An investigation of the film in the new Ilfocolor Disposable cameras

[pentaxuser]

But that would have applied back in the day to everything made by Ilford Imaging in Switzerland - all the Ilfochrome and other related products - which quite rightly bore the Ilford name.

I regard that comparison to not be quite the same as a camera carrying the name Ilford Ilfocolor which indicates to me a form of deviousness. How would you all feel if I became a seller of colour film on Photrio that I said was Ilfocolor. You might buy it if the supply and price was right but I'd had thought my reputation as an honest, "what you see is what you get" would rightly suffer

However it would seem to appear not as I am the only one who appears to have any concerns. So can I become a trusted sponsor on Photrio I may have some new Kodachrome to sell as well

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

How would you all feel if I became a seller of colour film on Photrio that I said was Ilfocolor.

Wouldn't bother me a bit if you had the rights to use the Ilfocolor name. Those rights would have been purchased from the bankruptcy trustee.
Same for Kodachrome, if you were able to buy those rights.
Polaroid is now being used by an entity that has only the slightest connection with the original Polaroid.
And you don't want to know what has happened to the once valued name of Bell and Howell.
The same applies to ADOX, and Agfa.
Just like if you buy a Whirlpool washing machine - that trade mark is now owned by Electrolux, I believe.
The names don't mean a lot any more, unless they are attached to an entity that is deserving of trust.
In the Ilford world, Harman Technology Ltd. are entitled to use the Ilford name for black and white products, but they use Harman for others, and in both cases they have built the existing trust, because the old Ilford Limited hasn't existed for years.
With all due respect, your expectations of how names are used reside in the past. And while that is unfortunate ....

 

[Don_ih]

With all due respect, your expectations of how names are used reside in the past. And while that is unfortunate ...

His expectations regarding the use of names is exactly what the businesses in question rely on when they use those names to label products for sale.

 

[foc]

Perhaps there are clues in the film edge markings.

+1

Can a processed strip of the negatives, showing images and edge markings, be posted, please?
That would be a big help.

 

[MattKing]

His expectations regarding the use of names is exactly what the businesses in question rely on when they use those names to label products for sale.

I think pentaxuser is expecting a connection between the product name and the name of the entity that manufactures the product. That and multi-year continuity between both. That is the expectation that has gone by the wayside.

 

[Don_ih]

I think pentaxuser is expecting a connection between the product name and the name of the entity that manufactures the product. That and multi-year continuity between both. That is the expectation that has gone by the wayside.

And that is why companies use such names in the first place. They depend on brand recognition to sell product. The average consumer doesn't question that branding but buys the product because of the recognized name.

 

[Arcadia4]

This goes back to the bankruptcy of the uk arm of ilford imaging in 2004, which following management buy out became Harman technology. The use of ilford on hp5 etc continues only on existing products, but their single use and reusable cameras are branded Harman on the packaging and are only on that part of their website, rather than ilford photo.. It may be at some point they will drop the ilford name, certainly harman is now a more prominent sub brand even on films.
https://www.harmantechnology.com/

The swiss arm Ilford imaging europe continued as a going concern, and took with it the rights to the ILFORD brand for photographic products. When it too failed in 2013, the brand and trademarks, but not the marly plant, were acquired by Australian firm CR Kennedy and Japan-based Chugai Photo Chemical Company, who now supply the galerie inkjet paper and the ilford branded camera (although as is common this is outsourced)
https://ilford.com/

 

[mshchem]

Most of these single use cameras start at $20 US. That would buy a 36 exposure roll of Kodak or Fuji professional grade film with money left over. It is fun to wonder where this stuff comes from. I apologize if I seem flippant. I use fresh Kodak color negative film, Portra or Ektar.

 

[faberryman]

I scoured B&H and it looks like AgfaPhoto, Rollei and Lomography have disposable cameras too.

 

[AgX]

Ilford Photo - in the context of the black and white products that are manufactured and sold by Harman Technology Ltd. - is also just a brand, although that license, which was bought earlier out of another, earlier receivership has been nurtured and supported well by Harman.

Pure "Ilford" too only is a brand by now as the mother firm went bancrupt.

 

[AgX]

Wouldn't bother me a bit if you had the rights to use the Ilfocolor name. Those rights would have been purchased from the bankruptcy trustee.
Same for Kodachrome, if you were able to buy those rights.
Polaroid is now being used by an entity that has only the slightest connection with the original Polaroid.
And you don't want to know what has happened to the once valued name of Bell and Howell.
The same applies to ADOX, and Agfa.

Agfa is still alive and kicking, not only as brand but as world major manufacturer.

 

[pentaxuser]

And that is why companies use such names in the first place. They depend on brand recognition to sell product. The average consumer doesn't question that branding but buys the product because of the recognized name.

