Re: [Leica] Ilford films garbage? (was: Deardorff)

[S Dimitrov <sld@earthlink.net>]

Tim;
I wouldn't waste my time with them. Even when I was a 'student' I'd
rather buy 5 rolls of state of the art film then 20 rolls of dubious
parentage, and questionable quality control film. But then, I learned to
shot lean in Europe, not in motor geared USA. 
As a matter of fact, the main reason I'm getting rid of the 5x7 is
because of the limited emulsions available for it. Especially as I don't
consider Ilford's selection(s) a film option for my work.
By the way, Delta film is the film I gave back to Ilford.
I never considered the made in the UK a mark of distinction to begin
with. 
Slobodan Dimitrov


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