Why I Switched from Kodak to Ilford Black-and-White Films: Peter DaSilva

30Share

Despite our increasingly digitized culture, interest in analog processes is still on the rise. At a time when most of what surrounds us are ephemeral computations of zeros and ones, there is an indisputable appeal to photographs shot on black-and-white analog film.

For photojournalist Peter DaSilva, this appeal is rooted in having something tangible, “having an archive that’s not going to evaporate because the medium has changed or due to the incompatibility of files and systems.”

His distinctive style of run-and-gun street photography is unmediated and direct. “What I saw and how I captured it is how I’m showing it to you,” he explains. “And once you get into a look and style of shooting, the film you use becomes a major part of that look.”

This is the fifth installment in a series featuring the many stories and myriad reasons prompting users to switch the brands they work with. To read about other photographer’s brand switches, make sure to visit the links at the end of this story. The following views expressed are those of the interviewee and do not necessarily represent that of B&H Photo.

Photographs © Peter DaSilva

Great Wall aerial performance; Oakland, CA. Camera: Rolleiflex 3.5E3 Planar; Film: Ilford HP5 Plus; Exposure: 1/250 @ f5.6

Analog film was a staple for DaSilva at the start of his 30-year career. Yet during the transition to digital, his role as a freelancer for the Associated Press in San Francisco made him an early digital adopter for work assignments.

“I pretty much stopped shooting film for a while, but I got back to it about six or seven years ago, and decided that I might as well go for it,” DaSilva says.

Part of his motivation was the growing backlash about image manipulation in journalism circles. “I thought to myself, ‘If I shoot film, nobody can question it,’” he says.

1% Sitting, Occupy Oakland; Oakland, CA. Camera: Rolleiflex 3.5E3 Planar; Exposure: 1/250 @ f5.6

While he continued shooting digitally for major clients such as The New York Times, if there was time at the end of a given shoot, DaSilva asked his subject(s) to pose for a few more shots on film. “I found a little niche with the way I shoot,” he explains. “I would submit those images with my digital work, and editors slowly started to recognize this as different, and then started asking me to shoot film.”

A Distinctive Analog to Digital Workflow

DaSilva shoots digitally with a 35mm-format Canon 5D Mark II, but his true camera of choice is the 120 format Rolleiflex twin lens reflex. He works with three different models of varied focal lengths—a Rollei Wide (55mm f/4), a Normal (75mm f/3.5), and a Tele (135mm f/4).

“The wide and the tele models are quite rare, with production runs of less than 4,000 for the original vintage cameras, as opposed to 60,000 to 80,000 for their normal cameras,” he says. “Depending on what I’m doing, I have all three cameras with me, either in a bag or in the car,” DaSilva explains. “If I’m shooting on the street or doing portraits I’ll just pick a camera for that particular day or that situation.”

Since these cameras lack internal metering, DaSilva judges his exposures on the fly. “Shooting on the street, I don’t have any control over my light, so I could be in deep shadow in one frame and in bright sunlight in the next,” he says. “My exposures are pretty accurate 90% of the time, but I try to land in the middle so I’m not blocking up my highlights.”

Commuters in financial district; San Francisco, CA. Camera: Rolleiflex 3.5E3 Planar; Film: Ilford HP5 Plus; Exposure: 1/500 @ f8

Additionally, he compensates for hard-to-manage contrast situations after capture by developing his film to yield a flatter negative. This lower contrast is also advantageous to his system for copying images using his digital camera.

“At first, I used a 4 x 5 Leaf scanner, “but it took forever to do a full scan,” he says. “So, I went back to my roots of making dupe slides. I devised my own copy stand with my Canon D5 Mark II, and I shoot a raw file with my signature full-frame look. I’m able to have quite a bit more flexibility with a raw file than what you get with most scanner software,” he adds. “I can take it anywhere, so as long as I have a digital camera with me I have a scanner. And, obviously, as cameras improve, my files will get better too.”

Making the Switch in Film Brands

After counting on Kodak Tri-X film for his photojournalism work since the early 1980s, and adding Kodak T-Max to the mix for lit studio work in the mid-’90s, DaSilva switched to Ilford films about six years ago, first trying out Ilford HP5 and then expanding to Ilford’s Delta film line.

“Long-term consistency is my foremost priority,” he explains, “so my main consideration in making a switch was the unknown future and availability of Kodak films, as well as price increases. They were shutting down different film lines, certain chemistry wasn’t available anymore, and prices were going up. If you’re trying to be consistent about something, that’s not what you want when planning for the future,” DaSilva says.

Security check point, 10th anniversary of 9/11. Reading of names gathering at Ground Zero, New York; NY. Camera: Rolleiflex 3.5E3 Planar; Film: Kodak TMax 400; exposure data not available

His switch happened quickly, as prices started to rise, and as his consumption of film soared to some 300 to 400 rolls per year. “Once I started shooting hundreds of rolls annually, a couple of dollars per roll made a big difference,” he adds.

Comparing Brands and Film Stocks

While quality considerations were not a primary factor in DaSilva’s switch, inherent differences between various film lines are worth mentioning.

In general, he finds Ilford HP5 to have similar characteristics to Kodak Tri-X, while Ilford Delta films are a good comparison to Kodak T-Max, with finer grain and increased sharpness.

Pedestrian under 405 freeway overpass; Los Angeles, CA. Camera: Rolleiflex 3.5E3 Planar; Film: Ilford HP5 Plus; Exposure: 1/500 @ f8

“T-Max had a certain type of sharpness and Tri-X had a signature grain that seems to build up,” he says. It definitely seems to block up more in the shadows than T-Max or Delta. So, your images are contrastier and the grain structure is a lot larger. It’s a texture that you don’t get with a fine-grain film—kind of like over-pixelated.”

When comparing Ilford films head to head, he finds the Delta series to be sharper than HP5, with a little bit more dynamic range.

Also Fueling His Switch: Availability of High Speed Film Stock

As DaSilva says, “Since most of my work is in a ‘run-and-gun’ street style, I shoot primarily 400 and 3200 ASA film. If I know I’m going to shoot in a studio or a lit situation, I’ll drop down to 125 ASA.”

Afternoon commuters in financial district; San Francisco, CA. Camera: Rolleiflex 3.5E3 Planar; Film: Ilford Delta 400 Pro; Exposure: 1/500 @ f11

This stylistic preference for fast film yielded another important consideration in his decision to switch brands, due to the availability of Delta’s 3200 ASA film stock in 120 format.

“I would have loved to stay with Kodak for certain reasons, but one thing that bothered me is that they never offered a 3200 ASA film in medium format,” he explains. “Kodak 3200 ASA film only came in 35mm and the grain structure of that was not the greatest.”

Post-presidential election riots; Oakland, CA. Camera: Rolleiflex Wide 55 f4; Film: Ilford Delta 3200 Pro; Exposure Data: Pushed 3 stops; Exposure: 1/125 @ f4

While DaSilva generally rates Delta 3200 at 1600 ASA, he finds the film’s latitude to be “quite amazing,” noting, “I recently pushed a roll approximately three stops and the grain structure held up surprisingly well.”

“This film has really opened up the way I work,” he adds. “It’s given me so many possibilities for capturing something on a camera system with an aperture that maxes out at f/4 or f/3.5, depending on which model I use.”

DaSilva’s Film Development Process

When he first got back to analog processes, people were giving away darkroom equipment. “I didn’t have enough space for a full lab, but I did have enough room to put in a Wing Lynch processor to run my film,” he says.

Golden Gate Bridge from the Marin Headlands; Marin, CA. Camera: Rolleiflex 3.5E3 Planar; Film: Ilford HP5 Plus; Exposure: 1/500 @ f11

On the road, DaSilva relies on a method from his days in wire service journalism by packing a darkroom in a couple of Pelican cases. “You were pretty much able to produce your images anywhere in the world, as long as you had some water and a space to process your film,” he explains.

Initially, he processed his film using Kodak T-Max developer, before switching to Ilford Ilfotec DD-X liquid concentrate in a 1:4 dilution. “I’m actually looking for a little bit of a flatter negative because of the way I do my scanning,” he says “For 400 ISO film, my time is like 8 minutes.”

A Traveling Darkroom for a Historic Assignment

In July 2016, DaSilva landed an assignment to shoot in his signature style that took him back to his roots in journalism, when ABC News hired him to photograph outside the Republican and Democratic National Conventions. “They called it A Different Look Outside the Conventions, so I was either shooting black-and-white portraits or getting general scenes of what was going on outside,” he says.

Indiana State Police during Republican National Convention; Cleveland, OH. Camera: Rolleiflex 3.5E3 Planar; Film: Ilford Delta 400 Pro; Exposure: 1/250 @ f8

“I spent four days at each convention, and carried two or three bodies at a time, because I didn’t know what it was going to yield,” DaSilva notes. “I averaged about 10 rolls per day, and worked out of a hotel room with two small cases, my chemistry and tanks, and whatever else I needed to run my film.”

With time at a premium, he used a single developing tank for four sequential film runs, juggling development, fix, and wash stages in tight succession. “When I was on deadline for the conventions, I wanted to be done in about an hour and a half, whereas it would take most people like three hours or more to develop the same quantity.”

After running the first tank normally and putting the film in a clearing bath, he dried the tank, rolled the next batch of film, and started development almost immediately. He used a single timer for everything, keeping the entire operation in his head.

Downtown skyline during Republican National Convention; Cleveland, OH. Camera: Rolleiflex Tele 135 f4; Film: Ilford Delta 3200 Pro; Exposure: 10 sec. @ f8

“I don’t want to spend a lot of time shaking a tank, so when I’m developing the last tank, the first several rolls are in the dryer, the second batch is in the wash and the third is in the fixer. I use a film washer and hypo clear to minimize the amount of wash time, and a forced air film dryer, which is basically a hair dryer with a modified tank. Once you get the process started, it just kind of continues on, and it’s pretty efficient.”

Assignment Challenges versus the Benefits of a Tangible Archive

DaSilva is the first to admit that his signature style is not the easiest thing to pitch to clients. “It’s not just because of the film, it’s more the format that gives you that look,” he explains. “I’m pitching in the format that I shoot, which is full frame. I’d also prefer the images are published with borders, so it’s hard to put together a package unless it’s on the Web. Print publications have to fill a space, so they’ll wind up cropping things,” he adds.

Hawk in flight, Cypress Lawn Cemetery; Colma, CA. Camera: Rolleiflex 3.5E3 Planar; Film: Ilford Delta HP5 Plus; Exposure: 1/125 @ f11

A primary concern of this work is DaSilva’s abiding interest in history or, more specifically, the loss of our digital history due to incompatible or outmoded digital processes.  

“Part of the reason I shoot film is to actually have a tangible archive that’s not on a hard drive,” he points out. “If you have it on digital you have nothing to pass on to anybody. No one is going to go look through your hard drives later on. No one is going to pick up your phone and say, ‘Oh hey, I wonder what pictures are on here?’ It’s a phone; they’re just going to toss it.”

With this in mind, the significance of DaSilva’s switch from Kodak to Ilford becomes even clearer. “I’m the type of shooter who just wants the brand to be available and consistent,” he says. “Once you get into a look and style of shooting, the film you use becomes a major part of that look. So, I try to get as much on film as I can,” he says, “which is probably more important to me these days than running around shooting digital.”

Woman doing yoga beside Bonneville Salt Flats; Tooele County, UT. Camera: Rolleiflex Tele 135 f4; Film: Ilford Delta 400 Pro; Exposure: 1/500 @ f11

To learn more about Peter DaSilva, click here to visit his website.

Follow him on Instagram.

To read the other stories in our series, Why I Switched, click here https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/p/why-i-switched.

Do you have a story or some insights to share about switching brands? If so, please add your voice to the Comments section, below.

30 Comments

I loved the article and the photographs especially that first one with the plane over the bridge.

After a 30 year hiatus, I have recently returned to shooting film alongside digital. I love them both for different reasons but the modern digital photograph has won in terms of image quality, flexibility and longevity.  

<blockquote>For photojournalist Peter DaSilva, this appeal is rooted in having something tangible, “having an archive that’s not going to evaporate because the medium has changed or due to the incompatibility of files and systems.</blockquote>

I think that paragraph is misleading. I think we will always be able to convert any digital image format to any other digital image format.

Additionally, the film alone does not create the look. The film + the development process + dodging and burning + the presentation process (slides, print, canvas, etc) determines the final look.
 

Hi Khurt, thanks for your comment, I'm glad to hear that you enjoyed the article and the photographs. While you're definitely correct about the fact that the film alone does not create the look, I think you're missing the point in regard to Peter's quote about archival incompatibilities. The act of simply converting file formats is not the whole story, a lot of the potential for incompatibility is related to storage mediums rather than the files themselves. Take, for example, all the images people stored on floppy disks or Zip drives. While it's not that long ago that these systems were actively in use (and even state of the art!), how many people can easily access the files contained on these legacy systems today? It's in situations such as this where an analog film archive becomes a real plus. By shooting both digital and film, it sounds like you're taking advantage of the best of both worlds. Just remember to keep up with your digital backups, and thanks for reading the Explora blog!

It was trivial to move all my images from floppies, CD, old hard drivers, etc.. to my iMac, especially if they were already in TIFF or JPEG. I had no trouble finding converters for older digital image formats.  Even my iPhone takes photos in DNG or HEIC, and I have no issues converting that to TIFF or JPEG.

My Adobe Lightroom catalogue has images from 2003, so I had no issues importing image when I started using the product in 2008. Scanning all my film negatives to TIFF or JPEG means that I have copies of those too even while the negatives are degrading. My digital backup system is near foolproof, assuming we don't get hit by an asteroid (what's the likelihood that my hard drive dies, the backup hard drives, and the cloud backup goes permanently offline?)

I am unconvinced that the facts support the idea that the film has an archival advantage over digital or that digital suffers from an archival file format problem. Perhaps B&H can write an article proving me wrong.

There are benefits and drawbacks to both digital and film. Film has a physical original, which when properly stored will practically always provide its original quality. It also can't suffer from corruption or accidental damage to a single device (like a hard drive). However, you only have the one copy, so if it does get damaged physically you will effectively lose it. Digital on the other hand benefits from being able to be easily copied and stored plenty of places, though these will require constant upkeep to ensure integrity of the data. A piece of film, when stored properly, can last a lifetime, while hard drives do have limited lifespans and will need to be replaced over time. But, I would say film wins cause you can store the orignal properly and make a high-quality digital copy these days. Best of both worlds!

The format incompatibilities are a good point but only a start. It almost sounds like Jill and Peter, both, are unaware that digital images can be printed and archived the same way film ones are, although I'm sure that's not the case. The fact that "No one is going to go look through your hard drives later on. No one is going to pick up your phone and say, ‘Oh hey, I wonder what pictures are on here?’" is no different than the fact that no one is going to go through all your negatives or even contact sheets and say 'Oh hey, I wonder what images are on here." They're only going to look at what you printed. You only work with and print the best ones, and those become your "archived" body of work. The same with digital. You only work with the best images, and while they have the advantage of being instantly transmitted and shared without scanning and losing image quality, they can also be printed with archival inks and papers. The biggest difference is that with digital you tend to have far more "negatives" because with no cost involved you're free to fire away at will and there are far more images to go through looking for the best ones. And yes, real negatives are always going to be there, barring physical disaster, fire, etc. while the digital ones suffer the fate already discussed. Aside from that, the other main advantage to digital is also it's disadvantage, as the article points out, which is the fact that the infinite ability to process and manipulate the images also sacrifices integrity. Now, it may sound like I'm advocating for digital; I'm not. I still prefer shooting film, and am an Ilford Delta shooter almost exclusively. I very much enjoyed the article, Jill. I just wanted to make sure the comparison examines all the considerations. As a side note, as a writer, I must say that this is one of the best-written online articles I've read in a long, long time. Kudos.

Hi Roger, thanks so much for writing in, and especially for the compliment on my writing. That means a lot! I totally get your point about the value of the print as a primary marker of a photographer's archive, and while I agree that this true on a surface level, I also think the perceived value of a photographer's images/archive is subject to changing forces of culture and/or historical significance. A prime example of this that keeps popping into my head is Dirck Halstead's infamous photograph of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky at a 1996 fundraising event, an image the photographer hired a researcher to unearth from thousands of transparencies he had made on assignment years earlier when he was covering the White House. This is not to say that he wouldn't have been able to find the image if it had been a digital file. But it does shed light on the fact that the significance of any given image is not set in stone when a photographer first edits his or her work and decides what to print. Thanks again for writing in and adding your thoughts to this story, and thanks for reading the Explora blog!

I'm a professional writer (and sometime photographer) and what an excellent article, Jill. Thank you for providing this information. I'm getting back into using film and this really helps.

Thanks for the compliment on my article Scott M., great to hear that you're getting back into shooting film! Our site is full of stories about analog processes, a simple keyword search for film photography should point you in the right direction. Or, to immerse yourself in cameras of old, check out our ongoing series on classic cameras: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/classic-cameras-series. Long live film photography, and thanks for reading the Explora blog!

Just stubbled across this article when I was shopping for film. This story must mirror many photographers...who switched over to digital, but found a loss in losing the old medium which offered something different. Interesting to see interest has perked up again with young & old.

I switched to Ilford & Fuji in the 90's.
Now I back with Kodak for Portra:)

Happy you reversed the policy on shipping darkroom chemistry:) That would have been a big problem for me!

Frederic

Thanks for writing in Frederic, it's great to hear that you are still shooting with film. I do think interest in analog processes is still going strong and I'm glad to hear that you can still purchase all the needed supplies through our website. Have fun in the darkroom and thanks for reading the Explora blog!

Thank you for the reply and thank you for supporting the analogue community:)

It's our pleasure, Frederic ... If there are specific topics related to analog photography (or anything else...) that you'd like us to cover in future Explora stories, please let us know. Thanks again for reading, and for your interest in the blog.

Hi - what about a voice from Sweden?
I started my first fotoing in the late 50ties and liked it very much! But i could not start before I could make my own money i the late 60ties. Colour was not to think about so it was b&w all the time. then all of a surden it was digital. I hade my first 2004 and it was a new way of working and Iran on a number of years!. Byt after 4-5 years I start to find it whitout soul! If i did not gett the pic i wanted i stared the PC and then I was able to take down the moon! It was not fun at all! But the way of go to the fotoshop and buy a film was gone! And only a wery few new what it was all about. But I refused to give up and slowly i got back to the felling of 70/80 days. Even the camera is gone and now cameras fore 35 film are rare but i have decided that I will have my cameras whit me in the grave. There have to be film down under!!!!

Thanks so much for chiming in Henrik! While analog cameras and film may be hard to come by where you are, these items are in plentiful supply here at B&H. We currently stock all types and formats of analog film, and the film photography section of our used department carries a regularly updated selection of 35mm cameras and other gear. Here's wishing you much success in your analog explorations, and many thanks for reading Explora, and for shopping at B&H!

I got back into film in 2015 after i got bored with digital, and kind of for the same reason as this journalist mentioned. People can't say "faked" if I show the negatives. 

Im not on a pro level by any means, but I'm having fun with it. 4x5 is my favorite, But it's the least used due to the setup and breakdown needed.

Hi Adam, and thanks for your comment about getting back into analog work. Shooting with film is definitely a rewarding pastime, and it's great to hear that you're having fun. For a real technical challenge and a step back in time, take a look at Peter DaSilva's website to see the Wet Plate Collodion portraits he's been shooting on 14 x 14-inch plates, and lighting with vintage strobes. Long live large format! ... and thanks for reading the Explora blog.

Great article. As a professional photojournalist who spent a decade buying the newest digital cameras, I rediscovered film & Polaroid photography in 2008 and fell back in love with it. I also started surreptitiously submitting film images with my digital ones. They were often selected and one even won a national NPPA award. 

Film is still on the rise! I now teach adult & teen darkroom photography courses at a local art center. That moment when the image starts to emerge in the developer is very intoxicating, addictive & fulfilling. 

One slight correction: medium format film Is normally called 120 film. It's not 120mm film. A common misconception. 

Hi Lance: Thanks so much for the compliment on my article ... and for the correction! I will request that this detail gets changed. May I ask what cameras you work with (both digital and analog)? Perhaps your story would make a good addition to our Switcher series! Enjoy your time in the darkroom and thanks again for reading Explora!

As the son of a film-shooting photojournalist and owner of a 1950s-era Rolleiflex, I am ashamed to admit that I let this one sneak past me. We have edited it per your suggestion, which, of course, is correct. Thank you for pointing it out!

— Copy Editor

I was looking at film on the B&H website when I came across this article and photos. Thank you Ms. Waterman for such a great read and the opportunity to see some of Pete DaSilva's stunning images and learn a bit about his creative process. I'm a long-time film shooter and spent many an hour in the darkroom processing black and white film of all sizes and emulsions--among my happier times. I'm pleased Kodak and Ilford are still producing their fine black and white films, let's all keep shooting them so they will continue. God forbid Tri-X, TMax and Ilford go the way of Kodachrome (which I dearly miss), digital is nice but it just ain't the same. Aloha

Thanks for your compliment on my story about Peter DaSilva, Bob. It was fascinating to learn about Peter's process for shooting with analog cameras for current assignment work. As an Ilford shooter myself, I could not agree more about the importance of keeping the film production lines in operation. Here's to a future rich with B&W film and the magic of the darkroom, and thanks for reading the Explora blog!

I agree with DaSilva that film is a tangible archive; with digital, it requires a computer, power, and software.

I photographed the year 2012 exclusively using B&W film. Kodak BW400CN was my film of choice for the ease of buying it locally and also for developing at the local drugstore labs that processed C-41 film; I also used Ilford XP2 Super and was challenged at the lab that they couldn't process it until I showed them that it was C-41 compatible.

But I also used traditional silver-based B&W film from Kodak TMAX (100, 400, 3200) and Tri-X and various Ilford films.

I photographed a nighttime college baseball game using TMAX 3200 and Delta 3200. I sandwiched the Ilford film between Kodak. Looking at the sequence of photos of the game, it is evident when the film went from Kodak to Ilford and back to Kodak. Kodak TMAX 3200 had higher contrast while Ilford Delta 3200's contrast was muted; the same lab was used for the three rolls.

Gamma rays be damned! I have three rolls of Kodak TMAX 3200 in my freezer for when I need the need for speed.

But yea, Kodak has killed off BW400CN and TMAX 3200.

Tri-X will probably be my standard B&W film since the the local drugstore labs have switched to the destructive dry-lab developing. I have two film SLRs, so one is loaded with B&W and the other with color.

Hi Ralph, thanks for writing in and sharing details about your analog film use. The anecdote about shooting the basketball game with both Kodak and Ilford film stocks is very enlightening indeed, and it totally reinforces what Peter described in his story. Based on this, I'd suggest that you load up your freezer with some Delta 3200, for when you have the need for both speed and a full contrast range. Long live film (...and film developers!) and thanks for reading the blog.

Great work. I also shoot film a lot and process them using Pyrocat-MC in a tank with a Bescolor roller. The stain helps when scanning them.

Hi Greg, thanks for writing in with the great tip about Pyrocat-MC, I wasn't familiar with that particular developer, but it sounds like it's also a good choice for those doing alternative process work. I checked out your website ... nice stuff! What cameras and film types do you work with? Happy shooting and thanks for reading Explora!

Thanks Jill,

I used HP5 for film and Ihave a Deardorff 8x10 and a few 4x5's and a lot of medium format cameras.

Greg

"as cameras improve, my files will get better too” well, the first order of business is updating your 2008 digital camera *specially* if you're using it for digitising negatives

(really great photos, by the way)

(really great photos, by the way)

The cameras are multifunctional, both for digital work and film digitizing. At this point I have no need to upgrade just to increase file size for the BW images. My digital workflow does not warrant me spending some $7k in purchasing multiple cameras at this time and the 21MP files from the MKII are more than enough for the printing and reproduction need on both fronts. Yes, at some point camera upgrades will happen, and if it does, I may just go to the 5DS for the digitizing and to the MK4 for my digital work. 

Close

Close

Close