Smaug01
Allowing Ads
As an American, I try to support Kodak, but sometimes, they anger me so!
Their old trick of creating new film formats so that they could be the only manufacturer of the film was annoying.
I went back to shooting film a few months ago after about a 15 year hiatus. I was happy to see that Kodak is still making film. I started with good ol' Tri-X. I don't have humidity control in my home, so when I hung the negatives to dry they quickly cupped to the point that it was very hard to hold them flat to scan. The film costs more than Ilford as well.
I posted a poll awhile back in the Negative Positives Facebook group asking what their favorite B&W film was. I thought Tri-X would be a shoe-in. To my surprise, HP5+ was the favorite. I had never tried it. (I used Ilford papers in the past, but never Ilford film) The word was that HP5+ looks similar to Tri-X, but doesn't cup as much. I tried it and it was true. I don't know what causes the cupping, but it is something that Ilford addressed and Kodak did not. (despite costing more in its home market!)
As I peruse the internet for data, I notice that Ilford puts together nice guides (besides the basic datasheet) to help. Nice YouTube videos. Right here is a forum that Ilford sponsors. Nice. I think that's the last Kodak film I'll buy. Cost IS an issue, but so is quality.
So Ilford released their Kentmere line, to compete with the low cost but high quality films by Foma. Meanwhile, Kodak raised their prices by 20% and has no lower cost offerings. They're making it REALLY hard to support them. It takes real patriotism, just like buying American cars in the 80s and 90s. They're in decline because they assume their customers are stupid.
I'm about to buy a bulk loader and a 100' roll of 400 film.
Tri-X: $100
Kentmere: $50
TMY: $95
Delta: $80
Foma: $55
HP5+: $75
To me, Delta shows a bit more grain than TMY, but has a much better tonal range. TMY is too contrasty, in addition to costing 25% more.
HP5+ just looks lovely. More grain than Delta but gorgeous tones. Looks very nearly as good at 1600 as it does at 400, too!
My last roll was Fomapan 400. Very nice tones, but huge grain too. I think I'm gonna try a couple rolls of Kentmere, then decide.
Ah well, Kodak still has my chemistry business, for the moment...
************
Ideas for future Ilford products:
B&W positive film that's easy to process at home. Scanning would be easier, too.
Color positive film that costs less than $10 a roll. Current offerings are $15 plus another $15 if you want it developed. Why does it need to be so damned expensive? I'd like to shoot color film, but color correcting the orange mask after inverting is such as hassle. I'd be willing to do E-6 at home, knowing the scanning and correcting would be so much easier.
Affordable developing gear. I'm using Paterson now, but this is molded plastic stuff. It shouldn't be so expensive. (even if it is good quality, a pair of film clips shouldn't cost more than $5, for example)
Their old trick of creating new film formats so that they could be the only manufacturer of the film was annoying.
I went back to shooting film a few months ago after about a 15 year hiatus. I was happy to see that Kodak is still making film. I started with good ol' Tri-X. I don't have humidity control in my home, so when I hung the negatives to dry they quickly cupped to the point that it was very hard to hold them flat to scan. The film costs more than Ilford as well.
I posted a poll awhile back in the Negative Positives Facebook group asking what their favorite B&W film was. I thought Tri-X would be a shoe-in. To my surprise, HP5+ was the favorite. I had never tried it. (I used Ilford papers in the past, but never Ilford film) The word was that HP5+ looks similar to Tri-X, but doesn't cup as much. I tried it and it was true. I don't know what causes the cupping, but it is something that Ilford addressed and Kodak did not. (despite costing more in its home market!)
As I peruse the internet for data, I notice that Ilford puts together nice guides (besides the basic datasheet) to help. Nice YouTube videos. Right here is a forum that Ilford sponsors. Nice. I think that's the last Kodak film I'll buy. Cost IS an issue, but so is quality.
So Ilford released their Kentmere line, to compete with the low cost but high quality films by Foma. Meanwhile, Kodak raised their prices by 20% and has no lower cost offerings. They're making it REALLY hard to support them. It takes real patriotism, just like buying American cars in the 80s and 90s. They're in decline because they assume their customers are stupid.
I'm about to buy a bulk loader and a 100' roll of 400 film.
Tri-X: $100
Kentmere: $50
TMY: $95
Delta: $80
Foma: $55
HP5+: $75
To me, Delta shows a bit more grain than TMY, but has a much better tonal range. TMY is too contrasty, in addition to costing 25% more.
HP5+ just looks lovely. More grain than Delta but gorgeous tones. Looks very nearly as good at 1600 as it does at 400, too!
My last roll was Fomapan 400. Very nice tones, but huge grain too. I think I'm gonna try a couple rolls of Kentmere, then decide.
Ah well, Kodak still has my chemistry business, for the moment...
************
Ideas for future Ilford products:
B&W positive film that's easy to process at home. Scanning would be easier, too.
Color positive film that costs less than $10 a roll. Current offerings are $15 plus another $15 if you want it developed. Why does it need to be so damned expensive? I'd like to shoot color film, but color correcting the orange mask after inverting is such as hassle. I'd be willing to do E-6 at home, knowing the scanning and correcting would be so much easier.
Affordable developing gear. I'm using Paterson now, but this is molded plastic stuff. It shouldn't be so expensive. (even if it is good quality, a pair of film clips shouldn't cost more than $5, for example)