• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

In a world without Tri-X...

Regular Rod said:
FACT: Kodak could also choose a less curly substrate to make its 120 roll films out of.

RR
Click to expand...

Everything else aside... I was surprised by the above sentiment. I've shot hundreds of rolls of TMax 400 120 roll film (not to mention other Kodak 120 roll film) and never had any curl to my negatives.

I am currently transitioning to all Ilford films and paper based on their support, service, quality and commitment to B&W photography. That being said Kodak's current films are certainly not lacking in quality, as even their competitors have attested.
 
Shawn Dougherty said:
Everything else aside... I was surprised by the above sentiment. I've shot hundreds of rolls of TMax 400 120 roll film (not to mention other Kodak 120 roll film) and never had any curl to my negatives.
Click to expand...

Me too. I'm no Kodak fanboy, heck I'm a film whore and use everything and anything but I've shot a lot of Tri-X and Tmax in 120 and never had any curl issues with either. Not with Ilford 120 either. Or eyether. ;-)
 

I'm American. Yes Kodak does come up short compared to Ilford in customer care/communication. We're used to mega-corporations being unpredictable in this regard, but still appreciate the small/medium size business emphasis on customer care and communication.

I have no problem with curl with Kodak 120 film in TMY2/Portra 160/Ektar 100, or Ilford FP4+
 
Shawn Dougherty said:
Everything else aside... I was surprised by the above sentiment. I've shot hundreds of rolls of TMax 400 120 roll film (not to mention other Kodak 120 roll film) and never had any curl to my negatives.
Click to expand...

Same here. I haven't really had any curl issues with 120 from anyone.
And count me as a quietly gushy American fangirl for Ilford, though I use Kodak, too. Basically, I'll use whatever film fits in the camera in my hand at the time. But TMax100 and Tri-X are go-tos as are HP5+, SFX, Delta 100, XP2 super, and Fuji Acros. In the darkroom, it's all Ilford. And my darkroom is still in PA while I'm in IA and I'm ticked I'll have to wait awhile to use the new papers from Ilford.

As to price differences, I'd guess that tariffs and government policies may have something to do with that. Sucks, but not easy to change.
 

Nice one...

RR
 
On my recent sojourn into B&W I've tried a few different brands - Ilford, Kodak, & Fuji (and some Rollei, which I've not quite worked out yet). I do find something I like in each, and will continue to use each. I definitely like Tri-X. However, I find I tend towards Ilford, using it the most simply because I find I like it best.
 

Truly a love story for the ages. Thanks for this post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I'm with Winger. Maybe if I had been shooting film much earlier in life, it would be a different story. But when i started (a little over a year ago), ilford was there with both information and product. My uncle -- who is both brilliant and an amazing photographer, and whose help/insight/advice/hand-me-down equipment has been invaluable -- was the one who suggested I give tri-x a shot.

I shoot primarily single object type stuff - faces, lines, etc. I don't do landscapes or 'broad look' shots. Definitely a tree shooter rather than a forest shooter. I dabble in colour on occasion (portra 160 or 800), but mostly stick to b&w.

And I heartily agree with what many have said re: Ilford and service. For an auto-didact, their PDFs and how-to's have been invaluable.

And I dearly love tri-x. That said, I would like very much a faster film that has the feel of D100 - softer, finer grain. I've wondered about pushing D100 and then developing in, say, Microphen or Perceptol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Ilford D3200 is all that's left in the fast speed films, kodak dropped their P3200 line too... I would admit that, though I love ilford, the two films had a different look, and I did like the P3200 more for low light model scenes, but the D3200 for low light landscapes and product style object photography in low light interiors.

It's fairly fine grained for the speed.

If you don't need quite that much speed, you can shoot Kodak TMY-2 at 800 and NOT have to adjust times/push in development, it's quite flexible in that regard.

It took me a little while to understand how TMY-2 worked, because I tend to push my films, but with TMY-2 you should use standard listed times and you'll be ok shooing at 800. It's very fine grained.

HP5+ can also be shot this way but is grainier.

Hope that helps.
 


Kodak is/was far more international than Ilford.

There are tens/hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people in the world who at one time worked for Kodak but weren't in the USA. And in their time, all of the Kodak's customer care and support was legendary - I would hazard a guess that Ilford (as it then was) learned a lot about customer care and support from those Kodaks.

Sadly, the market has changed precipitously, Harman employs far fewer people than Ilford once did, and the various international Kodaks have either disappeared or are a tiny fraction of what they once were. And the still film part of Kodak is more closely connected with Kodak Limited than Eastman Kodak.

But at least Kodak black and white films don't curl (when handled properly).
 
rich815 said:
Let's agree on one thing: Ilford's gummed labels taste the best.
Click to expand...

mmmm It's amazing! Tomato soup, I can feel it running down my throat! ... It's changing... roast beef and baked potato. Crispy skin and butter! !
And I can almost taste the blueberry pie for dessert !

ilford is lucky, they contracted willie wonka
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lets see;
1. Kodak TMX 100 by the bucketloads in 120 and 35mm
2. Ilford Delta Pro 3200 by the bunches in 120 and 35mm
3. Ilford HP5+ for 4x5 and 8x10.
4. Kodak D-76 by the gallon
5. Ilford Ilfotec DDX by the liter.
6. Kodak HC110 (by the liter now.)
7. Rodinal in various brands.
8. Arista Fixer by the gallon.
9. Kodak Photo Flo by the bottle.

After that most of it comes from anyone or any store that is having a sale (and I am not usually too picky).
 
And I feel like I should add - When I was first shooting with a 35mm, it was always Tri-X, developed in D-76. I didn't know there was anything else until college - and still shot Tri-X mostly then. If I have Tri-X in my dad's old Pentax, I don't need a meter. It wasn't until I started getting serious about printing (around 1998) that I started using Ilford paper and started branching out in film, too. It was really discovering APUG that got me using other films (not to mention branching out in sizes). It's pretty easy to not know other brands exist if you shop at physical stores that are small with low inventory. Yay for discovering Freestyle!
 

Well your midtones which are nice would be difficult D100 is ok in Microphen @Ilfords 100ISO time and temp providing you bracket or have low contrast and meter at 200ISO or less. Microphen does not do much more for D100 than ID11. Perceptol will slow it relative to ID11.

Pushing will leave difficult shadows and midtones.

Or that is what I get, never use Perceptol, I like grain, tri-x and HP5 ok films.
 

Small world. I'm originally from Elizabethton, TN and worked from 2001-2003 for a company contracting with Eastman (which I never called "the" Eastman, as that seems to be a Kingsport-only name.)

Anyway, hi from another TN transplant.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Um...I love Ilford products BUT...

I would even agree that, during my tenure in photography at least since the early 80s, Ilford has always made better PAPERS in a wider range of choices than Kodak, and that they currently make a wider range of FILMS, I can't agree that Ilford films are "better" than Kodak's. HP5+ is (less than we let on most of the time though) different from Tri-X but I wouldn't call either better. And I like the Delta films fine but I still prefer TMX and TMY-2. Kodak makes nothing like Pan F+, FP4+ (now that Plus-X is gone, but they did in the form of Plus-X) or XP2 though.

Even in papers there were some exceptionally good Kodak ones like Ektalure and Elite, but I never liked Kodak's polycontrast offerings as much as Ilford's MG ones.
 
The great yellow father is not what he once was, but as long as building 38 cranks out Tri-X that is what I will be using.

In a world without Tri-X I'd shoot HP5+ (Ilford Tri-x), when I run out of Plus-X I'll shoot FP4.

Be thankful that we still have film, shoot what you like and be happy there are still choices.
 
rich815 said:
Let's agree on one thing: Ilford's gummed labels taste the best.
Click to expand...

Personally I have always favored Fujifilim's 120 rolls due to the adhesive that they used. I cant figure out why Kodak and Ilford have not copied that.
 

well Kodak still make Double-X in 5222 quite similar to FP4 and they still make a mono C41 film like XP2 -
BW400CN, or they did up to a few weeks ago.
 
RattyMouse said:
Personally I have always favored Fujifilim's 120 rolls due to the adhesive that they used. I cant figure out why Kodak and Ilford have not copied that.
Click to expand...

Can we not stick to the topic?
 
The BW400CN is not functionally equivalent to XP2+. The Kodak film has an orange mask intended for machine enprints on colour RA4-paper while the Ilford film is just a dye image on plain filmbase - much more practical for black-and-white darkroom work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register