How does Ilford do it?

[Smaug01]

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)

 

[Smaug01]

I like how Ilford continually evolves and doesn't assume its customers are dumb.

 

[NB23]

I like how Ilford continually evolves and doesn't assume its customers are dumb.

we don’t know what Ilford assumes. Maybe (well, not maybe) Kodak is run by a bunch of Bozos? Perez was a notable master of destruction.

And what’s surprising about HP5 being so good? It’s a legendary film, after all.

 

[Smaug01]

we don’t know what Ilford assumes. Maybe (well, not maybe) Kodak is run by a bunch of Bozos? Perez was a notable master of destruction.

We know that they don't assume we're dumb, because they go to the trouble and expense to continually improve their products. It would be cheaper to just market them harder and not go to that trouble or expense.

And what’s surprising about HP5 being so good? It’s a legendary film, after all.

Tri-X is legendary too. What surprised me is that HP5+ is better than Tri-X, (even if only the substrate) at a lower cost OUTSIDE its domestic market! That's how Ilford is staying relevant without the need for hype or patriotism.

 

[Bikerider]

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...

I think you will find Kentmere to be not far removed from both the Foma and Agfa films. Certainly in the grain and tonality range. I use Kentmere most of the time now, simply because it is among the cheapest available and I am used to what it can do. I don't find the grain objectionable when developed in ID11 or Microphen and it will easily print up to 12x16..

Actually Kentmere film was available long before Foma showed up in the shops, but at the time it wasn't owned by Ilford, they bought out the much smaller company about 8 years ago..

If you have a totally light tight darkroom you don't need a bulk loader. I have loaded film manually for a long time by working in the dark and measuring the length of film against a stainless steel strip with 2 markers to indicate the length. You need exactly 3 feet for a 24 exposure length and 5 feet for 36 exposures. You can make marks for different lengths by using the formula 1.5" x the number of exposures + 7". The 7" is for the leader and trailer lengths. If you are using an AF camera Nikon/Canon etc, you don't even need to trim the leader as the film winds straight onto the take-up spool.

It really is quite easy, you just need preparation before hand and a clear work bench. Lay out the open cassette with the fixing tape attached to the spool. Next to that a pair of scissors. and the measuring strip alongside. Try to memorise where everything is. Open the can of film and hold one end with the back of the film along the measuring strip. Put the strip down now attach the end of the film to the spool and wind the film on with the film facing inwards and then insert into the cassette. Snap or screw on the end cap. Replace the roll into the can with the lid and put on the light. Mark the type of film and speed on the film leader, finally round off the corners on the leading edge.

For what it is worth I rarely loaded more than 24 exposures.

 

[NB23]

Actually, Kodak improves its films in a much more spectacular way. It’s just that they’re lousy in their marketing and business departments.

Tmax 400 has been reformulated a few times and it is now a perfect film. Nothing touches it, as far as I’m concerned. Nothing!

Tmax100 is also a marvel. An achievement!

Tri-X has changed so many times, it shouldn’t be called tri-x anymore. Excellent film, but not the original.

portra: reformulated! Perfection!
Ektar! It’s a new film!
Kodak chrome films (slides), you have to ask Yourself how they could push the knowledge so far!

kodak’s expertise, even today, is unmatched. Their only problem was their business model.

ilford? Its merit was to NOT touch hp5, a thing that Kodak should have done with Tri-X. Not in 95, nor in 2007, nor in 2013. But keeping it as is would have prevented TMAX 400 as we know it today. As an intelligent cost measure, tri-x had to be reformulated in order to survive and share its components with the tmax line. And this is why PLUS-X couldn’t survive in the new environment.

Purely an economics/marketing problem.

We know that they don't assume we're dumb, because they go to the trouble and expense to continually improve their products. It would be cheaper to just market them harder and not go to that trouble or expense.


Tri-X is legendary too. What surprised me is that HP5+ is better than Tri-X, (even if only the substrate) at a lower cost OUTSIDE its domestic market! That's how Ilford is staying relevant without the need for hype or patriotism.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Dude, I'd be delighted if I could buy a bulk roll of TMax 400 for $95. Seriously! Kodak bulk rolls in Europe are a silly joke, if they're available at all. I've got a bulk roll of HP5+, which is perfectly fine for what it is. Sooner or later I'll buy a bulk roll of 100 ISO fine grain film. TMax 100 is excellent, but I'll likely buy Delta 100.

 

[Charles Escott-New]

Nice to hear the comments about Ilford. Two black and white films have been pre-eminent in my time in photography, FP4 at the start, and Delta 100 now. It seems a miracle that we still have these films. As a Londoner we were proud of our film factory, coming out of Ilford station and walking right past the whole complex on the way to my Aunt's house, we felt it would be there forever and it still is, even if in a different incarnation and location. That said my favourite film of all was Kodachrome 64. Best wishes to all those making film in 2020, what would we do without them ?.

 

[Smaug01]

Hmm, if what NB23 says is true, then:

• I'm quite ignorant on the matter!
• Kodak is indeed doing a poor job of marketing
• Kodak should choose a more cup-resistant substrate.

 

[Anon Ymous]

@Smaug01 Tri-X cups considerably, but other Kodak films dry dead flat. Their colour films are particularly good in that respect.

 

[Smaug01]

@Smaug01 Tri-X cups considerably, but other Kodak films dry dead flat. Their colour films are particularly good in that respect.

I developed a roll of T-Max 100 a couple weeks ago, and it was almost as bad as Tri-X.

I think most C-41 films dry flat, right?

 

[Anon Ymous]

I developed a roll of T-Max 100 a couple weeks ago, and it was almost as bad as Tri-X.

I think most C-41 films dry flat, right?

Hmmm, nope, Fuji C41 films cup a fair bit, although not annoyingly.

 

[pentaxuser]

I have never had HP5+ "cup" when drying. I hang a clip on it and it dries completely flat. My relative humidity is never below 65% and usually closer to low 70s for most of the year. I live in the Midlands of the U.K. I even managed once on my night-school course to wash for quite a few seconds with really hot water and it came out unscathed. It is a well behaved film in my opinion .

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I have never had HP5+ "cup" when drying. I hang a clip on it and it dries completely flat. My relative humidity is never below 65% and usually closer to low 70s for most of the year. I live in the Midlands of the U.K. I even managed once on my night-school course to wash for quite a few seconds with really hot water and it came out unscathed. It is a well behaved film in my opinion .

pentaxuser

It's my main film!

 

[MattKing]

Ilford products seem to be more expensive in the UK than they are in the US.
Which merely highlights the fact that pricing has more to do with distribution issues than almost anything else.
I'm a lifelong Kodak user, and use their film and chemicals where they make a product of a type that I seek to use, but I use and enjoy Ilford products as well.
And for me, T-Max 100, T-Max 400 (TMY-2) and (at least until my last stock runs out) Plus-X all dry without cupping both in 135 and 120 formats.
I haven't shot Tri-X for a while.

 

[Cholentpot]

Ilford products seem to be more expensive in the UK than they are in the US.
Which merely highlights the fact that pricing has more to do with distribution issues than almost anything else.
I'm a lifelong Kodak user, and use their film and chemicals where they make a product of a type that I seek to use, but I use and enjoy Ilford products as well.
And for me, T-Max 100, T-Max 400 (TMY-2) and (at least until my last stock runs out) Plus-X all dry without cupping both in 135 and 120 formats.
I haven't shot Tri-X for a while.

I cut my teeth on Plus-X. First rolls I shot and developed, and then it got killed. I have a few rolls of the stuff left hanging around in my freezer. Might have to take some out this summer.

 

[removed account4]

not sure how kodak treats its customers as if they are dumb, and i've never noticed any sort of "cupping".
i've been using their film for decades. we are lucky they are still around.
sure they don't advertise much, huy fong foods has never advertises their sriracha sauce and they seem to be doing well

 

[Kino]

I developed a roll of T-Max 100 a couple weeks ago, and it was almost as bad as Tri-X.

I think most C-41 films dry flat, right?

Sounds like you are over drying your film. Do you use a heated dryer?

 

[Smaug01]

Sounds like you are over drying your film. Do you use a heated dryer?

No, this is just hanging it up after squeegeeing. Humidity is very low in my part of the world in winter, sometimes getting down to 10%. It's not as bad as desert, but not far off either.

 

[Kino]

No, this is just hanging it up after squeegeeing. Humidity is very low in my part of the world in winter, sometimes getting down to 10%. It's not as bad as desert, but not far off either.

Yes, that could be it. If the humidity gets below 30% in our lab, the film curls so bad it can start tearing up in the printers. Film wants at least 50% RH in a working environment.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

In winter I have my space heater on which makes the space drier...around 40% RH. The films that I have been using have slightly more curl then than in summer, due to the higher humidity. I love the dryness during winter, as it's makes for easier carbon transfer printing!

 

[pentaxuser]

Ilford products seem to be more expensive in the UK than they are in the US.
Which merely highlights the fact that pricing has more to do with distribution issues than almost anything else.
.

Matt, I always thought that distribution costs had as two of its fairly important costs, distance and the logistics needed. I still scratch my head about what makes distributing on one small island not quite as big as Texas more expensive than crossing 3000+ miles of water then distributing product over a land that is about as large as the water

pentaxuser

 

[macfred]

Matt, I always thought that distribution costs had as two of its fairly important costs, distance and the logistics needed. I still scratch my head about what makes distributing on one small island not quite as big as Texas more expensive than crossing 3000+ miles of water then distributing product over a land that is about as large as the water

pentaxuser

Let's wait and see what Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson can do for the British film folks ...

 

[pentaxuser]

Let's wait and see what Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson can do for the British film folks ...

Well said. The famous British sense of humour has clearly infiltrated and infected the continent of Europe. I take it you use such comments when you need your daughter to smile for a portrait. It certainly worked for me. Five minutes later I am still smiling

pentaxuser

 

[warden]

I'm pretty sure Kodak doesn't think you're dumb, and they definitely want your business. In my opinion they make the finest range of films in the world, and are priced to keep the company afloat.

As for the cupping, I assume you're putting the negatives in sleeves, right? If you press them in a book overnight you should find flat negatives in the morning. My humidity swings may not be as large as yours but whatever cupping I see from any brand is easily remedied with patience and gravity.