close second and produces stunning results… if only Ilford would work out a proper reciprocity curve instead of using the same one for all their films

[Bruce Watson]

Like you, I used to be hooked on Tri-X. A great film. Then.... I tried TMY-2. After my first TMY-2 film run in the darkroom I never looked back. That last box of Tri-X still has a few unexposed sheets in it all these years later.

If you want the really good stuff, give TMY-2 a try. But not until you've used the last of your Tri-X. Just sayin'...

[Ken Lee]

"my GOD.....the difference

PLEASE ORDER the stuff...USE it .... ORDER MORE..

NICE NICE NICE....oh yeah.

SEE what you've been missing..."

No sample images, no comparisons, no graphs, no charts, no mention of developer...

I agree with Ole: send it to others. I'll take some. Got any 5x7 HP5+ you don't want?

[eddie]

"my GOD.....the difference

PLEASE ORDER the stuff...USE it .... ORDER MORE..

NICE NICE NICE....oh yeah.

SEE what you've been missing..."

No sample images, no comparisons, no graphs, no charts, no mention of developer...

I agree with Ole.

yup he is pretty abusive with most all his post. arrogant as hell.

lets see some images....or have they left the building with elvis?

[Scott Davis]

I'm quite content with my Ilford and my Fomapan. Foma for the small stuff (<8x10)because it's very affordable, and Ilford for everything because they go out of their way to support the LF and ULF community with the annual ULF special order. I don't see Kodak doing that - I see Kodak selling 10 sheet boxes, requiring a $10K minimum for a special order, and only cutting film in certain sizes. If I could ever scrape together the $10K, I would do a special order for TMY in 14x17, but Kodak will likely close up shop before that happens.

[johnielvis]

replace all that fp4 with kodak at 3x the price I paid for the ilford 3 years ago. Thanks for the tip.

your right---your money is worth more than your time...can't get through to the hypnoized....

No sample images, no comparisons, no graphs, no charts, no mention of developer...

NO need.

....I can clearly see that it is superior--you must experience it...a repro on the screen can't show handling, ease of use...feel...no pic will give you that...how to you take a picture of overall quality and the feeling....well...maybe I'll get artsy one day and make "an image of my interpretation of how kodak film feels when using it"......yeah....now I need a pretenious title

yup he is pretty abusive with most all his post. arrogant as hell.

lets see some images....or have they left the building with elvis?

Hmmmm...now THAT sounds like we're getting personal--personal abuse...and the abuser is accusing the abusee of being abusive.....this is the upside down state of affairs in the world today.....no wonder the country is going down the tubes....

I never post my images...I have no scanner big enough or enough time to do so....maybe when I retire I'll have time to do that sort of thing...right now I just shoot develop and get the instant qratification and go on to more.....when i take a rest from that, maybe I'll start scanning...man I got negatives I still have not printed from 10 years ago....that's why I don't do negatives anymore--just straight reversal...instant gratification...no way to fiddle with it with different papers...do it once and it's either good or not...and then you save them and look at them year leater and the ones you didn't think are good are suddenly GREAT...and the ones that are good are merely ok.....but I digress...

[Brian C. Miller]

Oh, yeah, you guys just wait 'til Frank wades in on this one! Oh, yeah, he'll show you what for!

Personally I don't obsess over which manufacture's film I use. Unless the emulsion has freakin' gaps in it (Efke!), I'm fine. (Freakin' Efke!) I've never had a problem with Kodak or Ilford products (Hey, Efke, I can't spot out a 1/4 x 1/2 inch emulsion gap here! Ooh, and there's another one!). I prefer Fuji Acros as a successor to Kodak Techpan. Of course, if Techpan were still available, I'd still be using it. But I don't like the grain structure on either Tmax or Delta.

You know what emulsion I'd really like to see in ULF? Tmax 3200 or Delta 3200. Pushing a 400 speed film to 3200 leaves a lot to be desired. A lot.