I think pentaxuser is expecting a connection between the product name and the name of the entity that manufactures the product. That and multi-year continuity between both. That is the expectation that has gone by the wayside.

Matt, I just expect people and companies are a collection of people, to avoid misleading consumers which is what I think is happening here . Yes it happens all the time but I regret that we are moving in that direction. I think there is a deeper philosophical point here than merely a discussion on the split between the product name and the company that manufactures the product

I do see a lowering of standards of honesty and I for one regret such a happening. I still see what I regard as a misleading label on a camera as devious. So "that's the new standard, get over it!" may be the new response, conditioned by what has become the "norm" but "learn to live with what is the new now " is a road down which I'd rather not go and not something we should accept lightly

From those on whom we rely on honesty and on their objective/ desire to make sure we understand what it is they are offering we would not, I don't think, accept anything less. The first such people I'd place in that category are the medical profession such as doctors, public health authorities as I think most of us would but on a wider front I fear we all suffer if integrity becomes what the circumstances dictate. Everything then eventually everybody will eventually suffer, even those who pride themselves on always being able to spot " a wrong thing/person"

However I recognise that having had my say I need to avoid diverting this thread further

I hope those seeking to find out whose film this is, do so and that the camera and its film turn out to be good value for the money

pentaxuser

 

[faberryman]

So who is making Ilford’s darkroom tent? Is that a crisis in honesty as well?

 

[AgX]

The valid point is, what does the consumer need to know...?

In the case of the Ilford branded tent we know that it is marketed by Harman, what makes us assume that it got some practicality.

With accidential products labelled AgfaPhoto or Polaroid we did neither know who made them or who marketed them, other than some meaningless address.

 

[Huss]

Does anyone think the target market for this product cares one tiny bit?

"Oh a film camera, cool. I'll buy it".

Gets home. Makes the mistake of finding Photrio on a google search when he was looking for fun people in photography..

"Wait, people are saying that whatever this thing is has film made by I don't know who, don't care who but for some reason I should?! Even though I have no idea why because it is a freakin' disposable camera?"

Welcome to the world of Photrio.

 

[mshchem]

Wouldn't bother me a bit if you had the rights to use the Ilfocolor name. Those rights would have been purchased from the bankruptcy trustee.
Same for Kodachrome, if you were able to buy those rights.
Polaroid is now being used by an entity that has only the slightest connection with the original Polaroid.
And you don't want to know what has happened to the once valued name of Bell and Howell.
The same applies to ADOX, and Agfa.
Just like if you buy a Whirlpool washing machine - that trade mark is now owned by Electrolux, I believe.
The names don't mean a lot any more, unless they are attached to an entity that is deserving of trust.
In the Ilford world, Harman Technology Ltd. are entitled to use the Ilford name for black and white products, but they use Harman for others, and in both cases they have built the existing trust, because the old Ilford Limited hasn't existed for years.
With all due respect, your expectations of how names are used reside in the past. And while that is unfortunate ....

Whirlpool is still Whirlpool, however Whirlpool bought Maytag which bought Amana. Whirlpool has accumulated at least a dozen brands. People want a Maytag washing machine, Maytag is basically the same as a Whirlpool made on the same line, same product with different features and graphics. Electrolux bought the Frigidaire product line.

Maybe Whirlpool should make disposable cameras.

 

[foc]

Maybe Whirlpool should make disposable cameras.

Underwater disposable cameras of course.

 

[perkeleellinen]

Does anyone think the target market for this product cares one tiny bit?

Years ago I read 'No Logo' by Naomi Klein, and what I took from that book was the way brands have become separated from the production of their products. Brands market a lifestyle to buy into and the actual product is produced wherever and often changes to other locations. The interesting bit is we still associate the brand with making their own product, maybe because we're old enough to remember when it used to be like that. I guess the kids don't think that way any more.

 

[reddesert]

Rebranding (or contract manufacturing) has been around much longer than people are giving it credit for. It's a way for a company to sell an expanded line of products even though they don't have the capacity to make all of those types of products. I have a saxophone from the 1960s that was marketed in the US by Olds, a company that mostly made brass (trumpets etc), so rather than build a whole new production line, they bought in a sax from a French maker with "Olds" engraved on it. In photography, we are not as used to this because Kodak made everything from film to cameras to lenses to developing equipment in-house (which ultimately was not so great for Kodak), and Fuji did/does the same thing to a lesser extent.

But you could buy rebranded film in the 1990s, it's just that nobody buying store brand or relabeled color film got bent out of shape about what the film really was. There are other examples in photography like Konica lenses made by Tokina, various brand cameras manufactured by Cosina, etc. The principle is that the rebranding company puts their name and therefore reputation behind the product. The regrettable difference now is that the company putting "Polaroid" on cheap batteries doesn't care about devaluing the Polaroid brand, it is just a name to them where they are mining what is left of market goodwill until the mine is exhausted.

In this case, regardless of which of the two Ilfords is selling the camera, they want to sell a color disposable (I think most people who buy a single use camera want color), but they don't make color film, so put "Ilfocolor" on the front. Even if the film is Kodak, they can't put "Kodak" on the front. Only people on Photrio who are reading tea leaves for film availability will be disappointed that one or the other Ilford didn't magically conjure up their own color film production line.

 

[faberryman]

I do see a lowering of standards of honesty and I for one regret such a happening. I still see what I regard as a misleading label on a camera as devious. So "that's the new standard, get over it!" may be the new response, conditioned by what has become the "norm" but "learn to live with what is the new now " is a road down which I'd rather not go and not something we should accept lightly.

ILFORD Imaging Europe GmbH markets and sells the Ilford Ilfocolor Rapid Retro single use camera. The plastic body says it is made in China. Who knows what kind of color film it uses. It comes with a battery to power the flash. I do not know who manufacturers the battery.

https://ilford.com/product/rapid-retro-camera/

ILFORD Imaging Europe GmbH also markets and sells the Ilford Sprite 35-II reusable camera. I'll take a flyer and guess it is made in China too. It doesn't come with any film, so you can use whatever kind of film you want. It does not come with a battery to power the flash, so you can use whatever kind of battery you want. I think it is hilarious that it comes in two versions: all black and silver and black. I guess the pros, and people who want you to think they are pros, use the all black version.

https://ilford.com/product/sprite-35-ii-camera/

Harman Technology doing business as Ilford Photo markets and sells the Harman EZ35 reusable camera. It is probably manufactured in China too. It comes with a roll of Ilford HP5+ black and white film and a battery of unknown origin. You can use whatever kind of film and batteries you want.

https://www.harmantechnology.com/harman-ez-35-reusable-camera-with-hp5

I do not understand the angst over ILFORD Imaging Europe GmbH using the names Ilford and Ilfocolor on its products. Given the branding of the disposable and reusable cameras marketed and sold by the two companies, I think it is a fair assumption that ILFORD Imaging Europe GmbH has the legal right to market and sell its disposable and reusable 35mm cameras under the Ilford name.

 

[AgX]

Rebranding (or contract manufacturing) has been around much longer than people are giving it credit for. It's a way for a company to sell an expanded line of products even though they don't have the capacity to make all of those types of products.
...
But you could buy rebranded film in the 1990s, it's just that nobody buying store brand or relabeled color film got bent out of shape about what the film really was.

Using a second brand themselves or sellling films to a large retailer, already rebranded under his housename, is a means to gain new, or more stable markets. Either by price, for a budget-orientated clientele, with still running a "quality-brand" oneselves, or even the other way round, approaching a clientele who want something elitist or better known to them..

Such rebranding is about as old as dry-plates...


Concerning manufacturers' own second-brands, more recent examples are Agfa with Perutz and Harman with Kentmere.

 

[twelvetone12]

Such rebranding is about as old as dry-plates...

I'm writing just now an article on music printing in the seventeenth century and printers did the exact things companies do nowadays, these business practices are not new at all.

 

[MattKing]

Whirlpool is still Whirlpool, however Whirlpool bought Maytag which bought Amana. Whirlpool has accumulated at least a dozen brands. People want a Maytag washing machine, Maytag is basically the same as a Whirlpool made on the same line, same product with different features and graphics. Electrolux bought the Frigidaire product line.

Maybe Whirlpool should make disposable cameras.

Thanks for the correction about who owns whom.

 

[MattKing]

Years ago I read 'No Logo' by Naomi Klein, and what I took from that book was the way brands have become separated from the production of their products. Brands market a lifestyle to buy into and the actual product is produced wherever and often changes to other locations. The interesting bit is we still associate the brand with making their own product, maybe because we're old enough to remember when it used to be like that. I guess the kids don't think that way any more.

Thanks - said much better than how I tried to say it.
I don't feel deceived by seeing Bell and Howell on a flashlight (to pick one example) because I no longer expect Bell and Howell to be associated with the entity that used to bear that name.
In other cases, the owners of the brand name have maintained and enhanced the brand by associating it with an entity that has other presence of value. Harman does that with Ilford, just as Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris do that together with Kodak film.

 

[railwayman3]

I can't make my mind up on this one ! I never supposed that any company made every part of all their products themselves, but one might expect that a brand with a good reputation would accept responsibilty for the quality of the finished product. I'm not sure that this always continues to apply when brand names are licenced to third parties to make and sell the finished products to their standards. To take random examples which I have purchased in the last year or two, "Polaroid" inkjet paper has proved excellent, as have "Rollei" films, but I've not been impressed by the poor lasting power of "Kodak" batteries. All this "in my experience", other users may have found differently, or I might change my mind with another batch of the products. So, if I really need total reliability, should I keep to Epson paper, Harman films and Duracell batteries ?