Bad News About Ilford

JHannon · Aug 23, 2004

This is depressing news. I started with APX 25, APX 100 sheet, then adopting FP4+ as my choice, all gone or going. The only constant for me has been has been my high speed choice Tri X (TX).

Should we just move on and go with smaller companies like J&C? They seem to be willing to provide us with many film choices. Our support will probably determine their success.

BWGirl · Aug 23, 2004

After I read this, I went to the IlfoPro forum & posted this info in the Ilford News section of the forum, asking if this was the 'real deal'....wwweeeeeellllllll, they locked that section of the forum and removed my posting!!! At first, I thought that I'd posted the darned thing somewhere else in the forum, but after I did a search, I realized what they'd done.

Someone else posted this info in the Traditional B&W Photography section and they have not locked that one up yet. Very odd response!

Jeanette

k_jupiter · Aug 23, 2004

Aggie said:
My favorite film was apfa 25, then verichorme pan, I settled finally on Ilford FP4. I see a trend here.

Aggie...

Just remember this...

Efke25 stinks, Classic200 is garbage, and Adox21 should be used for cows toilet paper. You don't want to mess with any of them.

Any other film, feel free to invest your time in exploring.

tim in san jose

Sjixxxy · Aug 23, 2004

k_jupiter said:
Aggie...

Just remember this...

Efke25 stinks, Classic200 is garbage, and Adox21 should be used for cows toilet paper. You don't want to mess with any of them.

Any other film, feel free to invest your time in exploring.

Better yet, explore in a digi and work the bad mojo for a good cause.

Ed Sukach · Aug 23, 2004

k_jupiter said:
Aggie...
Just remember this...
Efke25 stinks, Classic200 is garbage, and Adox21 should be used for cows toilet paper. You don't want to mess with any of them.
Any other film, feel free to invest your time in exploring.
tim in san jose

That did it!!! I've GOT to try all three!!

Interesting, isn't, Aggie? Someone knows more about what you want than you do..??

Cheryl Jacobs · Aug 23, 2004

The unfortunate truth is that film in most formats will continue to be available on a limited basis, but it's going to cost a pretty penny. For those of us who shoot film (and lots of it) for a living, it's going to hurt. Wonder how high I can push my prices before people stop calling? In my portrait market, I'm betting there's a pretty high threshold, but for weddings, I know I'mg oing to have to consider d****** to avoid going broke.

That's depressing.

John McCallum · Aug 23, 2004

BWGirl said:
After I read this, I went to the IlfoPro forum & posted this info in the Ilford News section of the forum, asking if this was the 'real deal'....wwweeeeeellllllll, they locked that section of the forum and removed my posting!!! At first, I thought that I'd posted the darned thing somewhere else in the forum, but after I did a search, I realized what they'd done.

Someone else posted this info in the Traditional B&W Photography section and they have not locked that one up yet. Very odd response!

Jeanette

Jeanette, perhaps they are in damage control mode. I noticed that in the press release story at the beginning of this thread the possibility of a buyer for the company had not yet been ruled out. This means they want to continue trading.
It's likely that Ilford have acknowedged the company is having trouble trading successfully and the prime shareholders want a buyer - but liquidation is a possibility. When things are this uncertain in a large company, mass missinformation resulting in previous loyal customer moving to alternative products would be enough to put the last nail in the coffin for them.
News travels fast on the net.

photomc · Aug 23, 2004

While the loss of Ilfrod would be very sad, sadder still the people who could lose their jobs.

Major Bummer...

c6h6o3 · Aug 23, 2004

Cheryl Jacobs said:
In my portrait market, I'm betting there's a pretty high threshold, but for weddings, I know I'mg oing to have to consider d****** to avoid going broke.

That's depressing.

If I were doing any type of photography commercially now, I wouldn't even think of using film. In fact, if I could afford to capitalize a Phase One back for the 'blad, I'd buy it now and get into the event photography business.

Some dreadfully untalented people around here are making a killing photographing sports teams, first communions, weddings, school graduations, etc. with their semi-pro Fuji S2 and Canon 10D cameras. And the quality of the delivered prints is quite poor. I could cut their 'you know what's off.

It would pay for an awfully big truckload of large format film for my assignments from within.

gma · Aug 24, 2004

If Ilford folds it will be a tragedy for the employees' families, their communities, The UK and for consumers of traditional photographic materials worldwide. I really thought they would be the last photo giant to fall. Now I am torn between buying up all the Ilford paper I can afford to buy or stocking up on paper of unknown origins.

titrisol · Aug 24, 2004

If my memory ios correct Ilford survived an acquisition by CIBA many moons ago, I don;t know how much this'll affect the customers but I still am optimist.

mark · Aug 24, 2004

Hmmmm. Classic 200 is fine with me. Not an expansion film but it has held up very well with minus and normal development. As long as my processing is consistent, my negs are consistent.

k_jupiter said:
Aggie...

Just remember this...

Efke25 stinks, Classic200 is garbage, and Adox21 should be used for cows toilet paper. You don't want to mess with any of them.

Any other film, feel free to invest your time in exploring.

tim in san jose

Ed Sukach · Aug 24, 2004

Not good news at all.

I've often thought that far too many management decisions are based solely on the advice (it should be "advice" - at times it is more "domination") of the Accountants. Bean Counters are *very* good and necessary to keep track of the finances and financial history of a company ... but they are abysmally inept in predicting the future. They lack any trace of clairvoyance ... that takes imagination, and one can only shudder at the thought of "Imaginative Accounting".
That mini-rant over...

I am a member of the Professional Photographers of America - at least I think I am ... I have been engaged in - so far - a four month struggle with their accounting (don't ask!!) over the charges to my Mastercard account for the payment of my dues. I'd like to - just ONCE - be able to call to straighten things out - and NOT hear, "Oh ... It shouldn't have been done that way. I'll have to check with my supervisor and get back to you ..."
Hmm ... another rant..

Anyway... I recieve and read the magazine ... "The Professional Photographer". One would think that by now, it would be purely "digital". It is NOT.
While they certainly have articles dealing with the "Wunnerful Mysteries of Photoshop", there is a lot directly related to film and images taken on film.
Certain areas ... "Sports Teams" - Little league, Pop Warner Football, Youth Soccer ... are dominated by "digital" - but even then - the upscale digital backs are not in wide use ... those involved in that type of work just will not - or cannot - afford a US$10,000 (el cheapo) to ~ US$30,000 back for the 'Blad.

In "News Photography" - I think the use of film, now, is rare. One would think that the "Wedding" crowd would be massively in favor of "Digital", but that apparently is not the case, either. Even with all the hype, and all the "Bean-Counter" analyses - "PROVING" that you just GOTTA go digital... the massive capital outlay, the massive STORAGE necessary, and the spectre of obsolescence in the near future (all great advantages to the digital "Pushers") are more burdens than some - most - want to bear ... so - a LOT of that is still captured - on FILM.

This is not meant to be excruciatingly accurate ... but I haven't SEEN an ad for a "High-End" digital back, Phase One, Leaf, JOBO ... for the 'Blad - or Bronica, or Mamiya .. in the last three of four issues of Pro Phot. There ARE ads for film.

There ares still a great number of Film cameras out there. The one thing that disturbs me more than any other is the digital printing done by the one-hour labs. That will have NO direct effect on what I do ... but I can see a massive decline in the overall demand for chemical color papers, and their availability for the small labs. THAT bothers me FAR more than anything else.

David A. Goldfarb · Aug 24, 2004

I'm not sure about that last point, Ed. Fuji Frontier prints on the same Crystal Archive used for optical prints. For the kind of volume the minilabs do I wonder if it's easier to keep an inkjet or a roller transport printer clean, and which can put out more prints per hour?

Jim Chinn · Aug 24, 2004

I have thought for awhile that B&W film and paper mfg would eventually consolidate down to a couple of players in Eastern Europe, India or China. I guess the speed with which that is happening has taken me by surprise.

I will remain optimistic that Ilford or its products under whatever name will remain on the market. Ilford probably counts for 40% of the available choice for paper, chemistry and film. There is still a pretty good demand for their products.

I still believe that there will be an adequate supply of B&W film in roll and sheets for the future. The numbers are to good for a company in Eastern Europe or Asia with extremely low labor costs and limited regulation not to be able to make a good profit with the remaining film market. Especially when they will be able to increase prices when the market stabalizes on the number of artists, hobbyists and professionals that still want film.

Ed Sukach · Aug 24, 2004

David A. Goldfarb said:
I'm not sure about that last point, Ed. Fuji Frontier prints on the same Crystal Archive used for optical prints. For the kind of volume the minilabs do I wonder if it's easier to keep an inkjet or a roller transport printer clean, and which can put out more prints per hour?

No contest - The inkjet would be *MUCH* easier. I use a JOBO, and keeping the tanks clean has never been a problem.
All this DOES make sense for the one-hour labs.

Hmmm... I did not know that Fuji Crystal Archive was "double duty". I have been using Ilfocolor --- I love the stuff. I'll try some Fuji in the near future.

Ed Sukach · Aug 24, 2004

Cheryl Jacobs said:
... In my portrait market, I'm betting there's a pretty high threshold, but for weddings, I know I'mg oing to have to consider d****** to avoid going broke.
That's depressing.

