In a world without Tri-X...

[Dinesh]

Well said, Simon. Thank you for sharing that.

Viva HP5+!

Who is this Simon fellow?

 

[Tom1956]

Who is this Simon fellow?

Simon works for Ilford.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

Who is this Simon fellow?

You know, the things he draws come true!

 

[Pioneer]

Thanks Simon. Your input is always interesting...and always informative.

 

[VaryaV]

Much sound advice on photographing children. Mine are 2, 5, and 14 and I really only subject them to planned group shots once a year. The oldest (who also is an analog shooter!) can be easily bribed to sit with promises of film. The other two are pretty much catch as catch can. Here is a shot of my oldest:

You can probably guess this is tri-x. Was also still adjusting a bit to the change from 6x6 to 645. All that extra space!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is lovely, Ruby!

 

[rubyfalls]

Wait you shot these a while ago? Or you actually took my advice? Lol

Shot on Sunday and one today. I'm madly trying to get holiday gifts done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rubyfalls]

Space heaters. I have an electric oil filled radiator type that keeps my darkroom comfy all winter. No AC for summer though when temps even in my basement can be in the upper 70s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wondered about using one. I'm just worried about the room getting too dry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rubyfalls]

use plastic basin with water for tempering and wollen top over blouse

hypo eliminator and minimum water wash

when the ice melts you will be sorry

Yup. I LOVE winter. Or what passes for it where I live. I'm going to bundle up and head up to the darkroom tonight!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rubyfalls]

Squeeee!!! Simon posted on my thread! And don't let this thread fool you -- I DO shoot a ton of tri-x, but other than that I am a gushing ilford fangirl.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rubyfalls]

This is lovely, Ruby!

Thank you so much! I'm very lucky to have such photogenic offspring.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rubyfalls]

Dear All,


Simon : ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

Gushing aside, pretty much everything i have learned since i started into film is either from APUG or Ilford's site. Though for me the Kodak connection is quite real. My family is from east TN, so I have numerous relative who worked, once upon a time, for "the Eastman." One of these days i will finagle my way onto the Eastman site and photograph my heart out. Seriously, it is a site to behold - something straight out of a 20th c sci fi flick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

Thanks Simon!!! awesome response!

 

[Simon R Galley]

I don't think we have ever had a 'gushing ILFORD fangirl' before......always nice to have something new in our 132 year history !

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited.

 

[Regular Rod]

So, I had a bit of a panic today. None of my usual sources had Tri-X 120 in stock. NONE. Normally, I'd be all zen and just wait for it to be available, but I actually need it by the 19th. Eventually I did find it, for more than I'd prefer, but those in need have to take what they can get. But I did ponder what I would have used instead.

My first thought was T-Max. But while I like T-Max for certain things, it would not have given me the look I wanted. At least, not the way I normally shoot it. I've only used Ilford and Kodak BNW film; maybe I'm missing out?

What would you use if you wanted to use Tri-X but couldn't? Would you change how you shot or developed?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There is a natural tendency for Americans to be very loyal to the Kodak products, which can blindfold folk from seeing the advantages of choosing a manufacturer whose very reason to exist is black and white analogue photography. For black and white, Ilford makes better films, in a wider range of choices than Kodak ever did. It is with envy that I notice you can buy Ilford films in America at much lower prices than we in England have to pay. Very frustrating when it seems that generally the American photographers are oblivious to their good fortune and still continue to prefer the inferior, but home grown product.

RR

 

[Xmas]

Dear All,

I have read through this thread :

Firstly : NO I cannot imagine a world without Tri-X, from the outset, its a great film, always was, still is, but I am partisan obviously so I love HP5+ more...which I do.

Simon : ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

Hi Simon

Real nice of you to express sympathy.
Lots of my friends have been scarred by eg Plus-x, but if not enough people were stocking it then it dies.
Which one is next?
Alaris are doing strange things in my opinion which may not help them with market share in mono or colour.
Time will tell.
Seasons greetings

Noel
P.S. Im hanging up my stocking in the hope that Rudolph brings me 1000 foot of HP5 cine...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

There is a natural tendency for Americans to be very loyal to the Kodak products, which can blindfold folk from seeing the advantages of choosing a manufacturer whose very reason to exist is black and white analogue photography. For black and white, Ilford makes better films, in a wider range of choices than Kodak ever did. It is with envy that I notice you can buy Ilford films in America at much lower prices than we in England have to pay. Very frustrating when it seems that generally the American photographers are oblivious to their good fortune and still continue to prefer the inferior, but home grown product.

RR

Funny man. The best thing about having both Ilford and Kodak is that it offers choice. Better or worse? I'm afraid that's a thing of taste and what we love. There are no absolutes, unless you'd like to measure granularity, resolution, and other boring things like that.

