Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,294   Posts: 1,535,495   Online: 988
      
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 51
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,054
    [QUOTE=B&Wpositive;1402124] Maybe it's finally time to go and buy that used Mamiya 645 body and a lens or two to shoot the Ilford film in 120. QUOTE]

    I think you'll like the Ilford in 120, I do, but I don't shoot much of it. I mostly have Tri-X on hand to shoot "normally" or soup in diafine @1250 EI. The Delta 3200 in 120 gets pushed into the corner of "when I really need the speed".

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    middle of nowhere
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    18
    I fear the next piece will be 800 Color... sigh..

    "and so it goes" (KV)

  3. #23
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,864
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    Every day, Clay, I wonder exactly the same, and right now there is nothing but a little stump left of the Kodak leg. Four black and white films now, Tri-X 400 roll, Tri-X 320 sheet, Tmax 100 and 400. No chromes, but Portra 160/400, Ektar, and a couple of consumer films. It's becoming a very thin herd, and Ilford is by far the most diverse from a total product standpoint. It's very sad.
    Welll...that's about what we had in Kodak black and white when I started out. There were three films in 35mm, Pan-X, Plus-X, and Tri-X. I couldn't afford to shoot medium or large format at the time but I know there was also Verichrome pan in 120 and Ektapan in sheets. I think that was about it for general purpose films. Color negative had the consumer Kodacolor (ASA 80) and pro Vericolor, types S and L. In slide film you could choose from Kodachrome 25 and 64 and Ektachrome at 64 and High Speed Ektachrome at 160, plus tungsten versions of the latter two films.

    I'm not saying I'm liking the current situation, as I've sure enjoyed the abundant choices that were created in the meantime. Kodak has all but made itself irrelevant to me in black and white now. I love Tri-X, and that's the only reason it isn't irrelevant. I shoot TMY-2 in 4x5 but don't have to. If Kodak quit making 4x5 I'd shrug and go to HP5+ (and maybe drop Ilford a line begging for Delta 400 in sheets again, but use HP5+ until that happened.) We have Ilford and Foma and some coated in Germany films from Adox, plus Acros and the reported return of Neopan 400 in both 35mm and 120. On the whole black and white is doing better than I feared it would be with the digital onslaught.

  4. #24
    Photo-gear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Montréal (Québec)
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    308
    Images
    9
    It looks like a slow death. If they wanted to keep the film division alive or sell it, they would try to keep alive a larger spectrum of films. Why don't they just shut down the whole division, instead of fooling around?

    IMHO, they should just make up their mind with one clear avenue, so the users would know what to do.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,544
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo-gear View Post
    It looks like a slow death. If they wanted to keep the film division alive or sell it, they would try to keep alive a larger spectrum of films. Why don't they just shut down the whole division, instead of fooling around?

    IMHO, they should just make up their mind with one clear avenue, so the users would know what to do.
    +1

  6. #26
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    Welll...that's about what we had in Kodak black and white when I started out. There were three films in 35mm, Pan-X, Plus-X, and Tri-X. I couldn't afford to shoot medium or large format at the time but I know there was also Verichrome pan in 120 and Ektapan in sheets. I think that was about it for general purpose films. Color negative had the consumer Kodacolor (ASA 80) and pro Vericolor, types S and L. In slide film you could choose from Kodachrome 25 and 64 and Ektachrome at 64 and High Speed Ektachrome at 160, plus tungsten versions of the latter two films.
    This was true for me, too. Here in the US was also Agfachrome 64 and Fujichrome 100, and I suppose print film from each, too. Oh, and GAF, which in my opinion was crap.
    It's an important point. Somehow we got by with the limited offerings. There's no reason to give up just because some of the films are going away. We still have much higher quality films than we had then (well, except Kodachrome, but then I'm partial to it), and while I dread the possible demise of E-6, I will switch to the excellent color negative materials if it happens. As for B&W, we should be okay for a long time to come. If a favorite goes away, there will be something else which will give results largely comparable to or better than the films used for most of the iconic images of the last half-century.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Boston
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    127
    Kodak management is missing the point. Supporting low-volume films signals a commitment to film. They aren't sending that signal, so I'm switching completely over to Ilford for B&W. Now if Ilfors would just start making color film, too . . .

  8. #28
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,909
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Dismayed View Post
    Now if Ilfors would just start making color film, too . . .
    They did at one time: http://www.greatyarmouthphotographic...td/page16.html
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  9. #29
    Harry Lime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    467
    It's always a sad day, when a film stock departs for the big darkroom in the sky and I'm sorry to see P3200 go.

    I went through a phase where I shot a lot of P3200. Almost exclusively at 1600 in T-Max developer, which gave the shadows a real boost.

    P3200 had a unique look and if you wanted gritty, this was the ticket. Too bad it was not available in 120, because I always felt it was too grainy for 135, unless that is the look you were after. If that was the case you could not beat it. But it would have really shined in 120. There was something about the tonality of P3200 that was unique.

    I ended up moving away from P3200, because I found Delta3200 to be a better film and it is available in 120. Tighter grain, better tonality and at least in my experience greater exposure range. Unfortunately Delta3200 has gone up quite a bit in price, so these days it's mostly good old Tri-X in Diafine.


    Now if Tri-X went.... (bites tongue)

  10. #30
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,627
    We seem to have it good here in the US regarding Ilford pricing. From what I've read, to some in the UK Ilford seems to have become the shortened form of "ill afford"
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin