I am setting up my darkroom after a long lay off (many moons) I sort of like the way illford looks but ah that old standard Kodak. Does any one have any suggestions

-- Larry Lowy (larry53@juno.com), September 22, 1997

Answers

Re: Ilford vs Kodak

I use Ilford materials exclusevly. The film and papers, in addition to offering unparalled performance, are consistent and predictable. Kodak changes papers practically with the seasons. Even then, the new product is no better than the old, often worse. I believe that Ilford is dedicated to B&W, whereas Kodak treats B&W like an unwanted step-child.

-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), September 23, 1997.

Re: ilford v. kodak

> I use Ilford materials exclusevly. The film and papers, in addition to offering unparalled performance, are consistent and > predictable. Kodak changes papers practically with the seasons. Even then, the new product is no better than the old, often > worse. I believe that Ilford is dedicated to B&W, whereas Kodak treats B&W like an unwanted step-child.

Wow. In the last year, Kodak has introduced a new developer (Xtol) that offers outstanding performance as a general-purpose developer, a new paper (Polymax II RC) that is considerably better than 'old' Polymax RC, and a new film (T400CN) that offers the convenience of a chromogenic film with speed, grain and sharpness superior in all ways to XP2. Perhaps Kodak wasn't paying enough attention to B&W before, but right now they're on a roll.

I'm not really trying to convince anyone that Kodak is "better" than Ilford - I'm just pointing out that Kodak and Ilford both make products worthy of comparison.

Test them, experiment with them, and find what you like. For me, I went from using XP1/XP2 and only MGFB to primarily TMax film and printing on Polymax II RC and MGFB. In a few years this might be different as I continue to test and experiment myself.

Dana K6JQ Dana@Source.Net

-- Dana Myers (Dana@Source.Net), September 27, 1997.

yes... Ilford is better than Kodak

While I use Kodak almost exclusively for colour (with the exception of the new Agfa Optima film) I agree that generally Ilford is superior to Kodak for black and white. T-Max 100 is flat compared to Delta 100, and the chromogenic T400CN, while slightly finer grained than XP2, is greatly inferior in the sharpness stakes. Of course, if you want the finest b+w prints Agfa APX25 cant be beat, but lets face it who wants to work at ISO25 and cart a tripod around with them wherever they go? Ilford have led the field for technical innovation of their films, just as Kodak have for colour, and I suspect they will continue to do so. One thing I would definitely like to see them develop is a chromogenic film rated at ISO100 or 200, though as neither Kodak nor Ilford have produced one there obviously isnt that great a demand for such a film at this speed, though I cant understand why. A film I would definitely recommend is SFX200 - nobody is pretending that it is infra-red but it produces fascinating, beautiful and occasionally jaw-dropping results. Try it!

-- Leigh Wilks (leighwilks@hotmail.com), September 16, 2001.

More on Ilford v. Kodak

> T-Max 100 is flat compared to Delta 100

They're different films, certainly, with different looks, but I'd never exactly accuse TMX of being 'flat'. It's a matter of how you handle it.

> chromogenic T400CN, while slightly finer grained than XP2, is greatly inferior in the sharpness stakes Perhaps we define 'inferior' in different ways. The appearance of grain in XP2 is fairly tightly linked to exposure, and I've found that the sharpness of XP2 degrades as the exposure is increased (as expected). I'll typically expose XP2 around EI 200 and expose T400CN around EI 320, and T400CN typically exhibits much less apparent grain than XP2, while XP2 loses more of the appearance of sharpness. > Agfa APX25 cant be beat

Unfortunately, APX25 has been obsoleted by Agfa.

> a chromogenic film rated at ISO100 or 200

Why? Both XP2 and T400CN have a wide envelope of application, they easily cover what you might be asking for here. What I'd like to see Kodak produce is T25CN, effectively a chromogenic Royal Gold 25, but RG25 was obsoleted several years ago.

Keep in mind, chromogenic film heavily leverages color film expertise, and Kodak has an advantage here.

SFX 200 is interesting, but rather pricey for what it offers. I'd rather shoot HIE and get the whole package ;-)

Dana K6JQ dana@dioxine.com

-- Dana Myers K6JQ (dana@dioxine.com), September 18, 2001.

Try some of each & use what looks best to you. It is your image that we will see on exhibit, so print on what best expresses your vision. One thing to keep in mind is that most every good printer uses fiber based, archivally processed papers of double or premium weight. They did not all get together & decide on it, but rather arrived at this by experience. Sexton, Adams, Baer, Barnbaum, et al have a good reason for using this stuff. It works for them. So if you want someone to tell you what to use, look at what the best use. You will find some use Kodak, some Ilford, some Forte, some Zone VI, some Agfa, etc., etc. Try them & see how they look to you & don't worry about what the rest of us use. We don't have your vision. Try them & trust your own judgment & modify as needed to express what it is you really want in a print.

-- Dan Smith (shooter@brigham.net), September 24, 1997.

Unfortunately it's not a snap answer, but comes down to what works for you. I get really nice results printing on Ilford papers and I also like the way my Tri-X negatives look -- that's what works for my particular way of doing things. Your results will probably differ. Ilford and Kodak both make excellent products. Have some fun trying them out.

-- Dennis Morris (DMorris_PSI@compuserve.com), April 17, 1998.

Kodak vs. Ilford

In 1973, when the Hunt Bros. tried to corner the silver market, I had just bought a pack. of Kodabromide for about $10. As price of silver rose, Kodak took paper prices up to almost $50 and it frosted me. Because of their callous greed the other companies had to raise their prices and, since then, the price has dropped very little. I no longer use Kodak products unless there is nothing else or if it is something like a Print Projection Scale which I have had for years. Sorry if I display a "Bad Attitude".

-- H. David Huffman (craptalk@ix.netcom.com), May 12, 1999.

Dan has hit it on the head. Use what works for you. Neither Ilford nor Kodak nor Forte nor Agfa makes the "best" materials. I use them all and each particular material has it's own merits. Buy what is most readily available in your area and which produces a print that is what you want from the material. I can print negs on many different materials and I will challenge anyone to tell me which material I have used. The papers are generally all the same. The difference lies mainly in how they perform with different developers and toners. I tried them all and because I looked at each with an open mind, and printed large numbers of negs on each type, I now use different papers for different looks. But I do use strictly fibre base double weight papers. When you print a lot like I do you fast learn the beauty and tone of fibre base papers. RC doesn't stand the test. It is fine for quick prints but that is about it. So watch out for those that say one film/paper/developer is the best. It's the mark of an amateur. Lumberjack

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), September 17, 2001.