I have been shooting mostly Tri-X for a year or two now, bar a few rolls of free film from some kind souls. It's wonderful film. Prior to that I had a short affair with HP5+ and shot about 50 rolls of it, and before that it was TMax 400 for about 4 years. I enjoy printing all those negatives equally, and it's no problem at all making series of prints looking coherent and like they belong together. My idea with HP5+ was to learn how to use it, as a Plan B, in case Kodak folded, but I'd be just as happy shooting that as my main film as anything else. Maybe my next film purchase will be 50 roll box from B&H.

 

[Regular Rod]

I'm all for choice Thomas.

RR

 

[Regular Rod]

I agree with much of what you say. Kodak used to make the most wonderful chloride and chlorobromide papers. Sadly "used to" doesn't help us now. My remarks are based on today and are concerning black and white materials only...

From a practical perspective alone, Ilford roll film is much easier to handle. It lays flat whereas other roll films curl. From a long term perspective Ilford is going forward and is still developing products. Kodak, like Fuji, has a history of dropping products. In the UK, Ilford films, although more expensive than in America, are still less expensive than Kodak films. Technical support and advice from Ilford is available, comprehensive and accessible. Whereas with Kodak it is perfunctory and static.

Taking all into consideration today, it must surely be agreed that the offer from Kodak is inferior compared to the offer from Ilford.

RR

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Taking all into consideration today, it must surely be agreed that the offer from Kodak is inferior compared to the offer from Ilford.

This is a thread about celebrating the fact that Tri-X IS still available, enriching the market.

'Best' is an epithet that exists in the realm of personal choice. I can show you granularity and resolution figures for TMax 400 and compare it to Delta 400. Or TMax 100 and compare it to Delta 100. And easily draw the conclusion that Kodak is better than Ilford. But I won't. Because it doesn't matter.

You'd be far better off if you simply claimed what you say as your opinion. Arguing over who is best will get us absolutely nowhere.

 

[Dinesh]

I don't think we have ever had a 'gushing ILFORD fangirl' before..

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited.

What about Carnie?

 

[Regular Rod]

This is a thread about celebrating the fact that Tri-X IS still available, enriching the market.

'Best' is an epithet that exists in the realm of personal choice. I can show you granularity and resolution figures for TMax 400 and compare it to Delta 400. Or TMax 100 and compare it to Delta 100. And easily draw the conclusion that Kodak is better than Ilford. But I won't. Because it doesn't matter.

You'd be far better off if you simply claimed what you say as your opinion. Arguing over who is best will get us absolutely nowhere.

Well that is a very interesting way of interpreting the original post. It seemed to me to be a thread of concern over what will happen if Tri-X disappeared from the market, hardly a celebration. I think we can agree that it would be a bad thing if it happened.

On a forum it goes without saying that every post is purely the opinion of the poster. There was no argument when I posted. The argument began when the post was contradicted (by another opinion of course).

RR

 

[Regular Rod]

I think all that can be said is the offer is smaller. Everything else would have to be a matter of opinion. Objectively, it simply cannot be argued the current line of TMax films (for example) are inferior products. In fact the opposite could be a defensible position. The same goes for something like XTOL. And I say these things as someone who uses plenty of Ilford products and supports them.

All you can really say is you prefer Ilford's stuff to Kodak's.

It would be more accurate to say that I prefer the black and white package from Ilford. It is more comprehensive than any other, not just Kodak's.

RR

 

[Regular Rod]

Trash talk? Do you mean criticism? Are we to stay silent for fear the world will shun Kodak and all will be lost?

In response to your demands here are a couple of facts.

FACT: Kodak has a lot to learn from Ilford, particularly in customer care and support.

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

BTW this vituperous defence of Kodak does rather confirm my original assertion about many American photographers.

RR

 

[pstake]

I will be glad to dispense facts about which film is best. It will be a list in order of best to less best.

I am also happy to give facts about who you should vote for and which church to attend. Just send me a pm.

In all seriousness: I heart Tri-x AND I also heart Delta 100. I'm kind of thinking this could be a movie script; a man torn between two loves on different continents, conveniently bouncing back and forth between the two depending on the season, light and time of day. I think Clooney could play me but maybe Clive Owen would be better.

Anyone have an opinion?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Trash talk? Do you mean criticism? Are we to stay silent for fear the world will shun Kodak and all will be lost?

In response to your demands here are a couple of facts.

FACT: Kodak has a lot to learn from Ilford, particularly in customer care and support.

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

BTW this vituperous defence of Kodak does rather confirm my original assertion about many American photographers.

RR

I'm Swedish.