The Audi brand isn't percived the same as Ford. If we want to use automotive analogies, would you pay twice as much for a Chev Silverado as a Ford 150, when similarly equipped (or vice versa)? Objectively if we relate it back to film, there isn't much difference in terms of technology between HP5 and Tri-X or Delta and TMax.
I would venture that more people in Canada would be influenced to buy a particular film - say Ilford - if they cross promoted with a hockey team than if they identified their brand as being from a foreign country - England.
We might share a titular head of state, and a shared history from times gone by, but Canada has much closer ties to the US.
I would venture that more people in Canada would be influenced to buy a particular film - say Ilford - if they cross promoted with a hockey team than if they identified their brand as being from a foreign country - England.
We might share a titular head of state, and a shared history from times gone by, but Canada has much closer ties to the US.
I was thinking the same thing. None of the Canadian photographers I know have ever chosen a film based on country of manufacture. They will choose based on price, availability, or characteristics of the film, but not where it's made. Choice based on country of orign seems to be very much an American only thing.Canadians don't really have an equivalent of the predilection for.... "buying American"
Rochester, NY is very close to Canada.
Now that's funny Matt. But I'd say geographically closer, but not that close....
Canadians don't really have an equivalent of the predilection for.... "buying American"
I was thinking the same thing. None of the Canadian photographers I know have ever chosen a film based on country of manufacture. They will choose based on price, availability, or characteristics of the film, but not where it's made. Choice based on country of orign seems to be very much an American only thing.
That is because they are too busy being in Canadian Tire on the weekends for some undiscovered reason. Maybe it is a social thing to do. Go figure.
.That is because they are too busy being in Canadian Tire on the weekends for some undiscovered reason. Maybe it is a social thing to do. Go figure.
Not to mention my favorite (name): Piggly Wigglybeats Walmart.
And Toronto is at roughly the same latitude as Northern California.
Some of Canadian Kodak's 106 years of history: https://library.torontomu.ca/asc/2015/01/kodak-in-toronto-1899-2005-a-century-of-traces/
I see Kodak was on King Street. Any relationship?
Sounds as if it is time to tell "The folks in Mobberley", MattI would venture that more people in Canada would be influenced to buy a particular film - say Ilford - if they cross promoted with a hockey team than if they identified their brand as being from a foreign country - England.
Gotcha! For me the value is that i prefer to work from Tri-x or TMY negatives... At least we have a choice. I LOVE FP4+..... but HP5 has always left me indifferent.
I decided to move entirely to Ilford products last year, after their most recent price increase. I saw the writing on the wall and realized Kodak's films would soon exceed my budget. In March - if the price forecast is accurate, there will be no more Kodak film in my future. $10 a roll of 120 film is the most I will pay.
I can still buy FP4 for under $8 a roll, so you can see why I've opted to buy Ilford, not Kodak. No, FP4 ain't the same as T-Max, but I'm totally happy with FP4, so...
I think it is because I scan my film. Then it is very easy to make adjustments to get the look I want. So for better or for worse, a lot of the time it doesn't really matter what B&W film I use.
Once I get back to real printing in a darkroom, then I think the differences/nuances in film used will become much more apparent. I am looking forward to that (hopefully soon) day!
I understand that one one of those Buildings still exists, and it was moved to a new location., to accomidate a transit plan. Most Kodak film sold in canada when that site was in operation came in packages marked Canadian Kodak, and the edge print was often KODAK SA'FETY Film.This is an aerial photo of the Camera Heights site inn 1996 - basically at its maximum.
I only print in the darkroom and I like HP5+ just fine. I'd wager that I can produce results with it or Tri-X in 120 (maybe not in 35mm) that I'd find completely indistinguishable.
There seems to be a lot of complaining that HP5+ is "flat." I can't help but wonder if some of those folks are just slavishly adhering to published development times?
I understand that one one of those Buildings still exists, and it was moved to a new location., to accomidate a transit plan.
Most Kodak film sold in canada when that site was in operation came in packages marked Canadian Kodak
I think I felt like it was "flat" when I first used it, too, especially as my first roll was scanned by the lab and I'm guessing they don't mess with it much. Definitely less contrasty than the kodak. I dev and scan myself now, so it's not just the lab. I ended up with an extra minute over the published xtol times. Someone here told me to try it, so I know I'm not alone.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Ilford and Kodak targets for contrast in their suggested development times differ in that way - the Kodak target is slightly higher.
I think it is because I scan my film. Then it is very easy to make adjustments to get the look I want. So for better or for worse, a lot of the time it doesn't really matter what B&W film I use.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?