PDA

View Full Version : Transitioning to Ilford



Pages : 1 [2]

2F/2F
08-07-2011, 07:43 PM
I wrote that because you said you'd try some DD-X for your next roll because the Ilfosol wasn't to your liking.

My point was that a developer change will likely serve you worse than trying a change in routine with the developer you are already using. In other words, it wasn't the fault if Ilfosol in and of itself. Every material takes trial and error to nail down, and one cannot do that by trying once and then switching to something else.

Ottrdaemmerung
08-07-2011, 08:23 PM
Ilfosol 3 is better with conventional films, like Tri-X, FP4+, HP5+, etc. DD-X is particularly suited for T-grained films like TMax and Ilford's Delta line.

viridari
08-07-2011, 08:25 PM
Ah ok gotcha. The guy at the camera shop didn't seem as familiar with pairing Ilford's film & developers. Thanks.

Roger Cole
08-07-2011, 08:59 PM
The great thing about Ilford is their products are available across all formats. I'll have no problem when I have to, for example, shoot HP5 in everything. I love TMY, but it's not available in 8x10 anymore. Tri-X isn't available in sheets at all.

But then again Ilford doesn't make color film...

Eh? I see 320 TXP listed everywhere I check.

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/1791367-Kodak-Tri-X-Pro-320-iso-4x5-50-sheets-TXP?cat_id=404

I don't believe that ISO 400 TX has ever been available in sheets.

No argument that Ilford makes great products.

jp498
08-07-2011, 09:47 PM
I've got Arista, Foma, and Ilford paper. They can all make decent images. The Ilford has the least drydown of my choices. Saves me time and materials even though the paper is a little more.

The Ilford MGRC warmtone (in dektol) is my favorite paper for the majority of prints. They've got something special that a generic silver paper does not have. Subjective choice I know, but I like it.

So I end up using the arista mostly for contact prints and the Ilford for enlargements. The foma makes good enlargements too, but it's more work to get things right with bigger drydown.

Nothing wrong with Ilford film, but I'm using Kodak TMY2 right now and sticking to it.

Been doing the Kodak Film and Ilford Paper combination for about 23 years now. Never was a huge fan of Kodak's polycontrast papers and didn't mind when it went away.

MattCarey
08-08-2011, 12:28 PM
If that was the only reason for Ilford's price increases, then the percentages of price rises should be similar to other manufacturers. But see my comment above. Their price rises in the past five years on paper are at least 4x the rises of my favorite competitor, Oriental. And it is NOT just products containing silver. Chemicals have gone up significantly, and the price of silver should have no effect on that. Some possible explanations floating around in my mind are as stated above: the business is suffering badly and they have figured that these are the prices they need to charge to stay afloat, or it is a premature attempt at positioning themselves for an "elite" group of film users.

The metric is not how much their prices have gone up. Recalling their film history, this tells us that their film used to be very cheap.

Compare prices today. Ilford is cheaper than Kodak for film (sorry, don't know paper off the top of my head).

5 years or so back, Ilford had really cheap prices. They were also supplying house brands (Arista, ultrafine, etc) who were selling at really low prices. Ilford had to reorganize.

There can be multiple reasons for the price increase. One just might be their interest in having a sustainable business.

Vilk
08-08-2011, 01:39 PM
Ilfosol 3 is better with conventional films, like Tri-X, FP4+, HP5+, etc. DD-X is particularly suited for T-grained films like TMax and Ilford's Delta line.

:pouty:


Ah ok gotcha. The guy at the camera shop didn't seem as familiar with pairing Ilford's film & developers. Thanks.

Having developed the last 300 rolls or so of HP5+ in DD-X, with occasional abortive attempts to find a better combination, I am puzzled as to what Ottrdaemmerung might mean by "particularly suited." HP5+ and DD-X is a match made in heaven. Pleasing, well-defined grain, a curve that never ends, with both highlights and shadows recoverable all the way to the other other side of the rainbow. Delta looks nowhere near as good in DD-X.

Hmmm... A bit subjective perhaps? Sure it is. That's what the forum is for, no?

:cool:

SafetyBob
10-04-2011, 01:00 PM
Vilk, I am new to developing. If I was to tell you I am specifically going to stay with Delta 100, and HP5+ for 99% of what I am going to do, what developer would you recommend for me. Remember, I am a noob and I will more than likely stay at boxed speed on the film. Add Delta 3200 to the mix, same developer?

Bob E.

Роберт
10-04-2011, 01:14 PM
I would combine it with DD-X and when you want a cheaper developer alternative: Microphen or Xtol. But last two are powder developers and they have less convenience then DD-X which is a liquid concentrate.
But also Kodak HC-110 (also a liquid concentrate) would be a pretty good choice. For the rest it's a matter of taste. Some people like e.g. HP5+ and Rodinal, some people hate it (too much grain). But of course it's also depending on the film format.

hpulley
10-04-2011, 01:26 PM
Liquid ease of use: DD-X with those three films.


Vilk, I am new to developing. If I was to tell you I am specifically going to stay with Delta 100, and HP5+ for 99% of what I am going to do, what developer would you recommend for me. Remember, I am a noob and I will more than likely stay at boxed speed on the film. Add Delta 3200 to the mix, same developer?

Bob E.

SafetyBob
10-04-2011, 01:43 PM
Thanks Harry, was reading on the Ilford website. Noticed that the DD-X was specifically recommended for the Delta line of films and am I correct that HP5+ delveloped with DD-X will be fine to as would I even know the difference between DD-X and HC-10 in the beginning?

Bob E.

markbarendt
10-04-2011, 02:00 PM
Thanks Harry, was reading on the Ilford website. Noticed that the DD-X was specifically recommended for the Delta line of films and am I correct that HP5+ delveloped with DD-X will be fine to as would I even know the difference between DD-X and HC-10 in the beginning?

Bob E.

I use DD-X for all my B&W film, works great.

SafetyBob
10-04-2011, 02:17 PM
Mark, do you keep you films to box speeds only or do you push/pull much? If so, how what film and how much....

Bob E.

hpulley
10-04-2011, 02:22 PM
You may or may not notice a difference, should be slightly finer grain with DD-X but HC-110 is fine for those films too.

SafetyBob
10-04-2011, 02:43 PM
Got it...thanks.

Bob E.

hpulley
10-04-2011, 03:40 PM
And by the way, using Delta 3200 at "box speed" is in fact a push though the suggested times take that into account. I and most others recommend using the next highest time, e.g. Shoot it at 3200 but develop it using the time for 6400 instead.

HP5+ and Delta 400, even FP4+ can be pushed well with DD-X or HC-110. I actually shoot FP4+ at 200 a fair bit and it comes out nicely.

markbarendt
10-04-2011, 03:51 PM
Mark, do you keep you films to box speeds only or do you push/pull much? If so, how what film and how much....

Bob E.

I do push or pull here and there. I have come to like 100 to 400 speed film's close to box speed best.

I use the Deltas most but have HP5, FP4, TXP, TX, & plus x, in the fridge gathered up both second hand and new.

Don't get hung up here in other peoples opinions or agonizing over your choices here though.

Why you say?

Well consider Delta 3200. It's not really a 3200 speed film, it's a 1000 speed film, Kodak's 3200 too. Shooting and developing for 3200 is a push. My norm with 3200 speed film is shoot at "x" develop at "x+1".

Delta 100 for me needs less than normal development, Delta 400 needs normal times.

There are a variety of reasons this might be, including my mood. ;)

You need to experiment (read that as print) to see what works best for you.

DD-X is great for me regardless of which way I shoot, but it's not a magic bullet. Same goes for the all the rest.

waynecrider
10-04-2011, 04:37 PM
I picked up Ilfosol 3 about 3-4 months back and have used it with Neopan 100 and like the combination so far. I see no point in going back to my usual 5L quantities of Xtol. The Xtol would go bad as my usage is low so I started keeping a Qt in the refrigerator but it was precipitating out of solution and Ilfosol doesn't. If you keep with Ilfosol order 3 small 12oz brown bottles next time around. Two will be full and the third you can work out of.

waynecrider
10-15-2011, 10:21 AM
I picked up Ilfosol 3 about 3-4 months back and have used it with Neopan 100 and like the combination so far. I see no point in going back to my usual 5L quantities of Xtol. The Xtol would go bad as my usage is low so I started keeping a Qt in the refrigerator but it was precipitating out of solution and Ilfosol doesn't. If you keep with Ilfosol order 3 small 12oz brown bottles next time around. Two will be full and the third you can work out of.

Make that 2- 250ml amber bottles or 4- 125ml bottles.