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 :mad:

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 :confused:

[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... :rolleyes:

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... :rolleyes:

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... :rolleyes:


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.

[johnielvis]

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'...

I actually started with tmy2...it's good but for reversal--txp is better....similar superior handling characteristics, but the tmy has less workability than the txp...

tmy IS GOOD though...it's just that txp is better for general use....I can do more with it....since I had to buy a ton of the stuff, and I couldn't pick and choose a mix of product, I had to go with the txp...

this is the reason for this post--if more people bought it, then it would be available and I would be able to got to the store and get txp AND tmy2 and tmx...and whatever...in stock....in smaller quantities so I can pick and choose my tools for the need or feel....now...when you gotta buy a ton, you gotta pick the most versatile stuff....so that's the reasoning...

I do agree though..tmy2 is also a superior product.

[BrianShaw]

I'd like to supplement (not replace) my FP4+ with PlusX... but can't.

[Ken Lee]

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

"NO need."

I'm out of this thread.

[Sal Santamaura]

I just got my 11x14 txp today...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...Please explain specifically what difference you see between 320TXP and Ilford products. I ask this as someone who uses a substantial quantity of 320TXP as well as HP5 Plus and FP4 Plus in a variety of sheet sizes.

Are you referring to quality control, image characteristics or some other factor(s)? In my experience, both manufacturers produce first-tier products. About the only substantive differences I can identify are that Kodak's vapor-seal inner envelopes facilitate long-term storage in a freezer (although Kodak used black plastic bags instead of those envelopes for a run of whole plate film several years ago) and 320TXP's retouchable base coating eliminates newton's rings. Otherwise, it's all a matter of developer combinations and curve shape preferences.

[eddie]

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?





not sure what you are talking about. i am making a simple observation about your posting techniques. go back and look at what you say and how you say it.

nothing personal about it. you post the way you do. i observe the way you post. i believe my observation is pretty close. just use the OP as an example.

but lets use the above so you do not think i am picking on you:


[QUOTE=johnielvis;790125]......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---


insulting to "everybody" aka us.



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.


are you call us "foolish"? who is suggesting i am discouraged with my work? seems like you are making a judgement about "our" work. (which you have in the bast BTW). a bit insulting....and slightly arrogant.


-AND better images.[/B]..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 the film makes us shoot better images? so are your images (which i have yet to see) better simply b/c you shoot the expensive stuff? arrogant IMO.


.

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....

hhhhmmmm? "smart cookies". so the rest non kodak users you insinuate to be stupid? again, insulting.


I can quit anytime I want to....

i wish you would quit posting in the style you use now.

do what you like, but be a bit more thick skinned if you choose to continue to post in your current style..... whining that some one has personally attached you is a bit humorous considering how you write.....

now where is that block user button.....i am going to use it now....bwah ha ha ha.

eddie

[eddie]

I'm out of this thread.

ha! me too. i even found the ignore user button under my settings.

this thread looks better already!

[E. von Hoegh]

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....
So why are you looking to trade TXP for TMY??http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=81841

Personally, I have to budget no matter what size and type of film I use. I rather like TXP, but I'll use any film I can get in sufficient quantity to learn what to expect from it.

I'm really glad you have an 11x14, a Schneider 550XXL, and more money than time. Just add a little humility, and you'll be an adult!!

[Valdecus]

Hey, Efke, I can't spot out a 1/4 x 1/2 inch emulsion gap here! Ooh, and there's another one!

Adobe Photoshop Content Aware Fill... ;)

Cheers,
Andreas (with a freezer full of HP5+ and other Ilford film)

[Richard K.]

I've used Tri-X for 50 years or so and I do love it but the newer version not as much. I am speaking just from PIA (personal impact aesthetics), including how the negs look when I first see them on my light-table and how the final (usually Pd/Pt) prints please me and I'm not going to justify with graphs, charts, density readings etc. Having said that, I find FP4+ in PMK just as good for contact prints and better for enlargements (it's a grain thing) and Fuji Acros yet another wonderful film, especially for dusk and dawn and what lies in between photography. OK but that's just me; I suppsose others' have different and likely justified appreciations!

[jp]

Kodak/Ilford/Fuji is all top grade stuff and are rewarding to use as has been described.

I bought 3% of the supply of 8x10 TMY2 (of the Canham order and the remaining inventory at B&H) at the beginning of the year. I wish it were more available too, and packaged to promote consumption rather than sampling.

My only [polite] disagreements johnielvis are that I won't knock Ilford, and I think TMY2 is the most versatile / most workable kodak film (rather than TXP), but perhaps it's because I have more experience with TMY2.

[Kirk Gittings]

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?

Eddie my man....we live in a different time-a time of internet experts with no searchable track record, no evidence of expertise, nothing more in evidence of their expertise than perhaps a few low rez images on Flicker and their high opinion of themselves. Oftentimes these people are anonymous also. There is no mask to strip away. It is usually patently obvious to everyone but themselves.

[Frank Petronio]

Ilford can make fine images, it's their lousy quality control that irks me. I'll use Kodak until the bitter end.

[Helcio J Tagliolatto]

johnielvis
I think and feel TXP produces the most beautiful tonal rendition for portraits and some landscapes, but you have stated something reality does not support: take a look at Carls Weese images made on FP4 (Connecticut Woods) before.

[Vaughn]

Please support superior art -- whatever one's definition of superior might be.

I like the way Tri-X in sheet film has little or no base fog when I over-develop it by 50 to 100% for alt printing. I love the range of values with FP4 in Ilford PQ Universal developer for platinum printing (and carbon, too!).

[Sal Santamaura]

Ilford can make fine images, it's their lousy quality control that irks me. I'll use Kodak until the bitter end.At it again Frank?

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=643165&postcount=32

In response to which you posted:


...Sal, yes I admit to lying, bullshit, and exaggeration. Guilty as charged...

[johnielvis]

yeikes

lots of peeps reading a lot INTO what I said....I mainly mentioned quality and handling characteristics....this is not a debate over image quality--different films for different subjects...that's why Im interested in other KODAK emulsions for trade....because I want a variety....I've just been burned too many times by other stuff.....similar handling with kodak and I get a MUCH higher satisfaction ratio.

I know that I can waste more time with something that doesn't work well with me and get even better results, but I choose not to....because I can.

in other words--I'm right handed and don't want to make do with a left handed whatever if I don't have to. Kodak products work the best with me and my way of doing things and I don't wanna change how I do things to suit something less expensive....my time is more valuable than my money, you see.

OTHERS who take offense where none is offered--you should always ask before you take--common curtosey

[John NYC]

johnielvis
I think and feel TXP produces the most beautiful tonal rendition for portraits and some landscapes, but you have stated something reality does not support: take a look at Carls Weese images made on FP4 (Connecticut Woods) before.

.... Or Ansel Adams, who used HP5 and seemed to do pretty well for himself I seem to recall.

[Sal Santamaura]

Please explain specifically what difference you see between 320TXP and Ilford products...Are you referring to quality control, image characteristics or some other factor(s)?...


...I mainly mentioned quality and handling characteristics...this is not a debate over image quality...I've just been burned too many times by other stuff...OK, what specific quality and handling deficiencies have "burned you" when using Ilford films that you've not experienced with Kodak's? It's valuable to explore these things so their causes can be unambiguously established. If there are problems with major manufacturers' products, they typically want to know about them and undertake improvements. We would all benefit by your sharing the details, including conditions under which they occurred.

[Frank Petronio]

At it again Frank?

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=643165&postcount=32

In response to which you posted:

All the more in threads you participate in!

But no, I swear on a stack of Bibles, I've had multiple boxes of mis-cut, mis-packaged, and marred Ilford film. I have never had a problem with Kodak. In 2007 I shot about 1000 sheets of HP-5, then I switched to TXP.

[Sal Santamaura]

All the more in threads you participate in!...All the more what, Frank? :)

[eddie]

But no, I swear on a stack of Bibles.......

uh oh! everybody GET DOWN! *looking around for lightning.....:) *

[Sal Santamaura]

...So I don't like Ilford film anymore...big deal...I doubt Ilford cares...I suspect Ilford does; I do too. The problem is that people reading these threads might take your negative opinion as something to rely on and avoid some great products. When Kodak is long gone, Ilford will likely still be around. I sure hope your sensitivity to quality issues doesn't mean you'd then buy Ilford film. You'll be plenty content with Efke and Foma. :rolleyes:

As for the rest of your post, I'll not quote it. That way, should the moderators recognize how unjustifiably abusive it is and delete it, there won't be any record of the abuse left in this thread. :)

[johnielvis]

OK, what specific quality and handling deficiencies have "burned you" when using Ilford films that you've not experienced with Kodak's? It's valuable to explore these things so their causes can be unambiguously established. If there are problems with major manufacturers' products, they typically want to know about them and undertake improvements. We would all benefit by your sharing the details, including conditions under which they occurred.

as stated peviously INTHIS THREAD
scratches!!!!!
film base thickness
QUALITY--repeatability---RELIABILITY.....no screw ups...no SCRATCHES....easier to load because it's THICKER....less chance to mess it up......MANY: reasons....

even if kodak had inferior image characteristics, I would still use it for the excellent consistance and handling characteristics....

however...as for images

TRIX hands DOWN allows more flexibility for reversal processing than anyother I've tried---INCLUDING other KODAK emulsions....but I still want a variety, so that's why I'm willing to trade what I have a LOT of for something for which I have NONE of. when reversal processed...man....you can do lots of kool stuff with it AND withOUT the scratches and spots and other crap I've been dealing with....this is the voice of expericnce here...my expericnce dictates what I like.

you know...most people complain that they'd LIKE to have xyz but "cant afford it".....well, then you really don't want it...if you really want anything, you get it...you gotta be willing to do what it takes.

all these people complaining about availability....well..

so I didn't beoan or complain ONCE...I went out and DID something about it...I put my money out instead of complaining about availability and I MADE it happen....SEE....a little SACRIFICE is necessary every now and then you gotta man up and do what you have to in order to get what you want instead of "doing without" and having regrets.

that's what this is all about---trying to give a good example to the rest of you to get off yer duffs and buy or DO what you WANT, ..... if you have to sacrifice something else, so be it....just shows where your priorities are...some people have time to wase and like to feel good about saving them dollas....ok...that's what makes you happy


you wanna settle for second best your WHOLE lives? NOT ME

[Sal Santamaura]

...scratches!!!!!...Have you determined that non-Kodak film's scratches were present before you loaded them into holders? Or do you somehow manage to scratch them during loading, unloading and processing because of "handling" issues?


...film base thickness...easier to load because it's THICKER...I just measured unexposed sheets of 320TXP and FP4 Plus with a digital caliper. Both read exactly 0.008" -- the same thickness. I'd expect 320TXP, with its retouchable base coating, to be thickest of the Kodak products. Interestingly, I've found 320 TXP and Delta 100 to lay flattest of the two manufacturers' sheet films, irrespective of size. Also, while all are equally thick, Ilford's are a bit more flexible. Fuji's sheets flex even more when handled.


...TRIX hands DOWN allows more flexibility for reversal processing than anyother I've tried---INCLUDING other KODAK emulsions...Talk about a niche within a niche! I wonder how many people are reversal processing sheet film today, especially 8x10 and 11x14? Might be interesting if David Wood chimed in on that.


...withOUT the scratches and spots and other crap I've been dealing with...Are you experiencing these scratches and spots only with reversal processing? Are you doing the reversal processing yourself?

I use a lot of 320TXP and FP4 Plus and find no difference between them with respect to scratching or spotting when developing them as negatives, then making prints.

[johnielvis]

well---it sure BEHAVES like it's thicker..and it's sure tougher--no scratching like the ilford....AND it goes in and out of holders easier...maybe more RIGID if not thicker then? whatever....same to me in handling...FEELS thicker is then what I mean.

yes....all reversal

nitch...yes...that's why I have nitch requirements then. only the kodak stuff fits in the nitch

[redrockcoulee]

I do have more time than money. Just finished off a box of Tri-X 4X5 and was not overwhelmed by it. But it is easier to load than Technical Pan. Buy and use film from 4 different companies, right now Kodak only for colour and surprisingly Fuji for its B&W. I can get three rolls of Acros 100 for the cost of two of Tmax and I get more satisfactory results. Never did like TriX but I know others who shoot nothing else. Was there not a shipment of Whole Plate film from Kodak that was incorrectly cut a year or two ago?

Just because you claim that Tri-X is the best for you does not mean it is the best for anyone else or everyone else. Now if you were claiming that Brittany Spaniels were the best breed of dogs I think the world would agree with you (or is that just me?) :)

[Pawlowski6132]

John, what do you mean by instant reversal??

[Mark Stahlke]

well---it sure BEHAVES like it's thicker.That reminds me of my very first attempt to load 8x10 holders. I spent half an hour in the dark unsuccessfully trying to load the first sheet of film. Finally I decided to waste a sheet by loading it with the lights on so I could see what the problem was. Lo and behold, I was trying to load a sheet of cardboard. :o :D

I'm so glad it didn't fit. Imagine how embarrassing it would have been to ask the lab to develop a piece of cardboard. :eek:

[John Koehrer]

I vaguely remember something about opinions being like a part of the anatomy and everyone having one. Trying to remember what it was. =)

[atlcruiser]

John...you just have a way about you..........

I shoot all Ilford right now in B+W LF. Very simple reason; it is good and costs less than Kodak. I am not really cheap nor am I really poor so I can afford Tri-x I jsut choose to save the money as Ilford is fully as good as kodak..........for me at my level of useage

[Pawlowski6132]

John...you just have a way about you..........

I shoot all Ilford right now in B+W LF. Very simple reason; it is good and costs less than Kodak. I am not really cheap nor am I really poor so I can afford Tri-x I jsut choose to save the money as Ilford is fully as good as kodak..........for me at my level of useage

Yes. I've met John. I think his posts don't come across fairly.

[atlcruiser]

I have bought/sold from/to John with great luck...I would describe him as ernest :)

He does talk exactly as he writes

[Capocheny]

I vaguely remember something about opinions being like a part of the anatomy and everyone having one. Trying to remember what it was. =)

Hi John,

The expression is, "Opinions are like belly buttons... everybody has one!" :)

Cheers,

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

well---it sure BEHAVES like it's thicker.

Are you referring to the film, or the photographer?

Kerry

P.S. Just kidding, of course. No offense intended, just trying to lighten the mood around here.

P.P.S. My two favorite black and white films are T-Max 400 and FP4+. I have a freezer full of both in 14x17. Unfortunately, I don't have time to use either right now and can't decide if I should sell it (which I will likely regret later) or keep it until I have the time to put it to good use. I always have x-ray (gasp!!!!) film as a fall back plan. It's one of the reason I chose 14x17 as my ULF format of choice. It's a standard size for various medical and industrial films. So, in addition to the cheap, standard 2-sided x-ray films, 14x17 is also available in (more expensive, less scratch prone) single-sided mammography and industrial films.

[jeroldharter]

Just curious where you buy mammography and industrial films?

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Just curious where you buy mammography and industrial films?

I haven't bought any, yet. But, I have seen it for sale occasionally on eBay. It's also available from the large medical suppliers, but at prices that rival T-MAX 400 (when you could get it).

Kerry

[Allen in Montreal]

uh oh! everybody GET DOWN! *looking around for lightning.....:) *


Too funny!
Thanks Eddie! :) :)

[Kirk Gittings]

That reminds me of my very first attempt to load 8x10 holders. I spent half an hour in the dark unsuccessfully trying to load the first sheet of film. Finally I decided to waste a sheet by loading it with the lights on so I could see what the problem was. Lo and behold, I was trying to load a sheet of cardboard. :o :D

I'm so glad it didn't fit. Imagine how embarrassing it would have been to ask the lab to develop a piece of cardboard. :eek:

Been there:)

[jnantz]

i shoot 11x14 too
but paper negatives and love the resiitts ....

[Curt]

WTB: Eastman Kodak 11X14 Panatomic-X, 25,50, or 100 sheet boxes.

[mikebarger]

Haven't read all the posts. If the public determines a product is superior sales won't be a problem.

Problem is one person's gold is trash to someone else.

Apologize for not reading entire thread.

[johnielvis]

WHEW whatta weekend sofar...

had to get ANOTHER freezer for the film....car trouble---hey--for all you johnielvis haters, this is good news...

and to all my supporters, I thank you. But there is no real need to defend anything--I didn't mean any insult and any people who take insult at anything I said, well, it must be true then, ain't it? if it aint' true, then you wouldn't be insulted. Anyways--a little joking around statements and WHAM...let's just put that past us, but, rest assured, this WILL happen in the future--that's just the way I am....i say what I think--why shoudn't I...hell...what's a matter I can't kid around ever---we I DO and will continue to do so....you take offense, hey...that's YOU...not me trying to do it.

on a side note--I just recently got a soft focus lens and I've noticed that the fp4 I"m now shooting out to clear out the filmhoders allows more glowing portraits at higher speeds than the txp.....the txp will deliver it but you gotta shoot it at a much lower iso....so that can be GOOD I guess....the ilford stuff still gives me trouble, but I can handle it better now....but I just don't like the "never know if it'll be ruined" aspect of that stuff when I use it. I just am too busy to screw around with too many variables.


