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!
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
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).
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Photo Engineer; 01-12-2008 at 03:32 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The bottom line is that Ilford and Kodak products are of the highest quality possible.
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.
Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand
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"
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.
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.
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.