Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,814   Posts: 1,581,614   Online: 796
      
Page 1 of 9 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 85
  1. #1
    cjbecker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    IN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    772
    Images
    19

    Ilford’s Hopeful Offerings to tri-x 320

    So I don’t know about anybody else, but I would really like to see Ilford come out with a film like tri-x 320 in 135, 120 and sheet film.

    I want a film that has a long toe, steep mid and a straight shoulder like tri-x 320, that I can use in all formats. It would also be very nice to be able to use one brand of film for both a medium speed film FP4 and also a high speed film like tri-x 320, but both being ilford.

    I know it’s a long shot but there could be a market for it. Most collages that work with large format shoot tri-x 320 but normally come to large format from a smaller size neg. They have to learn a new film and the different developing and if they could just have one film but in different sizes it would be awesome. I do know that hp5 comes in all sizes but the film is low contrast and not the same as a film like tri-x 320. The films are used in different manners so there would not be a overlap in products.

    If ilford did come out with the film I would be a loyal user of it. Possibly if we got enough buzz about it something could happen. They already do special orders for sizes so possibly this could happen.

    What do you think? Is this just crazy talk?

    Ultimately, Would you use this film?
    Last edited by cjbecker; 11-26-2011 at 12:10 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #2
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    I am sorry for your loss

    Sorry to oppose your idea, but I think the last thing Ilford should do is take any market away from the fantastic fp4/hp5+ markets. Those films are just perfect to me. Have you played with N+1 dev, tried different developers and concentrations, experimented with dev times and agitations etc to see if they don't get you where you want to go?

    Generally speaking, in times of decreasing demand, a supplier pays a very steep price for putting too many products out there... it costs a lot of money to develop, produce, market, stock and distribute a product. If I were calling the shots at any of the film makers, I'd be all about consolidating production, and focusing resources on preserving the market that is still there.

    I would also suggest looking at the foma offerings. Haven't used them lately but I used to like them a lot.

    http://photo.net/black-and-white-pho...g-forum/00HSU1
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  3. #3
    sandermarijn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Leiden, Netherlands
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    770
    Images
    11
    I don't want to turn this into an anti-HP5+ thread, but of all the (past or present) 400 offerings from the major mfs, Ilford's film has always been last choice to me. I loved Tri-x 320 and I love Tri-x 400. It'd be great if Ilford manages to emulate either (I don't count on Kodak being around for long). Probably crazy talk indeed but nice crazy talk.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Oregon and Austria
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    881
    A new film from Ilford as you propose would also be a "different" film and need time to test and learn to use properly. There would not be some kind of mysterious transfer of knowledge gained from other Ilford films (for that matter, the same applies to FP-4 and HP-5!).

    If you want a film like Tri-X 320, then just use Tri-X 320. It will take no longer to test it and get used to it than it would a new film with the same characteristics from another manufacturer. I really think this is misplaced brand loyalty.

    Of course, if you shoot a format for which Tri-X 320 is unavailable, then your SOL... Maybe you'll have better luck convincing Kodak to make Tri-X 320 in 135 size...

    Have fun,

    Doremus Scudder

  5. #5
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,426
    Images
    148
    HP5 isn't a particularly low contrast film, the contrast is dependent on how you expose and develop the film. I wouldn't use it for collages Most colleges and universities around the world (outside the US anyway) actually recommen FP4 & HP5 to their students.

    Not everyone likes Tri-X, I've always preferred Tmax 400 or Delta 400, but I do use HP5 for hand held large format work and it's an exceptionally good film and like Kieth's already said maybe you need to hone your film/developer combination determining the correct EI and dev time to give you the results you require.

    HP5 develeloped in Pyrocat HD. 90mm f6.8 Angulon/Super Graphic



    Ian

  6. #6
    jp498's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,467
    Images
    74
    It's probably do-able now with a number of films, depending on developer choice. I find tmax400 very versatile and available in all formats.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,067
    Great idea. I do love a dreamer, but you forgot to ask for it in 220!

  8. #8
    cjbecker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    IN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    772
    Images
    19
    At the moment I am using tri-320, but in 120 i am using tri-x 400, and I really prefer 320. Tri-x 320 is by far my favorite film I have ever come across. But I really dough they are going to come back with it in 120. That is why I was thinking ilford might do it.

    Also I use to shoot hp5 in medium format and everything I did, I could not get the film to do what I wanted. I am now using a new developer, hc110 so I might try shooting it at 640 and giving longer development, and see where that gets me. I saw some images online of hp5 shot at 1600 and they are actually closer to what I am after.

    My bad on colleges. haha

  9. #9
    Andrew Moxom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Keeping the British end up in Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,871
    Images
    333
    You can make TMAX-400 behave like Tri-X320... I thought I missed TXP-320 as much as you, but developing TMAX-400 in TMAX dev 1:4 gives very similar results. I exposed TMAX-400 at 320 and soup it for about 7.5 to 8 minutes (depending on brightness range) in TMAX dev 1:4 (replenished)... In the Ilford range, FP-4 is very close albeit a slower film.... but so what. There are alternatives, and we have to keep Kodak in the film making business so support one of their newer films... My .02
    Please check out my website www.amoxomphotography.com and APUG Portfolio .....

  10. #10
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    I was just going to suggest tmax dev; as Andy says, definitely give it a try. My suggestion is shoot a 36 frame roll in a 35mm camera, of the same subject, snip it into how ever many separate tests you have the patience for, and try a bunch of different devs and concentrations. Then lay the different frames out and make a contact print with the snips side by side. It's pretty surprising how different the results can be. It's been a while since I felt industrious enough to do this, but it really taught me some things. For the place my head was at the time, undiluted tmax dev was the way to go. Might be different now, I don't know.

    Everyone's mileage varies, of course. The reason why this has to be done individually, by you, is that the very first stage of the photographic process is very individual: we all perceive tones differently and thus (subconciously) seek different ratios of fill and highlight and shadow. We spend a lot of time talking about film curve and paper curve, but I think each of us has his/her own individual sensitivity curve that influences how we use the light. Thus there is no perfect recipe for all, nor will there ever be.
    Last edited by keithwms; 11-26-2011 at 11:26 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

Page 1 of 9 1234567 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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