FWIW, seems that Flic Film has their own brand "UltraPan" film in 120.

cmacd123 said:

Further, the folks that set up Harmon Technology, which is the firm in Moberly who has the Black and white film products, sold out and retired. so that company is now run by a different group who have the rights to change any or all of the former managements policies.

Click to expand...

Surprisingly, the former owners and managers also had the right to change their own management policies - as well as start or stop manufacturing whatever they felt like - and it would've still been the same company. And if it's not the same company now, what exactly did they sell?

When I trade in my Hyundai, it doesn't suddenly stop being a Hyundai just because a Ford dealership now owns it.

My point is that dithering about on largely irrelevant details to what is actually being discussed is a waste of time. Every time someone mentions in passing that Ilford or Kodak did or is this or that, "someone" steps in and says "Oh, that wasn't actually Ilford or Kodak. That was the new company named Ilford or Kodak made after the apocalypse."

It's irrelevant and dismissive.

Don_ih said:

It's irrelevant and dismissive.

Click to expand...

Much of the time it actually is relevant, because many of the things discussed here have been impacted greatly by the dramatic changes that companies like Kodak and Ilford underwent. It's often about issues like 'who makes what', which turns out to be totally differently organized now than it was before. And also legally bounding agreements are impacted by changes in governance, even if the present and past entities partly work under the same or similar names.

So no, it's not irrelevant. And neither is it necessarily dismissive. At the same time, I see your point, but I'd argue against it with a very big and emphasized "it depends..."

Here's the case in point: I mentioned Ilford used to allow FP4 to be sold as Arista, to point out that an Ilford-branded film has been sold in the past under a different brand name, to reinforce what I said in post 6 - that if it makes economic sense to let their film be sold under a different brand name, they'll do it. It doesn't matter who owned the company at the time - it doesn't even matter if it's the same company, actually. That any company chooses to let their branded film be sold under a different brand name (Kodak Gold sold as Fujicolor, for example) happens because it makes economic sense.

koraks said:

many of the things discussed here have been impacted greatly by the dramatic changes that companies like Kodak and Ilford underwent

Click to expand...

Undoubtedly. But it is still "Kodak" and "Ilford" that underwent those changes. Reading some of what was said above, "Ilford" doesn't exist. Or, if it does exist, it's only existed since it's last executive board meeting when they changed some policy.

Craig said:

I thought I remembered seeing somewhere that Harman was quite emphatic that an Ilford emulsion would never be sold under anything but it's Ilford identity. Kentmere however, could be rebranded.

Click to expand...

No, that was brought into at least some doubt by the answer that I think faberryman received from IlfordPhoto. Remember it is not, in my opinion, still the same company in any real sense of the word as the previous Harman with Simon Galley who were bought out by Pemberstone Venture Capital

Companies' ethos,mission statement etc can and do change

pentaxuser

Don_ih is referencing a corporation that literally doesn't exist anymore - the bankrupt and dissolved Ilford Imaging Ltd.
That entity went through numerous structural and ownership changes - including non-UK ownership - before it collapsed in 2005. At the end, they were doing things like allowing re-branding of their film to people like Arista. That was during the time when all film companies were in freefall, as the market was collapsing.
A very small portion of the former UK employees of that entity bought up many of its assets, including the right to use the name "Ilford" on some products, and resurrected a portion of its business. They used a brand new corporation incorporated by them - Harman Technology Ltd. - to buy those assets and run the new "Ilford Photo", which is a trading name that didn't exist before.
One of the changes instituted at that time was a policy change - stop diluting the Ilford brand by selling product that bore the Ilford brand to re-branders. They then subsequently bought the Kentmere brand (and moribund facilities, which were closed) which gave them the opportunity to both sell budget products under the Kentmere brand and to make those products available to the re-branders. That had the additional benefit of not requiring that they dilute their policy of not selling Ilford branded film for rebranding.
Harman Technology Ltd. also markets other products that don't bear the Ilford or Kentmere brand names. That includes Harman branded inkjet paper. They also are the UK distributors for Paterson darkroom equipment - all of which is a significant difference from the old, defunct, Ilford Imaging.
A few years later the former employees who incorporated Harman Technology Ltd. sold that corporation to a UK based hedge fund - Pemberstone Venture Capital - who appear to have a business model that emphasizes running its investments as a growth oriented profit making, ongoing concern.

I've seen no significant change to how Harman Technology Ltd. runs their business, compared to the time before Pemberstone bought it. They have re-oriented their outreach a bit - much less engagement here and much more social media and own website based engagement, but that is merely a change in marketing focus.

In comparison, when Harman Technology started up, there was a sea change in how they did business, compared to the former, failed Ilford Imaging Ltd., which had stooped to rebranding FP4 (or was it FP4+?).

The subject of this thread is a small bunch of 6 year old film someone has pasted labels over top of and called their own. Harman Technology's response to a query about it is essentially not to answer the query. No conclusions can be reached from that about Harman's policies.

I saw advertising in 2019 announcing the celebration of Ilford's 140th anniversary. Others seem to think that Ilford has only been around since Pemberton bought them in 2015. I guess there are different ways to measure. They say you pays your money and takes your choice.

Don_ih said:

Reading some of what was said above, "Ilford" doesn't exist. Or, if it does exist, it's only existed since it's last executive board meeting when they changed some policy.

Click to expand...

Grandfather's axe!

MattKing said:

The subject of this thread is a small bunch of 6 year old film someone has pasted labels over top of and called their own. Harman Technology's response to a query about it is essentially not to answer the query. No conclusions can be reached from that about Harman's policies.

Click to expand...

I must have missed it. Who determined that the FP4+ Analogue Wonderland relabeled as Wonderpan 400 was 6 years old, and how did they do so?

MattKing said:

Don_ih is referencing a corporation that literally doesn't exist anymore - the bankrupt and dissolved Ilford Imaging Ltd.

Click to expand...

No. I'm referencing the entity that is referred to as Ilford that makes films such as HP5+ and FP4+ (and, going back in time, made their predecessors). It's an ideological identity - has its own peculiar ontology, if you will. Everything else doesn't matter. I don't care if it gets taken over by Keebler Elves: if it still makes the film and paper the company Ilford is known for, it is, for all practical purpose, the same company.

Once it starts making thneeds and stops this film nonsense, it'll be a different company.

faberryman said:

I must have missed it. Who determined that the FP4+ Analogue Wonderland relabeled as Wonderpan 400 was 6 years old, and how did they do so?

Click to expand...

Mea Culpa.
That part of my post was referencing the other thread - about the entirely different (and far weirder) Wonderpan 400 film.
This post in particular: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/wonderpan-400-whatever-next.199436/page-10#post-2714830
The discussion about what the real "Ilford" is bridges both this thread and that thread - sorry about confusing the two.
'

any case -this thread is about Flic film, and their film. which is unlikly tohave anything to do with what is sold by eiter Harmon Technology under the Ilford brand or otherwise. or the now Australian controlled Ilford Imaging, (who amound other items is currently selling in some markets a "ILFORD Ilfocolor one time use camera" (Harman technology only can use the Ilford name on B&W products)

all I would like to say further is that companies, their Brands and their technology are all separably capable of changing.... Just look at the "fuji" color film which is curently made in USA.

cmacd123 said:

all I would like to say further is that companies, their Brands and their technology are all separably capable of changing...

Click to expand...

Can you say "Bell and Howell"?
"Konica"
"Minolta"

although at least the merged "Konica-Minolta" is still more or less the same company, Just in what seems to be a totaly different set of industries than are of interest here. I did deal with some Konica-Minolta photocopiers before I retired, and they were quite clever in their design. the camera related part of their businesses were sold to another Large compqny without the continuing rights to use the brands.


Bell and Howell is mostly just a brand that folks license. (the two main Photographic businesses associated with Bell and Howell, (Microfilm and Motion piciture lab equipment) were sold off and trade under other names.)

you do make the point that all of those may show as a brand, but with no connection to the prior owners of the names.


in fact some folks like Electrolux have a division to just licence out the brands they own.

Maybe this video will help understand Flic Film

gordrob said:

Maybe this video will help understand Flic Film

Click to expand...

Thank you for posting. It was a very interesting video.
Definitely a cottage industry. 4k to 4.5k rolls per day, impressive for such a small operation and most things are done or made in-house.

cmacd123 said:

I in theory should have five rolls on the way to me from Longview AB.

no idea of the source or background of this, but they show it packed in a cardboard tube. I ordered the 400 and they did send me a tracking number so I will be watching ye olde Post box. they also have a 100 version. More info when it arrives, and perhaps even more when it develops.

they sell a 35mm version of these also in their "special" plastic cassettes.

I will say that those folks are if nothing else film enthusiasts.

Click to expand...

I'm assuming the 400 is 120? Is it Black and white film? Where did you order it from?

I answered my own question. I ordered a few ultrapan 400 120 from a place called Film Experience Camera Store, in Alberta. Nice not having to pay PST. Beau Photo in Vancouver carries Flic but I don't see the ultrapan 400 in 120...

Well my Little package arrived from Alberta. and yes, it also was from Film Experience, which happens to be a couple of doors away from Flic Film's world headquarters.

the 120 was indeed in a very study looking cardboard cylinder. something that will word as a Film starage container for subsequent rolls. inside was a white foil paper sealed roll of film. opening that wrapper one finds a roll of film with white backing paper, and a Label saying BW Black and White Pan Film 120. without getting a caliper out, I would say that the roll looks identical to one of the rolls of Arista EDU Ultra film that I have used. which is both good and bad news. it would be nice if the folks near Calgary did have a complete 120 spooling setup, but the apperence says that the rolls came from eastern Europe instead. If that is the case, it represents another supply chain to get Fomapan.

since my Pentax 645 broke, I am not using as much 120 as I used to, so it will probably be a couple of months before I have used and developed this new film to see what if any difference there is in the edge printing.

depending on where you are in relation to the Photo distributors, one or the other of this or EDU ultra may be the more convenient to acquire. if it is indeed the equivalent product.

the other item I ordered was some 35mm Double-X negative packed by Flic film. the label on this now described it as XX-250 BW Cine Film, and the background image on the label was a theater Curtain. they also now say "B&W cine Developer" rather than referring to D96 as a recommendation. I suspect that Kodak Trade Dress rules are behind the change. (the label is in Both English and French as would be expected)

So in terms of making film the owner was honest enough to admit he does not. He re-spools and re-names it. Fine but in the instructions issued does he give at least give full developing times for various developers based on whatever the film actually is?
That wasn't clear to me from the video

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

So in terms of making film the owner was honest enough to admit he does not. He re-spools and re-names it. Fine but in the instructions issued does he give at least give full developing times for various developers based on whatever the film actually is?
That wasn't clear to me from the video

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

he has a link to this page https://flicfilm.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/UltraPan-developing-times-1.pdf

from his main film page. https://flicfilm.ca/cine-film/

he also has developing charts for the black white and green developer off the developer page. the rest he points out what Kodak Chart to use. - as they are basically the classic formulas

cmacd123 said:

Well my Little package arrived from Alberta. and yes, it also was from Film Experience, which happens to be a couple of doors away from Flic Film's world headquarters.

the 120 was indeed in a very study looking cardboard cylinder. something that will word as a Film starage container for subsequent rolls. inside was a white foil paper sealed roll of film. opening that wrapper one finds a roll of film with white backing paper, and a Label saying BW Black and White Pan Film 120. without getting a caliper out, I would say that the roll looks identical to one of the rolls of Arista EDU Ultra film that I have used. which is both good and bad news. it would be nice if the folks near Calgary did have a complete 120 spooling setup, but the apperence says that the rolls came from eastern Europe instead. If that is the case, it represents another supply chain to get Fomapan.

since my Pentax 645 broke, I am not using as much 120 as I used to, so it will probably be a couple of months before I have used and developed this new film to see what if any difference there is in the edge printing.

depending on where you are in relation to the Photo distributors, one or the other of this or EDU ultra may be the more convenient to acquire. if it is indeed the equivalent product.

the other item I ordered was some 35mm Double-X negative packed by Flic film. the label on this now described it as XX-250 BW Cine Film, and the background image on the label was a theater Curtain. they also now say "B&W cine Developer" rather than referring to D96 as a recommendation. I suspect that Kodak Trade Dress rules are behind the change. (the label is in Both English and French as would be expected)

Click to expand...

As far as Ultrapan being Arista EDU Ultra, I think you are correct. Flics development times match EDU's in the MDC.

... and they are both rebranded Fomapan... Which means I can use Fomapan's reciprocity correction data.

Andrew O'Neill said:

... and they are both rebranded Fomapan... Which means I can use Fomapan's reciprocity correction data.

Click to expand...

and it also implies (but more data needed) that the 35mm version of UltraPan is also the same basic FOMA made film. that could be interesting when it gets harder to find a source of film.

In case any European members are interested, I was in touch with Flic to see whether they could sell me their small kit (a Flic Pic and a few of their cassettes). A very quick reply let me know that they are wholesale only: they referred me to their UK distributor, whose website I had already checked. So I e-mailed the distributor and they're going to try to get the kit in their next consignment. Fingers crossed.

Andrew O'Neill said:

... and they are both rebranded Fomapan... Which means I can use Fomapan's reciprocity correction data.

Click to expand...

Yes, so unless the owner of flic does something which adds something to nature of his rebranded Foma films then why not just say it's Foma films? What advantage does a different cassette or label confer on the film from a user's point of view? None that I can see

On the spectrum of absolute honesty to downright scam we seem to have a succession of "new film" ( in the loosest sense of the word) companies springing up who sit somewhere on that slope Perhaps part of the "new fun" is deciding where each sits by working out which parts of what each one says and does are true and useful and which are not


I just hope that each new "film buff" has the knowledge to do that or at least knows that the new films are no such things but enjoy the "spiel" each is being given along with the form of a magic show each new company performs

pentaxuser