John, what do you mean by instant reversal??

what I meant by that is I'm doing reversal processing--direct camera reversals---these are like the closest thing to polaroid these days I guess---or that ever WAS like polaroid in 11x14---AND there is no printing involved...I process the film...then there' no darkroom with the contact frame or enlarger and making prints, more prints...trying to get the perfect print....you get what you get and there ain't no printing step...so it's much faster....you don't spend time trying to save a bad image and you burn through the images faster instead of spending time trying to get one portion of a print 'just right".....so that's the "instant" aspect---you get a positive "instantly" when the film is developed--no printing stage involved.

I like that these are camera originals--no printing--no more than ONE image made---liike the wetplate.....they are totally unique....

although,I COULD startto reversal print them though....

I'd LOVE to get direct reversal paper, but the guy that gets tthe stuff for photobooths won't tell me where he gets his from and I can't find out....I'd buy his stuff but its in tiny rolls...I want big sheets....I'd be doing direct reversals on paper for sure....maybe when I find out where to get the stuff I'll order me a buttload of 11x14 high speed paper---I have shot paper but the speed is way to low...anyways, the film looks much better than paper with a lit up background...much more meat there to the image than you get on any print....

blah...bedtime....still many more chores to do tomorrow that didn't get done today....dammit...got all this fun stuff to play with and I'm STUCK STUCK STUCK taking care of other stuff...

[Mark Barendt]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Paper+Type_Positive+%28Reversal%29&ci=802&N=4288586366+4289268056

[Ash]

I'm English. I'd sooner buy Ilford than Kodak. Actually, I'd sooner buy European film than Ilford. Kodak comes last.

That said, my 35mm film is Kodak because it is the cheapest around. 120 is Fuji. LF is European.

[IanG]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Paper+Type_Positive+%28Reversal%29&ci=802&N=4288586366+4289268056

Actually most photo booths use a crude dunk/dip form of reversal processing of a normal B&W paper, not a direct reversal paper.

Back to the OP's main premise though it's quite ludicrous to think that any one film is that significantly superior to another when discussing Ilfor & Kodak B&W films. Much of the differences are down to the way a film's used and handled particularly with larger formats.

Ilford's quality control is on a par with Kodak's and Fuji's and lets not forget some Fuji products have been made by Ilford.

Ian

[gevalia]

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

"NO need."

I'm out of this thread.

You beat me to it Ken. And I think I'll just put him on ignore as well.

[johnielvis]

the harmon reversal is TOO SLOW

regular paper is TOO SLOW

the photobooths use a special high speed paper for regular reversal processing with bleach--there IS a difference with the papers too. kodak I believe used to make a high speed paper for reversal, but they don't anymore either--some place out of the country and, for reasons unknown, secret, makes that stuff today....I can get it but only in the photobooth sized rolls--anybody out there knows where I can get sheets of THAT product, hey...I'm in for some of that stuff too!

[eddie]

You beat me to it Ken. And I think I'll just put him on ignore as well.

works great....;)

[Michael Graves]

I must be weird. I keep holders loaded with both Tri-X and HP5. I find that Tri-X separates the highlights better than anything I've ever used, but HP5 beats Tri-X for subjects where most of the critical detail is in the darker tones. That probably has to do with my choice of developer (Rodinal) and my work habits more than anything.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I find that Tri-X separates the highlights better than anything I've ever used, but HP5 beats Tri-X for subjects where most of the critical detail is in the darker tones. That probably has to do with my choice of developer (Rodinal) and my work habits more than anything.Those differences are a result of the inherent rising characteristic curve of 320TXP and straight line of HP5 Plus. Various developers might cause subtle modifications, but most of the curve shape is built in when films are made.

[Steve Smith]

PLEASE support the superior product


I do. I always buy Ilford!


Steve.

[Drew Wiley]

I've got nuthin against good ole predicatable Tri-X. It's the Model A of films. But please just remember use the turnouts so the rest of us can pass.