Iford Multi Grade IV Fiber is very nice too, and built like a tank. I hope it also stays around.
I'm a little torn on that one right there. I tried MCC 110 when I came back to photography and really like it. But I'm hard pressed to choose between it and MGIV FB. I do use MGWT FB when I want a warm tone and it's possibly the best paper I've ever used, but for my neutral tone prints I prefer the MCC 110. I think MGIV goes cooler in selenium and I like that versatility. I can happily use either paper really. But I want to support the black and white powerhouse of Ilford for all they do for black and white and for us, an I also want to support Fotoimpex and Adox for reviving old wonderful formulas like the MCC paper and the impending Polywarmtone and to support a small maker of black and white products.
I suppose I should just use whichever I prefer and not worry about that. Right now I have MCC 110 in stock so that will be it for a while. But the fact it doesn't come in larger quantity boxes means I have no great store of it. I have maybe a 24 sheet pack of 8x10, 30 sheets (five or so left plus an unopened pack) of 11x14 and one unopened but soon to be opened and used 25 sheet box of 16x20.
They are both excellent papers.
It seems like older equipment like that would be more serviceable and individual parts would be a little bit more replaceable than on something modern...I could be completely wrong though....Do we know what the problem actually is?
The problem is that even if they fix the machine, the declining market and end-of-lease is too much for them to cope with it. Somewhere back in the thread, it was posted that even if the fix was completely free, they would still be shutting everything down.
That said, I do like Kodak Plus-X (now gone) and Tri-x, as well as Ilford Pan F+. Different films that have different "feelings" attached to them, and for me they are like the cameras I use. On one day a Rolleicord with Triotar lens and Pan F+ feels right, and on another day a Kodak Retina IIa with Efke KB 25. :p
You are missing my point! I said "results similar to" not "good results". In fact, some of these substitutes may be as good or better for tonality. You are the one to decide that, as I also said.
Although if it does not satisfy you, then it does not.
Generally, a modern film with the right "tone" will have higher speed at the same grain and sharpness or better grain and sharpness.
And I do know what you mean because after all, we had a motto oft repeated at EK, "We sell pictures, not curves".
Efke 25 is orthopan for one thing. It's significantly finer-grained than TMX etc, yet with excellent edge acutance. And it has a very long contrasty straight-line, unlike anything else in slow speed.
But the antihalation backing is rather primitive, and one has to be damn careful loading or unloading
120 film. A buddy and I just walked two weeks with heavy packs over some pretty steep mtn terrain,
and both shot Efke 25. I was using a 6x9 back on a 4x5 view camera, and was mainly looking for just
one really good shot of a particular mtn. Well, I got it, and had the insanity to print about a 24-inch
wide print from that tiny 6x9 neg. No other film would have gotten the detail combined with the
extremes of lighting - shadow differentiation way, way down, brilliant clouds all alive with backlight.
Normally I'd do that kind of thing with 8x10 and something like Bergger 200 or TMY400. So it's a film
I'll miss, though it would be nice for someone to actually improve upon the formula. In the meantime,
I've got a reserve of it in the freezer. Don't need much - I mainly shoot sheet film.
Good to hear Drew. I ordered 140 rolls of it for my 6x12 back. How tough was it to print from in terms of curl? I ask this because using a glass neg carrier on a delicate emulsion like that makes me wonder. Also, how has the QC been recently, I think I tried a roll in 2008 and was not pleased with some of the messiness overall...