A new Ilford film?

Roger Hicks · Jul 16, 2006

Probably this won't work, because I suspect that the reject rate isn't high enough -- but why not package any really out-of-spec material for Holgas and Lomos? I can just see the packaging: Ilford Holga 120 and Ilford Lomo 35. They could even offer a money-back guarantee if it's any good...

Cheers,

Roger

Andy K · Jul 16, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
Probably this won't work, because I suspect that the reject rate isn't high enough -- but why not package any really out-of-spec material for Holgas and Lomos? I can just see the packaging: Ilford Holga 120 and Ilford Lomo 35. They could even offer a money-back guarantee if it's any good...

Cheers,

Roger

You will probably find that the Lomographic Society International has 'Holga' and 'Lomo' sewn up tight as trademarks. They are also very litigious.

If this was to work Ilford would have to sell the film stock to the LSI, who would then repackage it, quadruple the price and sell it as the 'latest, greatest discovery of out of date film from Vienna'.

Roger Hicks · Jul 16, 2006

Andy K said:
You will probably find that the Lomographic Society International has 'Holga' and 'Lomo' sewn up tight as trademarks. They are also very litigious.

If this was to work Ilford would have to sell the film stock to the LSI, who would then repackage it, quadruple the price and sell it as the 'latest, greatest discovery of out of date film from Vienna'.

Yes, but at least they wouldn't have to worry about how it was stored...

Cheers,

Aphasia Winkleprop

David A. Goldfarb · Jul 16, 2006

Ilford film problems that I've heard about have been things like coating defects that produce a repetitive "V" shaped mark on the film--probably not too exciting from a Lomographic/Holgascopic perspective.

Simon R Galley · Jul 17, 2006

Dear Mr.Hicks....

I have met some Lomo fans in Russia...and very passionate about Lomo's they are as well...as for 'out of spec' films...nothing will ever leave HARMAN technoilogy Limited 'out of spec'...Its why I am am sightly confused about David's remark ?..can you elucidate or pm me..

Regards

Simon: ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

George Papantoniou · Jul 17, 2006

Simon, you have to watch "V for vendetta" in order to understand David's joke (and Andy's avatar)...

What about Ilford's "Pan" films, meant to be distributed in India, Greece and other underdeveloped countries ? Aren't they supposed to be cut from the edges of FP4 and HP5 master rolls, thus of a "Lower quality" than the "FP4" and "HP5" labelled film that comes from the "good part" of the master roll ? At least, that's what the street rumours (or an urban legend) suggest...

Simon R Galley · Jul 17, 2006

Dear George,

Thanks for explaining the 'v' I thought it must be some reference but I can be a bit slow:

The PAN films you talk about are quality films, but are a different specification to FP4+ and HP5+

Regards

Simon.

Roger Hicks · Jul 17, 2006

Simon R Galley said:
Dear Mr.Hicks....

I have met some Lomo fans in Russia...and very passionate about Lomo's they are as well...as for 'out of spec' films...nothing will ever leave HARMAN technoilogy Limited 'out of spec'...Its why I am am sightly confused about David's remark ?..can you elucidate or pm me..

Regards

Simon: ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

Dear Simon,

It was meant principally as a joke. What I meant was simply this: rather than throw it away, rebrand it for Holga and Lomo, where the quality is so lousy (especially Holga) that stuff you would regard as fit only for recycling would fit in beautifully.

Actually, rather than 'lousy' let's use words like 'chance' or (if we're feeling fancy) 'aleatory'. Lomos aren't too bad, but I've never quite understood the appeal of Holgas.

But as I said, I doubt you produce enough stuff that is bad enough to make it worth the effort. Of course you could always store the bad stuff until you had enough to release a 'connoisseur's batch' of bad film. After all, a bit of age-fog (and a selection of different problems, such as air-bubbles, scratches, wrong speeds, etc.) would only add to the mystique.

Cheers,

Roger

Paul Sorensen · Jul 17, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
Actually, rather than 'lousy' let's use words like 'chance' or (if we're feeling fancy) 'aleatory'. Lomos aren't too bad, but I've never quite understood the appeal of Holgas.

