film brands

[mcguireek]

I am brand new to 4x5 photo and I am looking to buy some B&W film. I have noticed a large difference in price between name brands (kodak, etc.) and some other brands I have never heard of (foma, adox, arista, etc.). Is there a difference between them or am I paying for a name?
I also saw some ortho litho film that seemed to be even cheaper. Do you use the same b&w chemicals to develop it? what is the picture quality like?

[BetterSense]

You are paying for a name to some extent, but you are paying for more than that as well. Kodak and Illford have the advantage that their films are very very consistent and very very high quality. There is also the bandwagon effect--nobody will fault you for using them because they are the standbys. You do not have to worry about using Kodak or Illford, basically; you could be a professional photographer shooting a once-in-a-lifetime event and use these films and be assured that you will have no problems. And is there any subject that isn't once-in-a-lifetime?

I've used Foma and Arista films and they are technically poorer quality in that they have low speed for their grain level and other refinements (such as good reciprocity failure) are missing. They also have merely good, although not impeccable quality control (I have had emulsion defects in Foma, for example). If you are going to shoot two sheets of an important subject (just to be safe), well are you really saving money at that point? That said I shoot Arista EDU Ultra film, it is very nice looking film and the price is nice. But you are getting, as far as technical specifications, more of a 1940s era film rather than a 2009 era film. Kodak TMY has less grain than most 100 speed films, yet needs 1/4 the amount of light for exposure. The research that lead to the miracle of these modern films is what you are paying for when you buy Kodak or Illford.

[mikebarger]

If the quality is less, I think you are paying for more than the "name" with the big boys.

Mike

[MIke Sherck]

Some of the films you don't recognize are imported from eastern European manufacturers: Foma is made in the Czech Republic, Arista is from various sources, repackaged as Freestyle Photo's house (inexpensive) brand, etc. Coming from former Soviet territories, research and development of new products was never high on their list of priorities and selling to a captive market allowed them to relax QA standards, so their products are different from modern films sold by the large Western brands (Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, etc.) Many of the films from eastern Europe have gained a following because they're old formulas -- people sometimes feel they have the "look and feel" of favorite but long discontinued films they miss having available. Of course, they have all the characteristics of the old films, too, such as emulsions which are often softer than more modern films and thus more prone to scratching. Sometimes there are emulsion defects. With Kodak's partial withdrawal from the market (they stopped making black and white papers some years ago,) these companies sensed an opportunity and their products have become both more widely available as well as have undergone some improvements (QA has improved, by many reports, for example,) and they now seem to be investing at least some money in improving their products as well.

Then there are the Chinese products, just beginning to become available to Western consumers (mostly through E-bay.) Not much has been written about them so there isn't much information but from what little has been published, they do not yet seem to be products comparable in quality to modern Western brands.

Just a little overview to give you some context. Of course, things change rapidly when companies are fighting for market share, discontinuing old products and bringing new ones to market, so what's said today may not be true tomorrow.

Mike

[ki6mf]

There are styles of film to consider Older thick emultion films like Ilford HP5, Kodak, and Elfke. There are new thin emultion films like Ilford Delta and TMax from Kodak. The good thing about large format is they will all give good results when developed with best practices, even temperature proper dilution (I am a fan of using a diluted developer and longer development times to avoid pre washing and even development). This forum will offer lots of advice with whatever film developer combination you choose. I would pick one film developer combination and not vary. Adams uses HC 110 for most of his life and got consistent results. I use D 76 diluted 1:2 and am happy with my results.

[Wallace_Billingham]

my advice as a newbie would be to pick one film from one of the bigger names like Kodak or Ilford and use that 100% of the time at first. You will find that over all they are really not that much more expensive.

That way if you have any problems you will know it is not the film. Once you get that nailed down you can move on to other films.

[Robert Hughes]

I disagree with the "go for Kodak/Ilford" plan, although I use both. No matter what stock you choose, its manufacture will most likely be more consistent and higher quality than the end user's methods of exposing and processing.

There are good reasons to use any given film stock, and each has its eccentricities. One great, positive characteristic of Kodak and Ilford stocks is that the film emulsion is tougher, and less prone to scratching during development. But I've also had good luck with every Eastern Euro or Chinese film I've tried also; I just have to be a little more careful.

OTOH (heh!), I recommend Ilford FP4+ to a beginner, as it's most likely to produce a usable image, despite my clumsiness.

[Brian Ellis]

There are styles of film to consider Older thick emultion films like Ilford HP5, Kodak, and Elfke. There are new thin emultion films like Ilford Delta and TMax from Kodak. The good thing about large format is they will all give good results when developed with best practices, even temperature proper dilution (I am a fan of using a diluted developer and longer development times to avoid pre washing and even development). This forum will offer lots of advice with whatever film developer combination you choose. I would pick one film developer combination and not vary. Adams uses HC 110 for most of his life and got consistent results. I use D 76 diluted 1:2 and am happy with my results.

Ilford HP5+ isn't an "older thick emulsion film." It isn't a tabular grain film like Delta and TMax but it most definitely isn't an "older thick emulsion" film either.

[SamReeves]

I've had bad luck with the Ilford films, and wouldn't buy them again. They never dried correctly. El cheapo Fomapan 100 though is a great film, and worth the price just to try it.