Kodak black & white films

C

Carl V

Suspended / Banned
Messages
974
Name
Carl
Edit My Images
Yes
For many years I've been using Ilford films exclusively for my black & white photography. But after reading Gingerjon's thread, I was wondering if there are any photographers here who use Kodak films regularly, and if you are pleased with them.

I have used everything from Pan F, FP4, HP5 and all the Delta versions, but was toying with the idea of trying out some Kodak's again. It must be nearly 20 years since I last used any, and the TRI-X 400 seems quite highly regarded, as well as the T-MAX equivalents.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very pleased indeed with Ilford's films - just thought I'd try some variety for a change.

Cheers,

Carl.
 
Caveat: I'm not technically minded enough to know what characteristics can change with different processing techniques so I can only talk about the differences between films as they come back to me having been processed by the excellent folk at Ilford Lab.

The only Kodak film I've got results back from is TriX which I think having now tried out HP5 and Neopan as ISO 400 alternatives is what I'll go back to. Neopan seems to have a bit less grain and a bit more impactful contrast and HP5 is 'nice' but overall TriX seems to have a a bit more atmosphere to it.

For example:
4051715031_dcb26d8cda.jpg

(Large here)

Still waiting for the results of the TMax 3200 roll to come back to me but will post when I have them. Haven't tried out the TMax 100 and 400 films and to be honest given the Ilford range I don't think I will.
 
I have use some Kodak b&w film T-Max 100 and T-Max 3200
Both rated at box speeds.

I found T-Max 100 very similar to Delta 100 but maybe a little more tonal separation however if I was to do it again I would use the T-Max developer.

The T-Max 3200 I found to far more grainy that the Delta 3200 (rated at 1600) but again when viewed side by side a very similar looking film.
 
Many thanks Jon and Knikki for your thoughts. I'll probably give the Kodak TRI-X a go just to see how it behaves using Ilford chemistry. Kodak seems a little cheaper than Ilford from most dealers I've looked at, and you don't even save any money buying Ilford films directly from them as I've been doing recently.

I used Kodak when I was taught about b&w processing (sometime in the mid-80s) and switched to Ilford as they were recommended to me and I've pretty much been using them ever since. I have no reason to change, but I just thought about giving Kodak a whirl again - for old times sake perhaps. ;)

Thank you again.

Carl.
 
Also just noted the existence of Plus-X (I am an ignoramus, remember). That looks far too lovely for the kind of shots I like to take but might be worth looking at?
 
gingerjon said:
Also just noted the existence of Plus-X (I am an ignoramus, remember). That looks far too lovely for the kind of shots I like to take but might be worth looking at?
Click to expand...

Yes I think the Plus-X is 125 ISO - the same as Ilford FP4. Thanks for that, it's another one worth trying. I'm more a landscape and architecture person myself and would usually use either Pan F (if I had my tripod) or FP4. They are both very sharp films and Pan F is virtually grainless. I'll probably give the Kodak a going-over just to compare it.

The Delta films have mixed opinions. For me, I find the Delta 100 an exceptional film with very little grain indeed. Other users say it's not very forgiving with development errors. I've always stuck to Ilford's own recommended times with whatever developer I had at the time, and can honestly say I've never had any trouble with them.
 
Just a quick note if you are developing yourself using ilford chemicals. Fix it for ages... prob about 10 mins at least for tri-x 400. Let us know how you got on.
 
I hate Kodak

It sends the fixer pink and thus it feels.....contaminated.

I got some really nice results with 320TX though.:)
 
Being a film philistine, I suspect the trick is to hone your exposure and processing times and chemistry before deserting the film stock. There are fine prints made from all kinds of film and I've been totally surprised by what they yield in terms of fine grain and tonal differentiation.

If you look back at old FP3 and HP4 some fantastic images were being made, as they were in Tri-X. Once you've tweaked every ounce from a film it's time to move on. Movie stock is clip tested repeatedly until the best exposure is arrived at for an individual batch. We still photographers aren't particular enough with our experiments sometimes. I'm certainly not but those who are certainly benefit from the thoroughness.
 
Tri-X is one of those films that has a following all of its own - like Kodachrome - there's a sort of cachet to Tri-X that transcends the images it was used to record...

After much experimentation I found that it was really good for those 'grittier' images that I wanted, whereas HP5 produced smoother-looking shots...

Plus-X Pan is about the same as FP4 in all respects, so since at that time FP4 was marginally cheaper, I used that for all general-purpose shots...

All my B&W is dev'd in ID-11 or D-76 diluted 1:3...
When I was at college I made the use of their sensitometer and processed batch test strips to get the best results from all the films I used...

I no longer have access to that kit, but from reading my notes, I think I can probably guarantee to produce reproducable results when I start this puppy up again in earnest...
 
Agree with all that Arkady. There are better devs for particular purposes, like the ultimate in fine grain but they have weaknesses elsewhere.
I take things a step further now and take a light meter reading at the start of a shoot and unless it changes too much, leave the camera settings. The negatives are much more evenly exposed and easier to print, whereas in early days the metering made each frame different.
 
Thank you for reviving this thread - I've only just spotted it. I'm afraid I haven't been very active on the forum for the past few weeks unfortunately, however that'll change now hopefully. :)

I did get a chance to try some Tri-X and really do like the film. The next time I use Kodak, I'll have a go using their own developers as I was using Ilford DD-X which is my usual chemistry when using liquid developers. Personally I quite like grain for certain situations, and agree with Arkady as it does appear to be grittier than the HP5.

I was also using Ilford's own recommended development times for this (rating at 400 ISO), so a little experimenting the next time may be in order.

I would like to thank everyone for their opinions and do appreciate reading about your experiences with Kodak films. I'd say it must be going back to the late 1980's the last time I used their films.

Cheers. :thumbs:

Carl.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top