But as I said, I doubt you produce enough stuff that is bad enough to make it worth the effort. Of course you could always store the bad stuff until you had enough to release a 'connoisseur's batch' of bad film. After all, a bit of age-fog (and a selection of different problems, such as air-bubbles, scratches, wrong speeds, etc.) would only add to the mystique.

In other words, Simon, it is people like me who occasionally use a Holga who are the target of Roger's barbs, not Ilford.

Of course, I get my messed up film on eBay outdated for a few cents a roll, no reason to pay extra!

Roger Hicks · Jul 17, 2006

Dear Paul,

'Barbs' is putting it a bit harshly -- as I say, it was meant lightheartedly -- but yes, that's it.

Then again, just think: if you could get reliably bad film, with unpredictable faults, you could try taking Holga-type 'aleatory' pictures with a reliable camera...

Cheers,

Hezakiah Toadmountain

Andy K · Jul 17, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
Then again, just think: if you could get reliably bad film, with unpredictable faults, you could try taking Holga-type 'aleatory' pictures with a reliable camera...

... which would eliminate the luck element and make the exercise pointless (in the eyes of many toy camera users).

B&Wenthusiast · Jul 17, 2006

new Ilford film

I just want to say -- please keep making the 3200 for 35mm!! We really need it for our low-light stage work!

Roger Hicks · Jul 17, 2006

Andy K said:
... which would eliminate the luck element and make the exercise pointless (in the eyes of many toy camera users).

Not if the film always had unpredictable faults. That was the point...

Cheers,

Thelonius Luck-Fillet

Paul Sorensen · Jul 17, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
Dear Paul,

'Barbs' is putting it a bit harshly -- as I say, it was meant lightheartedly -- but yes, that's it.

Then again, just think: if you could get reliably bad film, with unpredictable faults, you could try taking Holga-type 'aleatory' pictures with a reliable camera...

Cheers,

Hezakiah Toadmountain

I wasn't insulted, hence the smile. I can't imagine a film that gets less sharp the farther you are from the center of a frame, but if you can come up with it, I will buy some.

DBP · Jul 17, 2006

Maybe they could develop something with a slightly elastic base. Or maybe a sheet film with a wavy finish so random portions could be out of focus for the LF Holga effect.

DBP · Jul 17, 2006

BTW, I have a copy of the issue of Popular Photography that I believe initiated the Diana craze back in the 70s. Having read the article, I still don't get it. I especially don't understand why Dianas and Holgas are supposed to do a bad job better than any of the thousands of other cheap plastic cameras introduced over the years.

George Papantoniou · Jul 18, 2006

If someone reads the ourageous stuff you all write here, he'll think that it's really hard to do a bad job perfectly (I mean, perfectly bad).... :confused:

When I wanted a bad film, I fixed unexposed 4x5 sheets and then I applied liquid emulsion on them with a brush (without taking care not to cause bubbles or uneven strokes). You would be surprised to see how bad it was...

Leon · Jul 18, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
Not if the film always had unpredictable faults. That was the point...

Cheers,

Thelonius Luck-Fillet

Dear Mr Lillet- Fu .... erm whoops - Luck-Fillet.

I'm an avid user of the holga and it's slightly more sturdy Japanese Cousin, the Fujipet. I must admit to getting a great hit-rate of successfull pics when using my plastic contraptions and would never dream of putting anything less than quality films through them.

I know your post was originally almost funny (sort of), and must admit the there are quite a few toycamerateers out there for whom the image means nothing, and the faults everything, so your humour is quite well applied in their cases. But, there are plenty of us for whom the quirky toycamera is just another tool in the process of producing quality artistic prints. I guess we are the people who dont obsess over the perfect glass, who dont long to be able to take out the second and third mortgages to be able to afford the latests perfect-colour-renditioning-non-distorting- blah-blah lenses, who dont lust over the next Leicblad build quality platinum plated body. We are just in it for the art.

I'll hapilly send you a holga print to see if it helps you "get it"? PM me of you're interested.

DBP · Jul 18, 2006

Leon said:
Dear Mr Lillet- Fu .... erm whoops - Luck-Fillet.

I'm an avid user of the holga and it's slightly more sturdy Japanese Cousin, the Fujipet. I must admit to getting a great hit-rate of successfull pics when using my plastic contraptions and would never dream of putting anything less than quality films through them.

I know your post was originally almost funny (sort of), and must admit the there are quite a few toycamerateers out there for whom the image means nothing, and the faults everything, so your humour is quite well applied in their cases. But, there are plenty of us for whom the quirky toycamera is just another tool in the process of producing quality artistic prints. I guess we are the people who dont obsess over the perfect glass, who dont long to be able to take out the second and third mortgages to be able to afford the latests perfect-colour-renditioning-non-distorting- blah-blah lenses, who dont lust over the next Leicblad build quality platinum plated body. We are just in it for the art.

I'll hapilly send you a holga print to see if it helps you "get it"? PM me of you're interested.

You make it sound like anyone who doesn't want to use a toy camera is obsessing about lens quality. You missed the point. There are endless choices out there for nice soft focus lenses. But Holga, Diana, and Lomo users seem to think you have to use one of those products, and pay a premium to do so. I am by no means an equipment snob, I use Argus Cs and Zorkis, among other things, but I don't get why one has to buy a Holga to take pics any box camera built in the last 120 years can take. Take a look at Marcy Merrill's work to see what I mean.

Roger Hicks · Jul 18, 2006

Dear Leon,

Thanks for the kind offer, but I have seen good Holga shots; the original post was indeed intended as a lighthearted passing idea. I can 'get it' when the Holga works, but a lot of people seem to revel in the light-leaks and unreliability, which seems a bit masochistic to me. Actually I have a Lyubitel TLR, £2 at a car boot sale, which has some of the same charms as a Holga, and a Fex Himalaya (bizarre French box camera) which is a bit Holga-ish too.

They're fun, but on the rare occasions I use such cameras, I think, nah, I'll stick with something sharper and easier to use -- which needn't cost a fortune. The MF camera I've used most lately is a KowaSIX which I inherited from my late father-in-law. A surprisingly good camera but I hate to think how little it's worth.

What happens in too many cases, I fear, is that people look at a good picture taken with a Holga (or Diana before them -- I had one of those too) and fall into the classic logical trap of the omitted middle: this is a good print, so if I get a Holga, I'll get good pictures too. This completely ignores the photographer's talent and temperament.

Of course if you want REALLY bad quality there's always digital...

Cheers,

Roger

ZorkiKat · Jul 18, 2006

I like using an old Agfa "Click III" for 6x6 cm toycamera photography. It pretty does the same thing as a Holga, but without the leaks. It's possible to introduce leaks when needed: just slide the latch off and loosen the back a bit and let light breach into the sides. It's light leaks on demand

Or else, I could turn to an old cardboard Agfa-Ansco Cadet B2 which makes 6x9 cm exposures.

Jay

Leon · Jul 18, 2006

DBP said:
You make it sound like anyone who doesn't want to use a toy camera is obsessing about lens quality. You missed the point. There are endless choices out there for nice soft focus lenses. But Holga, Diana, and Lomo users seem to think you have to use one of those products, and pay a premium to do so. I am by no means an equipment snob, I use Argus Cs and Zorkis, among other things, but I don't get why one has to buy a Holga to take pics any box camera built in the last 120 years can take. Take a look at Marcy Merrill's work to see what I mean.

No points missed Mr DBP - just my point made.

Mr Hicks - sorry - I thought you were dismissing all holga photographers and their ilk as cliche wielders. Sorry if I misunderstood

Roger Hicks · Jul 18, 2006

Leon said:
Sorry if I misunderstood

Not at all. It is I who should apologize for not making myself clearer.

Cheers,

Spiffin O'Rourke

A new Ilford film?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency