Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/08/06

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Ilford films garbage? (was: Deardorff)
From: "Tim Atherton" <tim@KairosPhoto.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 23:19:45 -0600

Oh C'mon Slobadon,

Ilford are a world class film maker who has been at the business for over
100 years.

FP4 and HP5 are staple films - in the UK much more so than Kodak Tri-X say.

Along with their Delta films, they are easily up to the technical standard
of Kodak. (and many would say better than). They also have a greater
commitment to LF film.

There is no comparison with the likes of Efke in terms of production.

I know many photographers who use them as their first line films (especially
LF photographers - but also 35) who produce excellent work.

I really don't think in this case it's possible to blame the tools?

There are folks who don't like the films, but as a matter of personal taste,
not because they are crap.

tim



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of S Dimitrov
> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 11:02 PM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Deardorff
>
>
> Years, and years ago, I interviewed for a job with them. The job was
> attending a machine in total darkness that would cut film into 36
> exposure lengths . The strips would then go through a hole puncher for
> the sprocket holes. The sheet film was also cut from larger 'industrial'
> sized sheets. Needless to say I got a better offer before they
> called back.
> I have to admit, I consider Ilford, Efke, and the usual managery of like
> films as not even last resort material. I tested some films for Ilford,
> and frankly, halfway through I send them back the remainder of the
> stock. I just couldn't stomach the results.
> When I used Nikon glass, I couldn't tell the difference. Switching back
> to German optics nearly three decades ago made me realize that I wasn't
> getting everything technically possible with the above mentioned
> materials.
> You're right, it is odd, because I have friends who do wonders with that
> stuff. I just can't seem to make it work for me.
> Slobodan Dimitrov
>
>
> Tim Atherton wrote:
> >
> > > Don't even think about it for critical work, never mind to practice
> > > with. All my experience with those films have found them to have very
> > > poor latitude. The mid range is just about non existent, for want of a
> > > better description. It doesn't push well either.
> >
> > Interesting - all my experience with Arista 400 in 8x10 is that
> it has come
> > out exactly as I would have expected HP5 which is a beautiful film. The
> > tests I have seen done of this film (all that densitometer
> stuff and so on)
> > have shown it's curves etc. to be identical too..  odd
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from Mark Rabiner <mark@markrabiner.com> (Re: [Leica] Ilford films garbage? (was: Deardorff))
Reply from S Dimitrov <sld@earthlink.net> (Re: [Leica] Ilford films garbage? (was: Deardorff))