Just replaced all Kodak Chemistry with Ilford

Jeffrey A. Steinberg · Jan 12, 2008

I finally did it. I figured if Kodak got rid of paper, I am going to back a company that is fully servicing us B&W traditionalists.

I am also trying their Tri-X equivalent but I think I might be buying Tri-X for a while.

BradS · Jan 12, 2008

you do realize that your rationale is completely irrational - right?

David A. Goldfarb · Jan 12, 2008

Ilford makes two fine 400 speed films, but they aren't really "Tri-X equivalents." HP-5+, Delta 400, Tri-X, and for that matter TMY, Neopan 400, and Fomapan 400 are all different films with their own distinctive looks. Shoot whatever is attractive to you.

Photo Engineer · Jan 12, 2008

To be exactly rational and logical, you would have to use Kodak film developers that you previously used and use their fixers, but never at a paper dilution. And, of course, to fully flesh this out, you could never use any Kodak color film or paper. If you are going to do it, do it right and with enough forethought to prevent this kind of nit picking.

PE

david b · Jan 12, 2008

At this point, I am using what ever is the cheapest chemistry.

Ian Grant · Jan 12, 2008

To Nit Pick, actually Ilford make 3 400 speed films - David forgot XP2

Luckily there are still a number of manufacturers left so you could make superb images quite happily if you want to totally stop using Kodak, but then Kodak remarkably for the last few years have slightly better B&W films than Ilford at least with Tmax100 & 400, others would add TriX.

So you have to compromise somewhere.

Ian

Jim Noel · Jan 12, 2008

ALthough I am as upset as anyone about Kodak's actions, I can not be this picky. I use HP5+ because I like it better than Tri-X, not because of Kodak actions.

I use some Kodak chemistry, some from Ilford, but basically make my own most of the time.

Photo Engineer · Jan 12, 2008

david b said:
At this point, I am using what ever is the cheapest chemistry.

David;

Do you use cheap chemistry or inexpensive chemistry. Not to put too much into this, there have been several threads on cheap chemistry.

PE

mikebarger · Jan 12, 2008

I understand and like posts about products based on there properties and qualities, knowing evreyone has a different taste. But, darn if I fully understand why these types of threads belong anywhere but in the lounge.

It's like I'm using Company A products because Company B did us wrong, how is that going to help any of us make better prints?

Mike

mikebarger · Jan 12, 2008

Ron,

I agree with cheap and inexpensive being different. While I'll not stop using Tri-X in 120, I did decide I had to try a brick of EFKE 120 to see what it was about.

I had more than my fair share a QA issues in ten rolls, so much so, I that I gave the rest of the brick away. I know others have shot hundreds of rolls wilth no issues.

Mike

jovo · Jan 12, 2008

Photo Engineer said:
David;

Do you use cheap chemistry or inexpensive chemistry. Not to put too much into this, there have been several threads on cheap chemistry.

PE

I realize that the word "chemistry" is the common term, but isn't "chemicals" the more accurate word?......just to keep the f63.5 nit picking alive!

david b · Jan 12, 2008

I mean inexpensive.

I use mostly Ilford film because I love it. I have some APX 100 that I too love and use it for those "special" projects.

I just won 150 sheets of fresh Kodak Tmax 400 4x5 for $55. I wanted to try it.

As for chemistry, I've been using Ilford MG developer and just got several bags of dektol for a very small price.

Same for fix. Been using Ilford. Just got a bit of Kodak stuff cheap.

So I like the quality stuff. I like it better when it's cheap.

But the one thing I don't mess with is paper. I love Ilford but they are pricing themselves out of my
reach for what I do. So I will have a look at Kentmere which is about half the price (for now).

CBG · Jan 12, 2008

I just can't get quite as ripped up about Kodak etc. Sure, Kodak has made some massively graceless moves. Kodak has angered and alienated a lot of people who have completely relied upon Kodak in the past. Dumping products with no warning to the folks who depend upon them for example. Despite that, it pays to remember that Kodak is facing a process that at best a painful and complete metamorphosis, and is more likely a near death experience.

I doubt I'd be graceful under the pressures that have beset the biggest makers of film etc.

It bears note that much of Kodak's massive scale of production probably can't scale down as neatly as just turning down a valve. Most complex high production process equipment can't just work part time. It's either on, full bore, or off. Kodak has been faced with endless ugly decisions about what people and products will be kept and what can't self sustain.

C

Photo Engineer · Jan 12, 2008

I have a brick of Ilford 120 here and lots of 35mm. But I have Kodak film as well.

But as far as chemistry and chemicals go, I guess I've gotten into the habit of referring to chemistry as the prepackaged stuff (because it has all of the chemicals in it to achieve a chemistry result) and I've used chemicals to refer to the scratch mix individual chemicals.

It is idiosyncratic with being in the industry so long. Sorry.

PE

Photo Engineer · Jan 12, 2008

As for Kodak, I am going to use the expression of Walt Fallon, CEO of EK before Fischer.

He said that running Kodak was like trying to make an elephant dance. Among other analogies was the effort to stay out from underfoot as this ponderous pachyderm danced or you would end up being stepped on.

They had a lovely picture (cartoon really) in one newspaper showing Walt trying to get the Elephant to dance while dancing on its back. (IIRC)

The point being that Kodak is sometimes graceless and sometimes tends to tread on toes. I've been on the inside and seen it take place to my great pain.

PE

Curt · Jan 12, 2008

I agree with cheap and inexpensive being different. While I'll not stop using Tri-X in 120, I did decide I had to try a brick of EFKE 120 to see what it was about.

I had more than my fair share a QA issues in ten rolls, so much so, I that I gave the rest of the brick away. I know others have shot hundreds of rolls wilth no issues.

The bottom line is that Ilford and Kodak products are of the highest quality possible.

DarkroomExperimente · Jan 12, 2008

I still love Kodak anyway

sometimes it seems like 50% of my photographic education was from calling the tech support line and asking a million questions.

I still remember calling to ask why TMZ wasn't available in 120. The guy agreed that it would be great if TMZ was made in 120, but pressure on the film from the rollers during manufacturing can fog the film...it's not an issue with 35mm because the film is held by the edges. I said "Oh well, I'll get over it."

The Kodak guy said "well I won't get over it!!!!!!! I think you and I should go protest in front of the marketing building"

JBrunner · Jan 12, 2008

I will use whatever fits the bill. I don't make my purchases based on vengeance, or emotion, or whatever. I make my photographic product decisions based on availability, cost, and effectiveness. Ilford makes great products, and I use many of them, that said, Kodak's remaining product line is probably the best quality in the world.

Renato Tonelli · Jan 12, 2008

I've been angry at the sudden elimination of products like HIE, etc. but Tri-x remains my favorite B&W film and as long as they keep making it, I will keep buying it and using it. Selectol-Soft is another product that I really like, not to mention X-TOL.
Product elimination has been a part of photography since its beginning: we have to keep rolling with the punches and sometimes stock up. It would be nice if they announced product changes in advance so that we would better prepare ourselves: they owe us, their customers, that much at the very least.

eddym · Jan 12, 2008

To cease buying Kodak analogue photography products is the best way to assure that Kodak will stop making them.

Is this what the OP wants to happen? Is this what any of us want to happen?

It's not what I want to happen.

Full disclosure: I use both Ilford and Kodak film and chemicals. I prefer some products of one, and some of the other. I'm very happy that we still have what we have from each.

23mjm · Jan 12, 2008

I have moved away from Kodak and to Ilford also---the main reason is that Ilford is making a commitment to the B&W arts and as such I am going to use their products. Kodak does still make some nice stuff--but my move to Ilford was/is on my terms not being forced to move because Kodak stopped making something and now I need to find some replacement. As far as logical and rational I don't think there is a more logical and/or rational reason to make the move. As far as quality I have never found a difference between Kodak and Ilford, both top notch.

So good for you---you saw the light that is coming---the yellow father (as some have called Kodak) seams to be turning tail and running holding true to the yellow part

Photo Engineer · Jan 12, 2008

And, of course, posts such as the OP only reinforce Kodak's opinion of APUG and keep them from full participation instead of just lurking.

PE

removed account4 · Jan 12, 2008

Jeffrey A. Steinberg said:
I finally did it. I figured if Kodak got rid of paper, I am going to back a company that is fully servicing us B&W traditionalists.

I am also trying their Tri-X equivalent but I think I might be buying Tri-X for a while.

if it works for you, that is great!
i have a few pouches of kodak developers
selectol, dektol, dk50 but that is it.
but i use sprint fix ( have since 1981 )
and i pretty much only use ansco 130 for my film and paper
( with or without coffee, cream and sugar )

john

Uncle Bill · Jan 12, 2008

I use a mixture of Kodak and Ilford Products these days. I love Plus-X, Tri-X the same as FP4 and HP5, I prefer Kodak developers like D-76 and Dektol but I prefer Ilfostop and Rapidfix for the back half of the process.

As much as Big Yellow Father perplexes me with their communication strategy sometimes, you can't go wrong with their products. If they disappear tomorrow I know how to use FP4 and HP5, I can switch to ID-11 without too much fuss and I will have to find a new print developer, no big deal.

23mjm · Jan 12, 2008

PE----I was making a funny hence the smiley face but I digress---Kodak has the same access to APUG as anyone else yet I do not recall seeing any posts from them. I would love it if they would get on the site and participate. Information will go along way in shutting me up If I knew that Kodak was at least trying to make a commitment to the arts then I would use their products. Arguably they are the company that has had he biggest impact on the art that I love!!!

Just replaced all Kodak Chemistry with Ilford

Jeffrey A. Steinberg

BradS

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Photo Engineer

david b

Ian Grant

Jim Noel

Photo Engineer

mikebarger

mikebarger

jovo

Membership Council

david b

CBG

Photo Engineer

Photo Engineer

Curt

DarkroomExperimente

JBrunner

Moderator

Renato Tonelli

eddym

23mjm

Photo Engineer

removed account4

Uncle Bill

23mjm

Just replaced all Kodak Chemistry with Ilford

Moderator

Membership Council

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency