So has Ilford simply been unlucky in its choice of emulsion compared to Kodak and Fuji? In Kodak's case it seems it had to spend a lot of money to solve the problem from what Matt says. Is this the kind of money Ilford cannot afford?
I am not sure how Fuji has avoided this problem of backing paper's not interfering with denser printing. Was it just sheer luck?
I don't think that Ilford deliberately ignores any of its customers but what I do accept is that like any other company that needs to stay in business it will work out what it might cost to cure the problem that affects users of red window cameras and from that work out the cost to benefit involved
In that sense Ilford is no different to any other company and will thus ignore such customers
pentaxuser
For every engineering project I've ever known, there are multiple potential solutions available to achieve the desired solution. Same is true with this problem. What we know for fact is that two different solutions were implemented by two different manufacturers to resolve the same/similar (and seemingly rather uncommon) problem. Any discussion of how much those solutions cost seems so speculative that they are worth accepting as intersting yet unsubstantiated hypothesis/hyperbole. So why do we keep hanging a hat on this line of thinking? Why would the cost of a minor re-engineering project really be know to anyone outside of the inner project/accounting circle? Let's face it... none of these film makers are forthcoming about their finances at anything close to a detailed level, let alone this microscopic level.
It is highly likely that both chose the most inexpensive solution to solving the problem. The cost might not be the same for both companies so it could be very difficult to determine, relatively speaking, which solution is most economically advantagious. Wht we can judge is the relative effectiveness of each solution.
It might be better to consider the user impact numbers from a marketing and user volume perspective. Ilford stated that "less than 1.5 complaints for every 10,000 rolls of 120 film" were affected. (and, yes, I realize that not every person affected sent in a complaint; I knowthat I did not.) Of that small number, it is likely that a smalll percentegage were people, me included, who still use exceedingly-archaic red-window cameras. That's a very subset of a small population to go out of one's way to please.
"I am not sure" should be "WE are not sure"... and it should extend beyond just Fuji
(Please forgive any typos that I diod nto correct; it seems I need a new keyboard; or, at least. to get the sticky goo off of this one.)