Cheryl,

Check out the information at [ Dead Link Removed ]... "The Digital Manifesto".

geraldatwork · Aug 24, 2004

Not ready to panic yet but I was wondering how long fresh Ilford fiber paper would last if frozen or refrigerated. Or just kept in a room that never got over 70 degrees.

eheldreth · Aug 24, 2004

perfect timing

First, I just want to say I love your forums, and have enjoyed reading them since I stumbled across apug.org a couple of weeks ago. I bought my first SLR about 8 months ago, finished my darkroom last week, and developed my first film last night(Ilford Delta 100). I chose Ilford paper and film because they seemed to produce reliable results, and when your learning that is important. Guess it's time to start looking for alternatives.

Stan. L-B · Aug 24, 2004

Sounds like it will soon be back to glass plates and emulsioning in house - as some of us did in the fifties; I am sure there will be many ex-alternative process fanatics re-born.
Posted just to pull a few positive threads.

removed account4 · Aug 24, 2004

Stan. L-B said:
Sounds like it will soon be back to glass plates and emulsioning in house - as some of us did in the fifties; I am sure there will be many ex-alternative process fanatics re-born.
Posted just to pull a few positive threads.

who knows stan, maybe you'll start your own b&w photo company <g>
coating dry plates is exactly how george eastman and alfred harman got their companies started --- eastman in rochester ny, and harman in ilford,essex.

btw - i just spoke with the good folks at photowarehouse, and they said the "problems" with ilford should not really effect them ... whew!

Les McLean · Aug 24, 2004

I understand that Ilford are trading as usual at present, or at least until the administrator has assessed the problems and decided on a course of action and that will happen fairly quickly. The best way that photographers can help Ilford survive is to try to persude the dealers that we use to place and pay for orders with Ilford now for clearly an injection of cash is what is required to keep them going.

blansky · Aug 24, 2004

Ed wrote:

Anyway... I recieve and read the magazine ... "The Professional Photographer". One would think that by now, it would be purely "digital". It is NOT.

Ed they must be sending you copies from the 1990s. As of the July issue virtually every display ad in the magazine that dealt with cameras, labs, and everything but lighting was digital.

It's true that many photographers are using film and then turning to digital for the rest of the process, but the writing is on the wall.

It's interesting that since I've been a member here, the threads are becoming more and more digital, kind of like all the publications that are on the market.

We are a dying breed who live in this fantasy world and believe that if we buy more film and paper we will save the medium. The miniscule amount that we use has no bearing on corporate decision making.

Boutique companies will supply us well past our lifetimes but large corporations had planned this obsolescence back in the middle 90s.

The fact of our covering our ears and yelling la la la la will have no bearing on the decision so we better get used to it.

Telling wonderful stories that all the pros are switching back is like Custer telling his men that he thinks he can hear a bugle off in the distance. The reinforcements just ain't comin'.

Michael McBlane

Ian Grant · Aug 24, 2004

You are right Les

Les McLean said:
The best way that photographers can help Ilford survive is to try to persude the dealers that we use to place and pay for orders with Ilford now for clearly an injection of cash is what is required to keep them going.

Unfortunately this may not happen. Personally until recently I only used Agfa paper, Multicontrast Classic, this used to be available through the main UK High Street photographic chain on special order then that source dried up, a major UK supplier /manufacturer of photographic products only stock 2 boxes of 12"x16" on the shelf at any one time. Their stocks of Ilford paper weren't much larger last time I visited about 2 months ago.

Yes I can see the specialist stores perhaps upping their stock levels but not the smaller darkroom suppliers who now only carry the boxes.

Les McLean · Aug 24, 2004

Ian Grant said:
You are right Les

.......until recently I only used Agfa paper, Multicontrast Classic, this used to be available through the main UK High Street photographic chain on special order then that source dried up, a major UK supplier /manufacturer of photographic products only stock 2 boxes of 12"x16" on the shelf at any one time......

Ian,
I guess that the company is Jessop who for years have been cultivating a Jessop brand only policy but at the same denying it when asked. I visited the Jessop head office and warehouse about 6 years ago to write an article for a UK magazine and challenged the Marketing Director on their own brand policy. He denied it and then took me to the Jessop brand warehouse? It was full of cheap rubbish but he described it as great value for money. I have taken the view for years that the growth of Jessop as a high street and mail order supplier would be bad for photography for they only stock items that show the greatest profit regardless of the quality. As an accountant I understand that policy, I've done it myself in agricultural companies that I have worked for, but as a photographer I think it's the worst possible scenario for photography as we would like to see it.

I think Blansky has just about got it right when he says that the reinforcements just aint coming.

Bad News About Ilford

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency