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!

[Eric Woodbury]

This reminds me of "Chevy or Ford?"

[Gene McCluney]

This reminds me of "Chevy or Ford?"

Well, only for black and white. Try buying some Ilford color transparency film or Ilford color negative film. It doesn't exist.

[Ron Marshall]

I began LF with FP4 and still love it; but I after doing low-light shots, with reciprocity, up to 10 minute exposure I decided to opt for something faster and with better reciprocity charecteristics, TMY. Very happy with it.

Lots of great film choices out there: hard to go wrong!

[CG]

Hmmm, if Kodak or Ilford or Fuji makes unprofitable items for too long, they will go under and our supplies of film will be completely gone. It makes no sense to complain of a lack of commitment or loyalty etc, when their existence is at stake. No matter how frustrating it is to see items dissapear, we can't afford for them to bleed money on unprofitable products.

There's no question the big three - Kodak, Ilford and Fuji - have all done various things to earn disapproval, but this particular concern, however emotionally involving, just isn't an issue.

[John Kasaian]

I am really impressed with Ilford FP-4+. I'm not all that fond of HP-5+ (probably my fault and not the film since I've seen some beautiful stuff shot on HP-5+) and I haven't tried Delta. The old Tmax 400 seemed to me to do everything Tmax 100 does, only faster. I've yet to try the new Tmax in sheet film, basically 'cause I can't afford it.

These days I'm into the most bang for my buck and the Arista.eduUltra/Fomapan-oid fills the bill unless reciprocity raises it's ugly head, then I'll work with FP-4+ or what's left of the Tmax 400 in my freezer.

If Tmax 100 is working well for you, why change? "Learning" a new film takes time away from shooting projects.
Of course in this crazy world, it might be prudent to have some familiarity with a "back-up" emulsion should the cow eat the cabbage.

[Drew Wiley]

Although both Delta 100 and 100TMax have fine tabular grain with minimal edge effect,
they do have very different characteristic curves. Delta has an upsweeping curve with
a long toe, which will separate highlights nicely but block up the shadows. TMax has a
relatively straight line lower down, so will beautifully separate shadow values, but you
have to be more careful not to shoulder it off in the highlights. Both films are on a slick
film bases prone to Newton rings. I have used TMax100 for many commercial applications, including color-separation negatives, portraiture, and product shots, but
don't like it for landscape use because of the indistinct edge effect. Delta 100 might be
very nice for high-key work, especially portraiture, but it's one of my least favorite
outdoor films. Others might disagree with me; but I prefer a much longer straight line.
FP4 is a different beast altogether, with a modestly long straight line and good edge
effect: much more accommodating for general use, in my opinion.

[Gene McCluney]

These days I'm into the most bang for my buck and the Arista.eduUltra/Fomapan-oid fills the bill unless reciprocity raises it's ugly head, then I'll work with FP-4+ or what's left of the Tmax 400 in my freezer.



I'm also into the Fomapan 200, Fomapan 100 thing right now, but they seem to have a heightened blue sensitivity which makes it harder to get nice dark skies with a light red filter, not impossible, just the effect is less noticeable. Means more burning sky in.

[sanking]

If reciprocity in low light conditions is an issue the best film without question is Fuji Acros. Kodak and Ilford T-grain films are much better than older traditional emulsions in this regard, but none of them hold up to Acros.

In many low light conditions exposure with Acros will actually be less with some of the ASA 400 speed films.

Pricing of Acros is strange. In 120 format it is one of the least expensive films on the market, if purchased from a place like Freestyle or B&H. On the other hand, the sheet film is very expensive compared to comparable Kodak and Ilford offerings.

Sandy King

[Sal Santamaura]

...Delta 100 and 100TMax...are on a slick
film bases prone to Newton rings...I've not noticed a gloss level difference between the bases of Delta 100, 100TMAX and any other sheet film, except 320 TXP, which includes a back coating to enable retouching. Contacting using "non glare" glass in my printing frames has completely eliminated base gloss as an issue.

Both 100 TMAX and Acros have shiny emulsions that cause a Newton's rings problem in glass negative carriers and even when contact printing on some very glossy papers. Delta 100's emulsion is sufficiently dull to avoid rings.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I use FP4+ quite often in both 4x5 and 8x10. Very nice film, similar to Kodak's Plus-X.
I used to Delta 100 about ten years ago, but didn't care for it that much. Main film is Ilford's HP5+.

[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!!!

[Frank Petronio]

good points

[D. Bryant]

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

They have done so several times over the decades. Bruce Davidson was so keyed into Tri-X that when Kodak made an unannounced change he noticed it immediately. Product change is the common denominator for sensitized products in the photographic industry.

Years ago I had fits when Ilford stooped producing MGIII. A much better product, IMO. But what can you do except roll with the punches so to speak.

Don Bryant

[Vlad Soare]

Anyone know if TMax 400 (new version) is more forgiving of the excess blue light in deeper shadow areas than the TMax 100 is/was?
I haven't used the film myself, but here's a quote from its technical data sheet:
"The blue sensitivity of KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX Films is slightly less than that of other Kodak panchromatic black-and-white films. This enables the response of this film to be closer to the response of the human eye. Therefore, blues may be recorded as slightly darker tones with this film—a more natural rendition."
The graph does indeed show a slightly reduced sensitivity in the blue area. It's more or less on par with the reds, whereas the graph of Tri-X, for instance, shows the blues clearly higher.

[Gene McCluney]

I haven't used the film myself, but here's a quote from its technical data sheet:
"The blue sensitivity of KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX Films is slightly less than that of other Kodak panchromatic black-and-white films. This enables the response of this film to be closer to the response of the human eye. Therefore, blues may be recorded as slightly darker tones with this film—a more natural rendition."
The graph does indeed show a slightly reduced sensitivity in the blue area. It's more or less on par with the reds, whereas the graph of Tri-X, for instance, shows the blues clearly higher.

If I remember correctly, photography texts used to recommend a yellow filter to achieve more "realistic" tonal balance with b/w panchromatic films. This would "jive" with the above statement regarding blue sensitivity.

[Vlad Soare]

Yup. A built-in yellow filter. :)
But I haven't used the film. Maybe someone who has could confirm this.

[Don Dudenbostel]

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.

frank I've been a commercial photographer for over forty years and can tell many incidents where kodak spooled the wrong film in 35mm cassettes and spooled 120 on the wrong paper and also on defective paper that reacted with the emulsion. I shot 8x10 ektachrome by the case and received one batch of EPY that had no yellow layer coated. The funny thing was it had the filter recommendation and speed sheet in the boxes asthough they had actually tested it. I called kodak about the problem and they assured me all of that emulsion had been pulled from the shelves and sent me a fresh case. Funny thing, I received a case of exactly the same emulsion with the same problem the next day.
I also received a case of readyloads that wouldn't work in any holder.

[tmastran]

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!

I think this is excellent advice. Eliminate a variable from the equation. After a 20 year break I found all the films were different so I tried many. I tried FP4, HP5, and TMAX 100 and 400. I found that for what I do, outdoor work, TMAX 400 works well (and I like the yellow boxes :-) !).

Vision and technique trumps film.

[Richard M. Coda]

This reminds me of "Chevy or Ford?"

Can't say that any longer :(

[Brian Ellis]

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.

The last time in my memory that Ilford did anything in the way of improving an existing product was when they added the "plus" to HP5 and FP4. That was about 20 years ago IIRC. Maybe I'm forgetting something else, if so someone can correct me.

[Andrew O'Neill]

The last time in my memory that Ilford did anything in the way of improving an existing product was when they added the "plus" to HP5 and FP4.

I started using this film after they added the "plus"...anybody know what the "plus" means? What did they change?

[Marko]

The last time in my memory that Ilford did anything in the way of improving an existing product was when they added the "plus" to HP5 and FP4. That was about 20 years ago IIRC. Maybe I'm forgetting something else, if so someone can correct me.

They also didn't eliminate any film in the last twenty years, as far as I can remember. :)

But what would you like to see improved on these films?

They were good films even without the plus, they've been great films with the plus and still are.

And then there's "all new and improved" Delta line.

[Gem Singer]

From what i have been told by a former Ilford Tech person, the "Plus" was, basically, the addition of silver iodide to the emulsion of both of those films.

This increased the blue sensitivity so that both films could be shot at their box speeds. Effectively Ilford gave both of these films more sparkle (a shot of adrenaline).

HP-5+ and FP-4+ are state of the art conventional grained films. If you know you got it right, why mess with perfection?

Ilford also hardened the gelatin and added a wetting agent to the emulsion. This enabled the film to be processed at temperatures up to 86 degrees and eliminated the need to pre-soak.

If you want "new", use their fabricated grain films, like Delta. They may show finer grain, but they have other quirks.

BTW, to those who still believe that HP-5+ is a low contrast film, try developing it in Ilford DD-X.

[Richard M. Coda]

BTW, to those who still believe that HP-5+ is a low contrast film, try developing it in Ilford DD-X.

Can you post a sample? Also your development dilutions etc? Thanks.

[Marko]

BTW, to those who still believe that HP-5+ is a low contrast film, try developing it in Ilford DD-X.

Or in Microphen. They say that DD-X is a liquid version of Mircophen. I don't know about that, but I do know that both boost the speed and contrast. They also seem to give a little "shine" to the midtones.

[Gem Singer]

Richard,

Sorry, I cannot post a sample showing the improvement in contrast from developing HP-5+ in DD-X. Even if I could, I wouldn't. Those improvements would not be easy to differentiate from a small image on a computer screen.

I have switched to Pyrocat-HD developer for HP-5+ film and find it more suitable for negatives to be scanned.

I use HP-5+ 120 roll film, as well as 4X5, 5X7, and 8X10 sheet films. All are developed in Pyrocat-HD.

If you want to try DD-X, there is ample information regarding time and dilution on the Harman Tech (Ilford) website.

[IanG]

DD-X isn't a liquid version of Microphen, the closest to that was the liquid version of Autophen, but having said that the two developers have similar properties.

I switched back to Ilford films 18 months ago mainly because of increasing difficulties finding Tmax films while outside the UK. I'm now using Delta 100 & 400 as well as HP5 they are all great films. A bonus is Ilford films are substantially cheaper (in the UK) and just as good.


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

Ilford didn't deliberately drop Centennial POP, they've stated quite clearly that they found they couldn't manufacture it using their equipment which is far more modern than Kentmere's was. Ilford also had to turn down the possibility of manufacture of Lodima because Chloride emulsions like POP emulsions are too corrosive for parts of their machinery.

A major problem with devising a new POP emulsion that Ilford or another manufacturer could handle is the R&D costs are too high compared to the actual sales which were very low, so small profits, and then there also serious Health & Safety issue because coating POP contaminates everything that comes into contact with it with Silver Nitrate.

Harman have stated that some of the other discontinued Kentmere products are due to be replaced in the next few months. Kentona sales were already very very low before Harman bought the company, and the paper had dropped to just one Grade way back in the 80's, the same had happened to Kentmere Bromide by the early part of this decade. With Kodak pulling out of B&W papers the Kentmere Bromide range was increased to 3 grades but only in the US, but only Freestyle bought the complete production runs which were made specially for them, none was available in the UK.

Ian

[venchka]

To further confuse the issue...

Why not make a thorough study of ASA/ISO 100 speed films. Include FOMA 100 & 200. That's right. Foma 200 which many users rate at 100 with good success. Also available from Freestyle as their house brand Arista EDU Ultra 100 & 200.

Don't forget Efke 100 and Fuji Neopan 100 Acros.

[William McEwen]

I tend to be very hard on Kodak, I have been frustrated for the last 30 years by the actions of this company. Lenny

You should see some of the complaints Stielglitz had about Kodak 80 years ago!

[Gem Singer]

Many commercial photo labs use Ilford DD (dip-and-dunk) developer as their standard B&W developer in deep tanks. It can be replenished and reused many times.

Ilford DD-X is a newer consumer version of DD. It cannot be replenished. Recommended for one shot use.

Microphen, DD, and DD-X developers are variants of Ilford's original ID-68 formula from the 1950's. Basically a Phenidone-Hydroquinone formulation (PQ) with a Borax accelerator.

(See: S.G. Anchell and B. Troop, "The Film Developing Cookbook").

[jp]

Is this a little odd or fairly normal: I've almost always used Kodak film with Ilford paper, even back in the day when Kodak was the popular paper choice.

[IanG]

Many commercial photo labs use Ilford DD (dip-and-dunk) developer as their standard B&W developer in deep tanks. It can be replenished and reused many times.

Ilford DD-X is a newer consumer version of DD. It cannot be replenished. Recommended for one shot use.

Microphen, DD, and DD-X developers are variants of Ilford's original ID-68 formula from the 1950's. Basically a Phenidone-Hydroquinone formulation (PQ) with a Borax accelerator.

(See: S.G. Anchell and B. Troop, "The Film Developing Cookbook").

Troop made the wrong assumptions, based on what had previously been written in US publications. In fact these developers were all derived from ID-11/D76, there is an early PQ version published in 1954 which Axford and Kendall evolved into a commercial product Autophen, this was available as a Liquid or Powder form (with replenishers) and designed for machine processing. There are a number of variations of the PQ ID-11 formula but all substitute 0.2 grams Phenidone for the 2 grams Metol, and it's only the buffering that is altered, in the same way as D76, D76c, D76d etc.

Microphen/ID-68 was a re-working of the formula to further exploit the speed enhancing properties of Phenidone, and promoted as a new type of developer with different characteristics rather than a PQ version of ID-11(D76).

Ilford DD & DD-X are new formulae and while they share some of the components & characteristics of ID-68/Microphen they are more likely to be derived from the PQ variant of ID11and Autophen.

Ian

[Gem Singer]

Phenidone (Kodak's Dimezone) in combination with Hydroquinone, using borax as the accelerator, is my favorite combination of ingredients to use in a film developer.

I cannot use a developer that contains Metol. After many years of dipping my hands into Dektol I became sensitized to it. Have been advised not to use it.

BTW, doesn't ID-11 use carbonate for the accelerator?

Ilford designed the DD-X formula to make it ideal to use with their plus versions of HP-5 and FP-4.

DD-X was introduced after Anchell and Troop published their book.

[IanG]

ID-11 is the same formula as D76 so there's no Carbonate.

Ian

[Brian Ellis]

This reminds me of "Chevy or Ford?"

Don't you mean Toyota vs Nissan? : - )

[Armin Seeholzer]

I use the films of all 3 companys Kodak, Ilford, Fuji. It depends just for what!

Cheers Armin

[Santo Roman]

I tend to use HP5+ for all my BW needs. Easy to work with, great tones, and grain is only something to worry about when I need it too. Plus, its cheaper than Kodak and I was unable to get Kodak while I was in EU for a few months. I do miss Tri-X though.


santo

[CG]

Ilford (or whoever) would be ill advised to deliberately lose money for any extended period on some given product. I'm assuming Ilford has figured out how to make a profitable business on lower volumes. Kodak still seems to have a big volume mindset and a harder time when volume decreases.

If you think you want a company to be "nice" and to lose money on TMax or FP5 or whatever, think again since that kind of decision will just hasten their overall demise. A total failure will take all their products off the market. You will lose everything rather than one product at a time.

[Mick Fagan]

I currently use Ilford FP4+ HP5+ and a 1993 expiry TMax100, of which I still have several 100 sheet boxes.

The TMax100 film is my first choice in a very bright situation with buildings, snappy is the word that comes to mind, along with being brilliantly sharp. Prints are beautiful.

FP4+ is my choice for portraits and landscapes, especially if the light is soft. A portrait with 4x5 FP4+ usually glows, it is my preferred film for most work these days with 4x5.

I use D76 1+1 in a Jobo CPE2 with all films, obviously with different times.

Either film is good, but you do have to get to know them. FP4+ does have an edge for my work due to the forgiving nature it has.

TMax100 is brilliant, but only when the light and subject is right for it. It is not as forgiving latitude wise generally, compared to FP4+, but when it is on the money, mmmmmm it's good!

You can of course photograph anything very well with either film, actually exceptionally well.

I realise that the TMax 100 I'm talking about is an earlier version, but I would think the current version would be reasonably similar to yesterdays version.

Mick.

[matthew klos]

In my experience i find that Ilford Delta 100 has very hard highlights to control. I often find myself under developing it by 10 to 20%.

[Chuck P.]

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?

Dam, I wish I could have said it so nicely, good job-------I'll never understand the spiteful attitudes and the BS talk about loyalty over discussion about Kodak.

[Frank Petronio]

Kodak is doing what it needs to do to survive. Once Kodak (and Fuji) reach the point that film is loosing money then all we'll be left with is basic 1970s-era technology B&W film made by small off-shore manufacturers. But I can't begrudge Kodak, it has to incredibly hard to downsize what was a huge manufacturing capacity.

What someone should be working on it figuring out how long we can store "out-of-date" color and B&W film once they stop making it, so we can plan to stock up in 2018 or 2025 or whenever it's over... if we can get another 20 years out of a stockpile then we're covered for most of our lifetimes....

It's really not that far off -- look how quickly the last ten years have shot by....

[Marko]

Kodak is doing what it needs to do to survive. Once Kodak (and Fuji) reach the point that film is loosing money then all we'll be left with is basic 1970s-era technology B&W film made by small off-shore manufacturers. But I can't begrudge Kodak, it has to incredibly hard to downsize what was a huge manufacturing capacity.

What someone should be working on it figuring out how long we can store "out-of-date" color and B&W film once they stop making it, so we can plan to stock up in 2018 or 2025 or whenever it's over... if we can get another 20 years out of a stockpile then we're covered for most of our lifetimes....

It's really not that far off -- look how quickly the last ten years have shot by....

It entirely depends on how we define "most of our lifetimes". It may come as a surprise to some, it always does ;), but we come with an expiration date as well. Looking at those other couple of threads, what is the average age of an LF or any film shooter? Those who are, say, 50 today (no preference, just a nice, round number, easy to calculate with) will be 75 come 2025.

Speaking for myself, if I even live up to 75, I will surely not be concerning myself with what will happen in another 20 years. Even if I manage to remember what it was and why I should be concerned...

:D

IOW, if film really goes out in 2025, those who are 50 or older today already ARE covered for most of their lifetimes. The real question is: will film live up to 2025? That's 14 more years. Fourteen years ago, everybody would laugh at the question. Heck, even ten years ago most people were laughing at the prospect.

[Robert Hughes]

Yes film will be around forever. That doesn't mean that T-Max or FP4+ will always be on the shelves. You may have to do more roll-your-own work, like preparing and sensitizing papers. But the alternative photo crowd does that already, without complaint.

[Frank Petronio]

I think the simpler classic B&W film types will be around a long time, as it seems like a small operation could produce that kind of film since we already see boutique films from EFKE and Lucky and such...

But our fancy T-Grain and color emulsions must require more advanced equipment? Or at least be protected by patents to prevent copying... and I'll assume nobody is going to buy and operate the giant manufacturing equipment used by Kodak or Fuji.

Plus isn't it color chemistry going to get difficult to find, at least the odd chemicals that are in the mix?

[Sal Santamaura]

...What someone should be working on it figuring out how long we can store "out-of-date" color and B&W film once they stop making it, so we can plan to stock up in 2018 or 2025 or whenever it's over... if we can get another 20 years out of a stockpile then we're covered for most of our lifetimes...I think the best bet is here:

http://www.undergroundvaults.com/offerings/securestoragefacilities/refrigeratedstorage.cfm

Probably enough depth to attenuate most cosmic radiation and optimum temperature / relative humidity. I've been afraid to ask the cost.

So, Frank, will you volunteer to research and coordinate a custom refrigerated vault for this group? :)

[bob carnie]

right on Frank, storage of film is on my mind and at 57 I figure another 25years before the diapers start filling up and I won't care anymore.


Kodak is doing what it needs to do to survive. Once Kodak (and Fuji) reach the point that film is loosing money then all we'll be left with is basic 1970s-era technology B&W film made by small off-shore manufacturers. But I can't begrudge Kodak, it has to incredibly hard to downsize what was a huge manufacturing capacity.

What someone should be working on it figuring out how long we can store "out-of-date" color and B&W film once they stop making it, so we can plan to stock up in 2018 or 2025 or whenever it's over... if we can get another 20 years out of a stockpile then we're covered for most of our lifetimes....

It's really not that far off -- look how quickly the last ten years have shot by....

[Frank Petronio]

lol you just hurt the feelings of all those 83-yr olds out there....

At the ski club there are still 83-yr olds skiing (fast) and I want to be one of them!

(But I imagine those diapers must get awfully cold out on the slopes.)

[David Karp]

Are we sure that Ilford has not made any changes to HP5+ or FP4+ since introduced? It might be that they have made tweaks constantly over time. What we might think could be batch to batch variations might be due to product updates. Not all companies announce them. Pepsi has changed formulae many times over the years. They don't really make a big deal with announcements. Coke made a change in its formula in response to market inroads made by Pepsi that caused a huge flap. Perhaps Ilford follows the Pepsi model? Just wondering. (And not really caring very much.)

[Oren Grad]

Are we sure that Ilford has not made any changes to HP5+ or FP4+ since introduced? It might be that they have made tweaks constantly over time. What we might think could be batch to batch variations might be due to product updates. Not all companies announce them. Pepsi has changed formulae many times over the years. They don't really make a big deal with announcements. Coke made a change in its formula in response to market inroads made by Pepsi that caused a huge flap. Perhaps Ilford follows the Pepsi model? Just wondering. (And not really caring very much.)

FWIW, at least in recent years, whenever the question has come up on APUG as to whether Harman has tweaked something in one of their film emulsions, Simon Galley's answer has always been no.

[ki6mf]

I believe the difference between the older emulsion and the newer films is in uniformity of the silver halide crystals in the newer Delta and T Max. The older films have some larger and smaller crystals and when they get over exposed, or you reach the top of the development curve the smaller crystals reach max exposure first and the larger crystals keep developing giving a longer curve and allowing for more high light development. From what i have read T Max and Delta allow for normal + 1,N+2,+3, +4???? development allowing for some pretty great highlights up to the point they crash then nothing. I don't think either is bad or better than the other. I always use HP5 and may test T MAX/Delta and start looking for N+ shots. Its another tool in creating images.

[theBDT]

To further confuse the issue...

Why not make a thorough study of ASA/ISO 100 speed films. Include FOMA 100 & 200. That's right. Foma 200 which many users rate at 100 with good success. Also available from Freestyle as their house brand Arista EDU Ultra 100 & 200.

Don't forget Efke 100 and Fuji Neopan 100 Acros.

Thank you for bringing this up. I am planning on taking a large format portfolio class next semester, and as I'm going to be doing mostly studio still life images, I'm trying to choose a 100 speed film.

I've settled on Efke. Neopan 100 is just too expensive for my budget, and Illford Delta 100 and Kodak TMAX 100 aren't much better. The cheaper films are Arista EDU Ultra (ne Foma) 100, which has very poor reciprocity, and Efke 100, my current tentative selection, which has OK reciprocity (at least, I can FIND comprehensive reciprocity info on this film).

I find both the Efke and Arista EDU Ultra (which I've both used in 35mm) to be charming little films. I was almost swayed to use the Arista EDU Ultra, in spite of reciprocity, because it has such a similar feel to Agfa APX 100. But Efke has some pleasing tones, and I think some interesting response to delicate surfaces (e.g. flower petals, human skin).

[Jerry Bodine]

whenever the question has come up on APUG as to whether Harman has tweaked something in one of their film emulsions, Simon Galley's answer has always been no.

Another way of saying they got it right the first time. ;)