Ilford our only hope

[snaggs]

Its time to make sure we support Ilford.. most management buy-outs fail after a few years, and they're the only ship in town who wants to produce analog products. If they go under again, then you are guaranteed to see the loss of film within 5 years.

Theres no point giving Kodak any more money, its only being spent on digital projects and strategies to kill the product your supporting. Give this money instead to Ilford and tell them what products are missing from their product linke.

Kodak is just saying they'll keep making film since logistically they can only close so many things at once. Remember, CEO's dont get bonuses for achieving things in 15 years.. his bonus will be to rid Kodak of film inside 5 years.

Daniel.

 

[Bertram2]

no, Ilford is surely NOT our only hope but it could make sense indeed to support it . At the time I think about changing from BW400CN to XP2 tho I like the Kodak product better.
And which film could ever replace Tri-X ??. THAT will be a dramatic loss if they should ever give up it's production !!

But no reason to get excited anywayfor B&W shooters , at the time each B&W flim available around the world (no matter which make it is ) is better than digital B&W. And ONE of them will survive at least, no doubt about it.
Best,
Bertram

 

[Matthew]

One variable in this, especially with Kodak given its dominance in this section of the arts, is motion picture film. Research may have slowed/stopped on new still photographic emulsions but Kodak and Fuji continue to produce new emulsions for motion picture use. In fact Kodak and Fuji continue to push film over digital for cinema. While high definition video is being used more frequently for production of television, very few theatrically released films are shot on anything but 35mm. Super16 sales are in fact up and even Super8 is showing a resurgence. It is true that Arri, Panavision and a few others are releasing their own versions of high def video cameras, but they are far from being integrated into the professional workflow. Then there is all the film being used for release prints. Until all the theatres in the world are converted to digital projection (which is likely to be far more than five years off) film will be needed for these prints. Unlike in still photography, most cinematographers greatly prefer to work with film and fight for its use on any project they choose that even remotely has the budget to use it.

The point in this is that I think the guaranteed loss of film within five years is a bit of an overstatement. Emulsion choices will certainly decrease and eventually still photographic film may become a complete niche product (likely within the next decade) only produced by relatively small companies, but that isn't neccessarily a bad thing. I'd rather buy my products from smaller companies anyway, even if I have to pay a bit more for them or they are harder to get.

Yes, let's tell Ilford what products are missing from their product line, but let's also tell Kodak that we still want (and need) them to continue making film.

 

[snaggs]

Couldn't Ilford make a Tri-X look alike? Is Tri-X really THAT different to other products?

Daniel.

 

[egpj]

At the time I think about changing from BW400CN to XP2 tho I like the Kodak product better.

Bertram

If you have not used the Ilford XP2 then give it a try. I think that you will be pleasantly surprised with it. I tried the Kodak C-41 black and white film and was not all that impressed with it. Got better contrast with the Ilford. In Kodak's defence though, I only used one roll. The Ilford I liked so much that I bought a pro-pack from Adorama which gives me 50 rolls of 36 pictures a roll. Great stuff that Ilford. Pretty sure there are some photos using Ilford XP2 in my gallery.

 

[tetrisattack]

Yeah, good question. I evaluated both Kodak and Ilford RC papers awhile back and decided to go with Ilford, so the recent announcement isn't a huge loss. However, I just know that the chemicals and film are next, and that's causing me significant anxiety (can I no longer justify the purchase of an M6 or ZI?), so. What shall I use instead of Tri-X, in case it evaporates? Anybody have any suggestions?

I like 400TX because in Rodinal 1:25 I get amazing highlight/shadow separation, especially with a deep red filter. It captures those scenes where there's gorgeous shadow detail and delicate highlight detail without failing on me.

Here's what I think about the other 400 speed films I have used:
Neopan 400. Great in shadow details, unremarkable in highlights, seems like it might do the job. Neopan 400 is like that highschool equivalent of the wealthy dungeons and dragons kid who just wants to fit in.
HP5+. Not shocked by anything on the film, it seems pretty utilitarian but serviceable in HC110. I hear it's a nightmare in Rodinal. Definetly some character to this film, but maybe not what I'm used to currently. Has the bonus of being produced by Ilford, a company I want to love.
APX 400. Probably the most character of the bunch, great and GRITTY for street scenes, insanely cheap, sharp as hell, grain the size of golf balls, but sucks at shadow detail and gets fussy when I rate it lower, suggesting that it needs some sort of magic bullet speed-enhancing, low-grain developer.

So what's a guy to do? If anybody has any suggestions, I'm all ears. I need some confidence in my b&w supplies. I often shoot medium and large formats and the discontinuance of my materials will leave me with essentially no alternative. I mean, save me from having to buy a bellows attachment for my digital rebel, if such a thing exists. :'(

 

[egpj]

Tetris, there is no magic bullet for that one. You might have to change your chemicals and try some of the Ilford developers. DD-X used just like they say to use it provides me with reliable results. HP5 gives me that very classic look but it can be fussy in some situations. I have pushed it a couple of times to 800 and I get really great grain but still holding the details fairly well. I must admit though that I need to play around with more then two rolls pushed to 800. I use Ilford down the line for my work flow when shooting and into development. Things go smoothly enough with predictable results. This helps me more then anything. Cheers.

 

[captainslack]

I haven't purchased anything with a Kodak label since they made the decision to push toward digital. My money has gone into Fuji or Ilford products. Nothing against Kodak per se, but if I shoot film and will continue to do so and my money will go to companies that support it.

 

[Andy K]

I stopped buying Kodak over a year ago when my last lot of prints from their lab came back as pixellated inkjet cr*p instead of photographic prints. You could actually see the pixels with your bare eye. If they can't give me photographic prints from my negs, then they no longer deserve my business.
I only buy Ilford now.

 

[Solinar]

Kodak's new CEO was hired from Hewlett Packard's digital imaging division. So, there is probably very little understanding or remorse in killing B/W analog photography at the CEO level.

Personally, I'd rather see a smaller concern such as Ilford see what can be sorted out in a niche market.

 

[kbg32]

Too bad for Kodak.

I stopped using Tri X years ago after shooting with HP5. I found that HP5 gave me a wonderful tonal range compared to Tri X and didn't block up the highlights.

There are wonderful other films and papers out there.

 

[Doug]

I love Tri-X... and FP-4 and Pan-F, but especially XP2. In color I mostly use Fuji NPH and NPZ because my lab says Fuji works best on their Agfa machinery, though Kodak UC comes out great too. I do not choose films for political reasons, but on the basis of what works for me... Good luck and best wishes to Ilford, Kodak, and Fuji for a profitable film future!

 

[Peter]

Ilford is in my daily prayer! May God bless my XP2 and Delta 3200! 😛