2013 ULF Manufacture From ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

LJH · May 19, 2013

Funny that those who fall under the title of this programme (i.e. those shooting ULF) aren't complaining about paying for film (over $8 per sheet/shot for me), yet those who shoot small formats are.

We all individually choose the formats that we shoot, so perhaps we all should take responsibility for the costs associated with using said format?

IMO, some here are coming across as ingrates. Keep poking the (Ilford) bear and we might all be shooting digital some time soon...

Curt · May 19, 2013

Yes, that's most likely the case. It's like making a bookcase out of a sheet of plywood. Just run it through a "best fit" software program. But that's probably been done by hand many years ago.

StoneNYC · May 19, 2013

LJH said:
Funny that those who fall under the title of this programme (i.e. those shooting ULF) aren't complaining about paying for film (over $8 per sheet/shot for me), yet those who shoot small formats are.

We all individually choose the formats that we shoot, so perhaps we all should take responsibility for the costs associated with using said format?

IMO, some here are coming across as ingrates. Keep poking the (Ilford) bear and we might all be shooting digital some time soon...

I noticed that, I think it's two fold, one is that I think we tend to think of LF sheet film as more surface area so more cost to begin with. But also just that the LF shooters are kind of used to paying high prices, this is new for us smaller format shooters so there's a little sticker shock going on with an expectation that the 120ish equivalent in price per surface area of film would be a lot closer.

And I also agree, we asked for it, we got it, and now we are bitching lol, pretty ungrateful.

I do think it would be nice to know if they meet the quota this year, if next year it will be cheaper because tooling costs are then covered.

Also since I wast around (or aware) then, can anyone tell me if any of the smaller format roll films had been part of this run in the past? (And actually cut, not just offered). Thanks.

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Roger Thoms · May 19, 2013

Curt said:
Roger, from what I see the prices must be figure by a formula more complex than just surface area. They must be putting a value on each format based on volume, cost of production including confectioning etc.. I would guess that the cost is offset by a higher cost for the format and adjusted prices for the more popular formats to cover the cost.

I'd be interested in seeing Pan F+ in sheet film sizes but the capability of production doesn't exist.

Curt

This did cross my mind but the 4x10 is over three times the surface area and yet the price is within a dollar or two. Maybe I'll PM Simon about this as it is really bothering me.

Roger

DLawson · May 19, 2013

LJH said:
Funny that those who fall under the title of this programme (i.e. those shooting ULF) aren't complaining about paying for film (over $8 per sheet/shot for me), yet those who shoot small formats are.

I'm not complaining. But I will admit that as a shooter of mostly 35mm, and forgetting just how cheap that can be, I had a hic-up at the bulk roll prices of the ULF. Then I did the math to get a per/roll price and things get more real.

I initially choked on one price for 46mm, then realized that it was lower than Efke's 127 (disregarding the need to hand roll).

I'm happy. But I still have to wait for the June budget before I buy.

DLawson · May 19, 2013

Simon,

I wanted to thank you for the 46mm/127 offering. I will be placing my order once the money-wheel crosses into June. I just wanted to add my vote for next year offering this in FP4 (or alternating years of FP4/HP5). I'm sure I will find many good uses at ISO 400, but the cameras I have for 127 are more geared at 100-ish (or lower, if you have secret plans).

(Keeping my eye out for a gray baby.)

DLawson · May 19, 2013

StoneNYC said:
I do think it would be nice to know if they meet the quota this year, if next year it will be cheaper because tooling costs are then covered.

My impression (from Simon's comments) is that retooling is not a major part of most of these costs. It comes down to waste relative to "normal" production. That and labor for what is really *several* special order runs.

Also since I wast around (or aware) then, can anyone tell me if any of the smaller format roll films had been part of this run in the past? (And actually cut, not just offered).

It (in my impression) keeps expanding, if slowly. This is the first year that I've seen 46mm/127 bulk rolls. So the first year that I've been more than an observer. Lots of discussion say this is the first for 122. I think *some* 120 and 70mm happened before, though the 120 backer paper is (I believe) new.

Sal Santamaura · May 20, 2013

StoneNYC said:
...can anyone tell me if any of the smaller format roll films had been part of this run in the past?...

Only 90mm FP4 Plus as of last year. Here's the 2012 list:

Curt · May 20, 2013

Roger Thoms said:
This did cross my mind but the 4x10 is over three times the surface area and yet the price is within a dollar or two. Maybe I'll PM Simon about this as it is really bothering me.

Roger

I agree, an explanation is needed, asking Simon is the way to get it. We've tossed around our ideas but it appears only Ilford / Harmon knows. Our money is relavent here.

Curt

StoneNYC · May 21, 2013

Sal Santamaura said:
Only 90mm FP4 Plus as of last year. Here's the 2012 list:

Can you tell me the difference between the 90mm and the 91.whateveritis mm film? I know the latter is 122? So then what's the 90mm?

Thanks, just curious.

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Roger Thoms · May 21, 2013

Curt said:
I agree, an explanation is needed, asking Simon is the way to get it. We've tossed around our ideas but it appears only Ilford / Harmon knows. Our money is relavent here.

Curt

I did PM Simon and he indicated that it is volume related and that they would reevaluate the price for 2014.

Roger

Pioneer · May 21, 2013

I would love the price to be lower but, considering this is a first go for a film that has been tough to find, I find the quoted price to be fair. I have been using Efke 25, which is nice, but I suspect that the QC on these Ilford films will be quite a bit higher.

Curt · May 21, 2013

Roger Thoms said:
I did PM Simon and he indicated that it is volume related and that they would reevaluate the price for 2014.

Roger

Roger, that's interesting, maybe maybe not. A year is a long time to wait for a reevaluation. Unfortunately the situation now is how much will sell and who will pass. That isn't a good indicator for future pricing and volume.

For what it's worth I'm still deciding on what to order. $300.00 plus for twenty five sheets. Am I in that league or fooling myself? Jim's 8x20 prints are impressive and Vaughn's 4x10 prints are stunning. How's the poem go? "I took the road less traveled and found it was a dead end." Get what you can and hope for the best I suppose.

Imagine needing, wanting, more than one format!

At least Ilford / Harmon alive and producing, and FP4+ is and has been a great film.

Lee Smathers · May 21, 2013

At MPEX 2 7x17 FP4+ & 2 HP5+ 122 rolls will cost me 730 bucks.
At Freestyle the same order is 780 bucks. Better savings with MPEX.
I'd really only like to order one roll of 122, but I want to make sure this will be on next year's list.
If there's better prices, let me know!

I'm curious about the 90mm FP4+ film too. I can't figure out what it's used for either. Tempted to just buy this for savings over HP5+ 122 rolls. FP4+ would make more sense in my Kodak 3a camera - but consider my 2 rolls of 122 committing to the world cause.

Any ideas how to store 122 film? Best I've though of is 4x6 print sleeves.

StoneNYC · May 21, 2013

DLawson said:
Simon,

I wanted to thank you for the 46mm/127 offering. I will be placing my order once the money-wheel crosses into June. I just wanted to add my vote for next year offering this in FP4 (or alternating years of FP4/HP5). I'm sure I will find many good uses at ISO 400, but the cameras I have for 127 are more geared at 100-ish (or lower, if you have secret plans).

(Keeping my eye out for a gray baby.)

I don't understand this comment about not being able to use 400 speed film in a 127 camera, I only have one, and it's a junker, but I'm always having to push the Efke100 because its too slow and I can't even get past f/5.6 without a tripod (because shutter speeds drop below 1/30) so this confuses me, I don't see how they are "geared" to any film speed, but I'm asking because I want to learn and understand not to argue, hope that's clear.

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

wblynch · May 21, 2013

StoneNYC said:
I don't understand this comment about not being able to use 400 speed film in a 127 camera.

That's because most 127 cameras are Brownie type / box cameras with fixed shutter speeds of about 1/45 and they blow out fast film in anything more than dark shade. They were designed for ASA 64 films.

They certainly don't have such luxuries as a tripod socket.

StoneNYC · May 21, 2013

wblynch said:
That's because most 127 cameras are Brownie type / box cameras with fixed shutter speeds of about 1/45 and they blow out fast film in anything more than dark shade. They were designed for ASA 64 films.

They certainly don't have such luxuries as a tripod socket.

OH haha I only own the yashika 44.. Which has a tripod socket and PC socket... So I didn't realize most weren't like that. However, why would you spend such money on good film like this at such a premium and shoot it with a brownie style lens? (I guess I've never understood the lomo style shooting, I'm too much of a control freak lol). Thanks for the info.

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

wblynch · May 21, 2013

StoneNYC said:
... However, why would you spend such money on good film like this at such a premium and shoot it with a brownie style lens?

Exactly!

Mostly I shoot color. Kodak portra 160 in 46mmx100ft is really cheap. Less than $2 a roll.

But using old cameras the Multi-national corporations say we are not allowed to have anymore is really fun.

StoneNYC · May 21, 2013

wblynch said:
Exactly!

Mostly I shoot color. Kodak portra 160 in 46mmx100ft is really cheap. Less than $2 a roll.

But using old cameras the Multi-national corporations say we are not allowed to have anymore is really fun.

Process at home? I don't know many places that you can have c-41 127 done cheaply. And even home isn't cheap... Ok I'm eating up this thread I'll shush as its SLIGHTLY becoming off topic.

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

DLawson · May 21, 2013

StoneNYC said:
I don't understand this comment about not being able to use 400 speed film in a 127 camera, I only have one, and it's a junker, but I'm always having to push the Efke100 because its too slow and I can't even get past f/5.6 without a tripod (because shutter speeds drop below 1/30) so this confuses me, I don't see how they are "geared" to any film speed, but I'm asking because I want to learn and understand not to argue, hope that's clear.

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

First of all, don't take me as an expert. I'm an aging newbie (started B&W darkroom in 1975 and haven't learned much since then).

The 127 camera that I have now (somewhere, thought it was on the bookcase) has a top shutter speed around 1/100, and I use it for daylight walk-at-lunch sort of thing, or did until the Efke curl drove me crazy. ISO 400 and sunny-16 puts me where? f/32? I like *some* choice on depth of field.

Waiting for a 127 Rolleiflex to ship. The pictures look good, and if it is half as good as it looks, I'll be happy.

Of course, by the time I have this film, the days will be getting shorter and 400 may be just the thing.

I'm certainly not complaining. I just like the full variety.

wblynch · May 21, 2013

This year is going to be fun, thanks to ILFORD !!

Shalom · May 22, 2013

I'm not going to be ordering the 46mm myself. I've got one of Joe McGloin's film slitters, and I can just cut down any existing 120 film if I want to feed my Yashica 44a. (Also have half a roll of 46mm Agfa Portrait XPS-160 in the freezer which wasn't too badly outdated when I froze it.)

Note that if you intend to do this yourself, or even recycle existing 120 backing paper for use with new 46mm stock, you need to spool the cut-down film backwards and count down from 16 to 1, or it won't line up in the red window: the 4x4 track on real 127 paper is on the opposite side of the strip from the 6x4.5 track on 120 paper.

At the moment, I'm trying to decide between the 90mm FP4+ and the 91.75mm HP5+. Can't afford both at the moment. I'm leaning toward the faster film, even if it is $30 more, because none of my 3A cameras go much below f/8. The exception is the (not-yet-working) Graflex 3A, but that one has a shutter that goes up to 1/1000, or did when it was new. I've always wondered what the heck they were thinking when they built that one, back in the '20s, when Super-XX was as fast a film as you could possibly get.

(On the other hand, I do have a 90mm reel, meant for industrial X-ray film apparently, and actual 122 doesn't fit it very well. Have to think about this some more.)

seadrive · May 30, 2013

Hi guys and gals,

Sorry if this was mentioned already (made it through page 10, had to stop), but can someone tell me how the film is packaged? I mean, if I order 5x12, does it come in a 5x12-ish size box, or do they put two 25-sheet packs together in an 11x14 box, or... what?

This is my first year taking part in the Ilford/Harman film fest. This is so friggin' wonderful...

TIA!

Roger Thoms · May 30, 2013

I can only speak to Whole Plate, which comes in properly sized boxes. I would guess that the other sizes do too.

Roger

StoneNYC · May 31, 2013

When does this end? I have my show June 1st and all my money went to prints and frames, I really want to buy a few things... :/

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

2013 ULF Manufacture From ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency