Shooting black and white landscapes

[Vaughn]

TMax 400 is a fine film...but stay away from TMax100 if one plans on making contact prints using alt processes as it has a UV blocking layer. But for silver gelatin enlargements, I liked what I got from the 100 and HC-110!

[Lachlan 717]

I'd recommend trying any of the Ilford films.

The reason is simple: Ilford is devoted to B&W film for the long haul.

Supporting their products will ensure the best chance of being able to get not only standard sized film (4x5, 8x10 etc), but also the exotic sizes (especially ULF) into the future.

Sure, Kodak films are great (not arguing against their quality here), but Kodak does not seem to have the long term commitment to providing film. Nor do you have access to the company like you do via Simon Galley on APUG.

So, perhaps try some Delta 100, FP4+ and HP5+ in whatever camera you have and see how it comes out?

[Bruce Watson]

...Kodak does not seem to have the long term commitment to providing film.

The zombie myth that just wont die.

Kodak, not Harmon, has spent the R&D money to bring the last, and the best, films to market (Tmax, Portra, vision3, etc.). When did Harmon last bring forth a new film? 30 years ago? Some commitment that is, a commitment to bring you the state of the art of the 1980s.

Kodak OTOH is bringing you the state of the art from the early 21st century. In the 1990s they built an entirely new coating line for B&W. And they are the last company standing producing quality cine films after Fuji dropped out.

You question Kodak's commitment to film? Seriously? Sheesh.

[Gem Singer]

The Ilford HP-5+ film that you are already using will work fine for landscape photography.

Why change?

[Lachlan 717]

The zombie myth that just wont die.

Kodak, not Harmon, has spent the R&D money to bring the last, and the best, films to market (Tmax, Portra, vision3, etc.). When did Harmon last bring forth a new film? 30 years ago? Some commitment that is, a commitment to bring you the state of the art of the 1980s.

Kodak OTOH is bringing you the state of the art from the early 21st century. In the 1990s they built an entirely new coating line for B&W. And they are the last company standing producing quality cine films after Fuji dropped out.

You question Kodak's commitment to film? Seriously? Sheesh.

I'm absolutely questioning it. Sorry if that didn't come across clearly.

To answer your question about their newest film type, 1992. Tmax was introduced in 1986 at Photokina. Therefore, pretty sure Tmax is "…state of the art of the 1980s."

Porta and Vision 3 are moot in the confines of this argument given a) Ilford doesn't produce colour, and b) if you read what I posted, I referred only to B&W, c) as did the OP.

As for your claim that Kodak's films are "the best" films in the market, well, that seems a pretty subjective assumption. What I do know is that Kodak doesn't make the best B&W paper, 'cause they don't make B&W paper. Guess they're committed to having B&W negative slide nights...

Anyway, as I wrote, Ilford is committed to the longevity of B&W film. They're committed to responding to us (see reference to APUG). They're committed to the ULF Special Order run (where's Kodak's version of that? And I don't mean Keith Canham's version. I mean the organisation-generated equivalent.)

They're bringing out new cameras (Harman Titan in 4x5 and 8x10). Not sure when Kodak last brought out a LF camera?

So, to sum up, Kodak's committed to bringing out 1986-era film to shoot on someone else's camera and to print on someone else's paper.

"Sheesh".

[hmf]

I'm absolutely questioning it. Sorry if that didn't come across clearly.

To answer your question about their newest film type, 1992. Tmax was introduced in 1986 at Photokina. Therefore, pretty sure Tmax is "…state of the art of the 1980s."

Porta and Vision 3 are moot in the confines of this argument given a) Ilford doesn't produce colour, and b) if you read what I posted, I referred only to B&W, c) as did the OP.

As for your claim that Kodak's films are "the best" films in the market, well, that seems a pretty subjective assumption. What I do know is that Kodak doesn't make the best B&W paper, 'cause they don't make B&W paper. Guess they're committed to having B&W negative slide nights...

Anyway, as I wrote, Ilford is committed to the longevity of B&W film. They're committed to responding to us (see reference to APUG). They're committed to the ULF Special Order run (where's Kodak's version of that? And I don't mean Keith Canham's version. I mean the organisation-generated equivalent.)

They're bringing out new cameras (Harman Titan in 4x5 and 8x10). Not sure when Kodak last brought out a LF camera?

So, to sum up, Kodak's committed to bringing out 1986-era film to shoot on someone else's camera and to print on someone else's paper.

"Sheesh".

Not to hijack the thread, but is the Titan 8X10 out yet?

[Jerry Bodine]

You question Kodak's commitment to film?

With today's stock price hovering around a whopping 20 cents, I can't see where there's much commitment to film or ANYTHING.

[Lachlan 717]

Not to hijack the thread, but is the Titan 8X10 out yet?

From Simon Galley on APUG, posted 1st March, 2013:

"HARMAN TiTAN's will start shipping from Mobberley to our distributors around the world in teh [sic] next 10 days or so."

[Ivan]

My advice to you is to experiment with the film you already have. Try different hours of the day for your photos or try different developers. That way you'll get familiar with one type of film first, and get to know it, like what you can expect from it etc. Kodak, Ilford etc. is pretty much a personal thing because of all the variables afecting its process.
Remember to have fun, you are at the beginning of a wonderful journey so enjoy it.

[jp]

Even if you don't choose Ilford Film (I usually go Kodak), Ilford must not be ignored when it comes to photo paper. I was never a big fan of Kodak paper, at least what they put out in the 80s/90s. Ilford paper is top quality and in various styles.