Kodak vs. Ilford - Film ranges

[fhovie]

HP5 has a very muttled grain pattern compared to the very pointilated pattern of TRI-X. For enlargability, I think HP5 is a little nicer with smoother tones where TRI-X is sharper and punchier and grainier. I am sure that HP5 runs out of steam past ASA 1600 where TRI-X keeps on going. I keep both on hand. All my LF 4x5 and 8x10 is TRI-X - I do shoot some FP4 in 4x5 sometimes - less grainy for large prints. All my LF goes in Pyrocat these days and stainability is better with TRI-X than any of the Tab grain films. FP4 and APX100 are the only ASA 100 films I shoot in 120. Both are great. Too bad I can't get APX 100 in 4x5 anymore - I have a lot of great negatives on that. I think APX100 is a little more contrasty and a little sharper than FP4 where FP4 does a better job on the midtones. Delta3200 is a clear winner over Kodak TMZ. Much finer grain - I avoid these films in favor of pushing TRI-X instead. Now that I am using Ascorbic developers for Roll Film, I am getting back into TMY. Full film speed and super fine grain with out the softened accutance is causing me to explore this film more. I know this film is not forgiving and that is why I fully explored traditional emulsions first. The tonal response in TMY is very different than HP5 or TRI-X. Like the difference between first generation B&W video and the B&W movies of the 50s. You could really tell the Twilight Zones that were shot using video tape. Is it better or worse? I am thinking for portraits it might be better but for lanscape, maybe the traditional look is warmer and less synthetic looking. Not to mention the fact that TRI-X can suck up a much higher brightness range.

How about that for a pile of subjective babling!

[georgeg]

I prefer the ilford films over anything in the yellow box. Ilford is in the b&w Buisness. kodak is more concerned with color films and the mass market, soccer moms ect. Good results can be obtained with kodak films but the b&w market is secondary.I agree with rbarker the b&w community is better served supporting Ilford.

[aldevo]

I don't buy the "Ilford is the purist option" and "Kodak is the evil mass-market option" viewpoint.

Simply, put history doesn't back it up. Ilford busted its tail trying to tackle C-41 films in the late 60's up until about 1980. And simply put, they couldn't hack it compared to Kodak, Fuji, and Agfa. So B&W was their only safe haven as competitors gave it less emphasis.

Also, if you review B&W product introductions over the past 8 years - what has Ilford delivered outside of DD-X (aka "expensive, liquid Microphen") and a revised Delta 400?

I'm not trying to slander Ilford. But, frankly, the David vs Goliath BS is a bit much.

And as for the "Kodak only cares about profits" stuff, Ilford is still owned by a London-based buyout firm named Doughty Hanson which has wrecked probably a dozen companies - including what were once some very fine names (Vickers Ltd, British Caledonian Plc, etc.). Ilford's stuff remained cheap only cuz Doughty Hanson was in a heck of a hurry to write-off their investment as the company went down the tank.

Again, nothing against Ilford but a review of the facts will give you a more balanced viewpoint.

As for myself, outside of Tri-X in 135 and 120 and DD-X (only because I can't get Microphen) I don't use products from either company because I feel I can get materials that suit my work better from other companies (AgfaPhoto, Forte, Photographer's Formulary, BKA, etc.)

[fschifano]

Thanks for that rather pragmatic reply. This business about which is the most "politically correct" company to patronize is pure BS. I wouldn't consider consider using Kodak's, Ilford's , AgfaPhoto's, or anyone else's products if they didin't work for me. OTOH, if it works and delivers good value for my money then I use it. Case closed. I could care less who provides the product as long as it meets my criteria for value.

[Roger Krueger]

My Tri-X vs. HP-5 experience with pushing was different than that of other posters. I shot a step chart with a variety of films, pushed them in several developers, and scored them on what exposure it took to separate the darkest set of steps, and how many of that set were actually resolved. Amongst 400's I found HP-5 to be a hair faster, with TMY and D400 in the middle, and Tri-X as the slowest, although the total spread from HP-5 to Tri-X was about a quarter stop. This relationship held up in XTOL 1:1 stand, Microphen, Acufine, T-Max RS and Speedibrews. There was, in fact, little speed difference between the developers, with T-Max RS being slightly (<1/4 stop) faster), but with zero compensation to control the highlights.

I also found that, while Delta 3200 and TMZ developed optimally were very close in speed, TMZ held its speed when overdeveloped, so there was a good sized development "sweet spot" where you got maximum shadow density; the D3200, however, was very prone to losing shadow detail in the base fog if overdeveloped, or even when developed for a reasonable time at too high a temperature (>68F). TMY and TMZ both worked fine at 90F!