Response to Photo film history in the last 20 years

Someone should write a book... Hopefully you'll get a bunch of responses, as all this depends on an individuals perspective. IMHO, any film that's discontinued is killed off because it isn't making enough of a profit. Kodak just didn't sell enough Panatomic-X to justify making it. Word is that T-Max films use less silver in their manufacture than traditional films, so they're cheaper to make. They look great if you go by technical specifications, but I'm not a big fan of them. Processing is fussier and they don't have the look I want. Highlights are often difficult to control. I prefer traditional films, mostly FP4+, HP5+, Plus-X, and Tri-X. I like some toe and shoulder in the curves, not a straight line. B&W films in general are a shrinking market, so choices will change and sometimes become limited. I also did more photography in the '70s. Though my equipment is far superior today, I think it's harder to get prints I'm happy with. Paper curves and tones are different and you have to experiment to come up with a combination you like. Lenses have more contrast and less flare. On a positive note, RC papers have improved greatly, and there are some high end fiber papers that are probably better than anything from the past. Tri-X still works, as does Plus-X, but as Kodak scales back B&W offerings, many people are moving to Ilford and others brands. You might want to pick up a copy of Anchell & Troop's The Film Developing Cookbook for the insights it has on films and processing. Another good book that helps understand tonal placement is Ctein's Post Exposure. Highly recommended.

[ Previous | Next ]