Quote Originally Posted by railwayman3 View Post
Do you base that judgement on personal experience, and can you post any examples to prove the point (I only ask because I'd be interested to know)?
I personally experienced flaws with several films which I wanted to test a while back. My experiences were with "Adox". My father had some sporadic issues with Efke films (200 ASA). These tendencies appear to have been experienced by others, but I wouldn't normally base my comments on other people's experiences since one can never be certain if the problems were caused by the user. Recently some serious problems were reported on here by dr5 chrome.

My point is this - both R&D, and quality control are expensive. There is no question when it comes to Kodak, Ilford and Fuji. With these other companies, I don't know what I'm actually getting. I don't even know who makes the stuff, because the brand names being used are just that - names. Adox is not Adox. Agfa is not Agfa. Rollei is not Rollei. It's all very murky to me. You don't know if two different films are actually the same old stock from Agfa or something, repackaged as something new with resurrected brand names. And in any case, most of these products are throwbacks to older technology. Large numbers of photographers seem to have flocked to this old fashioned stuff over the years. Good for them. I'd rather use Kodak and Ilford films. The same goes for some of the chemistry out there. For example, I got slammed on here when I pointed out it was nearly impossible to get even development with Adotech developer when I tested it with CMS20. There was even a post from someone at Adox, refering to my posts, indicating I obviously didn't know how to use this "perfectly matched combination". Interestingly though, it was so perfect they subsequently reformulated it. I guess now it's even more perfect?

If we lose Kodak, there are some people in my camp who will then pretty much only have Ilford to rely on.