Re: [Leica] RE: Tri-X and Kodak vs Ilford?

["Joe Stephenson" <joeleica@flash.net>]

Dear Bob,
I like to use APX100 processed in Rodinol. It gives a look that I like. No
oatmeal. Good tonal rendering, high acutance, and a grain structure and
apperance that I like.
Sincerely,
Joe Stephenson

- -----Original Message-----
From: RBedw51767@aol.com <RBedw51767@aol.com>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 4:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] RE: Tri-X and Kodak vs Ilford?


>Jim and Peter:
>
>After about a 20 year photography hiatus I got back into it last year.  I
was
>shocked at how little it had changed with the exception of the film
category.
>Being very familiar with Kodak it was only natural that I began using their
>latest product which was Tmax.  After going through about a dozen rolls I
was
>becoming very discouraged  and began to consider spending more time on
other
>interests.  As a "last ditch" effort I tried Delta 100 and it was like the
sky
>opened up and shined.  I have since gone back several times to try Tmax and
it
>just doesn't work for me.  At this time the only Kodak product that I use
is
>Xtol.   There are rumors that Ilford will introduce, in the near future, an
>ascorbic acid based liquid developer to compete with Xtol.  Perhaps I just
>don't know what I am doing with Tmax but the difference is dramatic for me.
>
>I was taking some pictures of a barn the other day and this young man
stopped
>to talk to me.  He was a student of photography at a local college.   As I
was
>loading Delta 100 in my Hasselblad he made the comment that he wasn't aware
>that anyone else made film but Kodak.  The only film that he had ever used
was
>Tmax.  Talk about a generation gap!  Needless to say, I suddenly felt very
>old.   I gave him some Delta 100 and asked him to let me know how it worked
>for him.
>
>Before it gets started I do not work for  Ilford, in fact I don't work at
all.
>The Ilford line of products is very easy to use.  I love their liquid
>chemicals and papers.  Their website provides a lot of information and I
wish
>that I could justify owning their  variable contrast enlarger head.  While
>Kodak has ventured away from the low volume amateur Ilford has focused
their
>attention on them.
>
>I love to hear about the film/developer combinations that work for other
>LUGGERS.  Unfortunately, Tmax has made it very difficult for me to consider
>Kodaks products.  Perhaps I am not handling it properly.
>
>Thanks for listening.
>
>Bob Bedwell
>
><< At 06:18 PM 2/15/99 -0800, you wrote:
> >Not ridiculous at all.  Only people I know who use Tri-X are you and
several
> >LUGs.  Everyone else uses TMax or T400CN. ;-]
> >
> >Peter K
> >
>
>
> Peter,
>
> Kodak is not known for continuing to manufacture a product that doesn't
> sell. Look at Super-XX and Pan-X.
>
> Kodak supplies Tri-X in:
>
> 35mm/24
> 35mm/36
> 35mm/50'
> 35mm/100'
> 120
> 220
> 70mm/100'
> 2-1/4 x 3-1/4 sheet
> 4x5
> 5x7
> 8x10
>
> Doesn't sound to me like Tri-X is a slow seller. In reality, there is a
> "HUGE" base of professional and amateur photographers that use tons of
> Tri-X. TMax is not a panacea and T400CN is not a true B&W film, as it
> requires C41.
>
> :)
>
> Jim
>  >>
>