A little More Feedback From The HARMAN FILM SURVEY

Xmas · Feb 3, 2015

Ektagraphic said:
I know that I have read around here that sourcing the backing paper is very difficult- but didn't know that the cost was like this! I know that New55 had a great deal of trouble with finding the right paper, and the Frugal Photographer has started making their own. It is odd to me that there are not other applications for such a paper that keep it more readily available

Like 620 or 220 maybe?

DWThomas · Feb 3, 2015

Xmas said:
Like 620 or 220 maybe?

620 and 120 backings are interchangeable, it's the spool that's different. 220, now that's a different fish altogether!

studiocarter · Feb 3, 2015

How about 116 616 ?

tokam · Feb 3, 2015

All you '620' guys. Box up your spools and write Simon a very nice letter, (with a suitable bribe enclosed), before mailing off to Cheshire.

I'm sure they could fit you in to the next ULF slice and dice party

fotch · Feb 3, 2015

Simon R Galley said:
Dear Fotch,

Believe it.......

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

I would not have without your confirmation. Thanks for the heads up. Can I return the paper for credit after I develop a roll?

SchwinnParamount · Feb 3, 2015

fotch said:
I would not have without your confirmation. Thanks for the heads up. Can I return the paper for credit after I develop a roll?

You know?... that isn't a bad idea. I know that all of the paper backing for my rolls are in really good shape after I've done with them. I've been toying with the idea of re-rolling 70mm (minus the perfs) onto spools and using my saved paper backing.

Ektagraphic · Feb 3, 2015

fotch said:
I would not have without your confirmation. Thanks for the heads up. Can I return the paper for credit after I develop a roll?

Perhaps if the majority of the world's photographs were being taken on 120 film, they would find a way to come up with reusable paper! Ha!!

tokam · Feb 4, 2015

ghart said:
The paper backing of 120 film costs more than the film itself. At least, that is what I learned when I took the Ilford factory tour!

What a ridiculous situation. Except for the lack of confectioning machinery we could have rolls of 220 at a cheaper price than 120 .

It's about time the SAS were sent in to Rochester or Tokyo to liberate the 220 gear and smuggle back to Cheshire where it could do a lot more good for a lot of folk.

rbultman · Feb 4, 2015

Simon,

This page states, "Please see our new international website to find a darkroom near you.", but no link. Can you make that text a hot link to the page?

Thanks.

Xmas · Feb 4, 2015

tokam said:
What a ridiculous situation. Except for the lack of confectioning machinery we could have rolls of 220 at a cheaper price than 120 .

It's about time the SAS were sent in to Rochester or Tokyo to liberate the 220 gear and smuggle back to Cheshire where it could do a lot more good for a lot of folk.

Alas no the reason the paper is expensive is the because the volume is limited and it is even more limited for 220.

Truzi · Feb 4, 2015

rbultman said:
Simon,

This page states, "Please see our new international website to find a darkroom near you.", but no link. Can you make that text a hot link to the page?

Thanks.

A text link would be more obvious, but there is a link on that page.

The image that says "Local Dark Room" is a click-able link (right above the text that says "Please see our new international website to find a darkroom near you").

It takes you to a page where you click on the map to get started, and you can zoom in. I know we have a couple local darkrooms, but they apparently have not registered with Ilford (hmm, maybe I should gently suggest they do).

On the page you linked to, you can just type in a postal code, but I can't get it to work with our U.S. zip codes, so either it is not set up for that, or I am doing something wrong.

rbultman · Feb 4, 2015

Yeah, I faced the same problem. I think 'local' might be local to the UK. The 'real' international site is a clickable map.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

peter k. · Feb 4, 2015

Had no problem
Do not click on [Darkrooms]
Click on the much larger, on the left Local Dark Rooms (with the 35mm film wrapped around the K)

rbultman · Feb 4, 2015

Thanks Truzi and Peter. Pilot error.

Truzi said:
...
The image that says "Local Dark Room" is a click-able link (right above the text that says "Please see our new international website to find a darkroom near you").
...

peter k. said:
Had no problem
Do not click on [Darkrooms]
Click on the much larger, on the left Local Dark Rooms (with the 35mm film wrapped around the K)

rbultman said:
Simon,

This page states, "Please see our new international website to find a darkroom near you.", but no link. Can you make that text a hot link to the page?

Thanks.

ME Super · Feb 4, 2015

My current job is web site work. We have to keep accessibility in mind for those with a disability. Nothing infuriates me more than to attempt to jump from link to link with a screen reader and the link says nothing more than "click here." So please, folks, when you're doing web design, don't do "click here to see local darkrooms." That's very difficult for screen reader users who tab from one link to the next. All they'll hear is "link click here." A better way to do it is "See local darkrooms. This will be rendered by most screen readers as "link See local darkrooms" and the blind or visually impaired user will have a clue as to where this link goes.

The image "local darkrooms" doesn't have an alt tag, either, so a screen reader would render this as "link image." If the "local darkrooms" image had an alt tag with meaningful text (for example, alt="local darkrooms"), the screen reader would render it as "link image local darkrooms." This would inform the blind or visually impaired user that there's a link with an image in it pertaining to local darkrooms.

I only know this stuff because of having to build web sites that look good and perform correctly on everything from an iPhone to a computer hooked to a 50" TV, and still keep the site usable for users with disabilities, whether they be visual or otherwise (keyboard-only users come to mind).

I love the work that Ilford does, their website does look good, and is easy to use for a sighted person. In the business that Ilford/Harman is in, it's probably less important to cater to the visually impaired audience, although we do have some visually impaired photographers on here too, and it is good to make the site easy to use for those folks too.

Go Ilford!

cmacd123 · Feb 4, 2015

ME Super said:
I only know this stuff because of having to build web sites that look good and perform correctly on everything from an iPhone to a computer hooked to a 50" TV, and still keep the site usable for users with disabilities, whether they be visual or otherwise (keyboard-only users come to mind).
Go Ilford!

I know that their web designer did not test the site with all browsers either it seems.

For example http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/product.asp?n=6&t=Black+&+White+Films

if you hover over "fact sheets" there are three links, but at least with the version of Firefox I use, when you try to move the mouse to click on one of them, they disappear! I think the last time I needed one of the documents I used Google to find a link like http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2010712125850702.pdf to get the needed document.

Google also links http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2010628104821855.pdf so you have to download them both to figure out what one you need. If I had a magic wand, I would ask that the file name include a part of the document title if possible.

If they even had the pop-up stay active to ten seconds it would help, I don't want to think about what a person with disabilities would do to get the needed file.

SchwinnParamount · Feb 4, 2015

ME Super said:
My current job is web site work. We have to keep accessibility in mind for those with a disability. Nothing infuriates me more than to attempt to jump from link to link with a screen reader and the link says nothing more than "click here." So please, folks, when you're doing web design, don't do "click here to see local darkrooms." That's very difficult for screen reader users who tab from one link to the next. All they'll hear is "link click here." A better way to do it is "See local darkrooms. This will be rendered by most screen readers as "link See local darkrooms" and the blind or visually impaired user will have a clue as to where this link goes.

The image "local darkrooms" doesn't have an alt tag, either, so a screen reader would render this as "link image." If the "local darkrooms" image had an alt tag with meaningful text (for example, alt="local darkrooms"), the screen reader would render it as "link image local darkrooms." This would inform the blind or visually impaired user that there's a link with an image in it pertaining to local darkrooms.

I only know this stuff because of having to build web sites that look good and perform correctly on everything from an iPhone to a computer hooked to a 50" TV, and still keep the site usable for users with disabilities, whether they be visual or otherwise (keyboard-only users come to mind).

I love the work that Ilford does, their website does look good, and is easy to use for a sighted person. In the business that Ilford/Harman is in, it's probably less important to cater to the visually impaired audience, although we do have some visually impaired photographers on here too, and it is good to make the site easy to use for those folks too.

Go Ilford!

I know this will be politically incorrect, but I got a little bit of a giggle at the thought of a visually impaired person looking for a darkroom to print his negatives.

Francesco_from_Rome · Feb 5, 2015

SchwinnParamount said:
I know this will be politically incorrect, but I got a little bit of a giggle at the thought of a visually impaired person looking for a darkroom to print his negatives.

A visually impaired person could be looking for a darkroom for his children or for his nephew. Or could be a formerly not visually impaired who likes to keep up to date with his hobby, or could be simply interested (being a person first and foremost, than a visually impaired person). So there are many reasons and in principle usability and accessibility should improve all over the world, not only on the web and certainly not only on Ilford site.

Francesco

Steve Smith · Feb 5, 2015

SchwinnParamount said:
I know this will be politically incorrect, but I got a little bit of a giggle at the thought of a visually impaired person looking for a darkroom to print his negatives.

My father was visually impaired. He only had sight in one eye and that 'good' eye needed a serious amount of negative Dioptres in the form of a thick contact lens and before that, a thick glasses lens to get anywhere near normal.

Despite that, he managed to work part time as a wedding photographer and could print in the darkroom.

Steve.

Truzi · Feb 5, 2015

Yes, being visually impaired does not mean that someone cannot take pictures or make enlargements. I've even known people who's vision would swing, and on the good days, they went out and did things they wanted instead of sitting behind a computer.

One thing I'll do on occasion is use a text-based web browser to see how some sites deal with accessibility. It's not the best way, but is a quick and dirty check. Using links2 for the darkroom page, the link just says (as stated by others). Even with the -g flag, I cannot get a map to display. Even if the image link was properly coded, it would be difficult to use certain page features with screen reader.

While the map is nice and "slick," I'm the type who would appreciate a list as well. I could simply search the page for my state, which is quicker than mousing and zooming.

Sirius Glass · Feb 5, 2015

The visually impaired have their lives and some of them can still enjoy photography. Good for them!

Sal Santamaura · Feb 5, 2015

SchwinnParamount said:
I know this will be politically incorrect...

"Politically incorrect" is a BS, meaningless term. What you posted is just plain dumb:

http://www.quietlightphoto.com/

Sirius Glass · Feb 5, 2015

... and insensitive.

MattKing · Feb 5, 2015

I am going to sort of leap to SchwinnParamount's defence.

I'll bet he is confusing in his mind "visually impaired" and "blind" (as in has no vision whatsoever).

Photography for the completely blind is probably not usually a particularly rewarding endeavour.

But there are lots of opportunities for those whose vision is impaired, but not absent.

goros · Feb 6, 2015

For instance:

http://www.blindwithcamera.org/events-news/

A little More Feedback From The HARMAN FILM SURVEY

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency