HARMAN technology ( APUG ) Survey

[Jerevan]

Yep, done it too. I like Thomas' suggestion about archival-grade photo paper boxes.

In general, negative sleeves suck - either they aren't archival/see-through (pergamyn), way too thick, introducing scratches on negatives (Printfile) or are sort-of-okayish (Kenro). The Kenro ones are a bit too flimsy and a right h*ll to get negatives into (some sort of naff static thing - sometimes I can spend three minutes getting one strip into the sleeves, gnashing teeth) but they don't scratch the negs as much.

 

[Oren Grad]

Agreed. My responses to the survey conveyed a preference for Archival Methods' products. HARMAN's potentially working with that manufacturer to develop a line of Ilford-branded storage products would be fine, but not if those products are used as the original packaging for sensitized materials.

Yes. As I indicated on the survey, I use products from Archival Methods, University Products and Hollinger. If one option being considered is to add a storage product line, that's fine, though of course the viability will depend on value-for-money compared to existing offerings from other vendors. If the proposition is a collaboration with one of the existing vendors that will take advantage of Harman's distribution network to make high-quality storage products available through a broader range of retail channels, that's fine too.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Great response so far

Thanks ever so much....

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

I took the liberty of posting the link on Facebook too, where I have lots of photography friends. Figured it wouldn't hurt anything. I'm pretty sure it will go viral soon.

 

[MattKing]

Done

 

[Kawaiithulhu]

Done!

Since I'm a low volume hobby player in this game I prefer end-to-end solutions from a single source, yet solutions whose format/design does not lock out random use outside "the system." Any kind of lock-in just turns me off a product line right from the start.

Best of luck!

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Done.

Ken

 

[RBobel]

Same.

 

[StoneNYC]

Done

I like that they also asked about film storage, I would love ilford to make archival film sleeves and dust sealed ring binders like Printfile, cause the Printfile ones are always coming with errors and half the time Printfile won't replace the sleeves or binders when clearly if 2 out of the 5 or 6 slots are not cut and I have to tear the page to get a piece of film in there, sometimes scratching the film as I slide it past the jagged ripped hole, they are not good...

Or the holes in the sleeves not liking up with the binder rings IN THEIR OWN BINDERS.

Or the sleeves not fitting the film at all and bending it so it can't lay flat because the pocket was sized wrong... At least that one they took back...

But ilford sleeves would not have these issues I know it!

I know with ilfords QC being so high, these issues would never leave the factory...

 

[mike c]

I use a light tight paper safe in the darkroom so the original box spends very little time in the darkroom. Store prints in the original box after the paper has been used up, works great for storage of work prints and contact prints. Be nice if the box's were archival but would not want to pay too much extra, $2 or $3 at most for a 100 sht box of 8x10.
Allso neg sleeves for 120 been using Print File cp120-3hb with the extra pocket for adding a 8x10 proof sheet, but can,t find them anymore.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I use a light tight paper safe in the darkroom so the original box spends very little time in the darkroom. Store prints in the original box after the paper has been used up, works great for storage of work prints and contact prints. Be nice if the box's were archival but would not want to pay too much extra, $2 or $3 at most for a 100 sht box of 8x10.
Allso neg sleeves for 120 been using Print File cp120-3hb with the extra pocket for adding a 8x10 proof sheet, but can,t find them anymore.

I do the same thing with a paper safe.

Another great use of the 16x20 boxes is that they make terrific boxes for shipping mounted 8x10 and 11x14 prints, because the boxes are rigid enough to withstand some pretty serious abuse.

 

[Pioneer]

Survey done. Please let us know how this works out for Ilford.

 

[mike c]

For shipping, thats a great Idea Thomas. Don't have very many 16x20 box's around.

 

[Chris Lange]

Done

I like that they also asked about film storage, I would love ilford to make archival film sleeves and dust sealed ring binders like Printfile, cause the Printfile ones are always coming with errors and half the time Printfile won't replace the sleeves or binders when clearly if 2 out of the 5 or 6 slots are not cut and I have to tear the page to get a piece of film in there, sometimes scratching the film as I slide it past the jagged ripped hole, they are not good...

Or the holes in the sleeves not liking up with the binder rings IN THEIR OWN BINDERS.

Or the sleeves not fitting the film at all and bending it so it can't lay flat because the pocket was sized wrong... At least that one they took back...

But ilford sleeves would not have these issues I know it!

I know with ilfords QC being so high, these issues would never leave the factory...

Does this happen frequently to you?
I have never had this issue with printfile sleeves, and I've used nearly all of the various formats and types they offer. The only time I've ever had to alter a sleeve to get it into a binder was when I bought a pack of 35-7 sheets instead of the 35-7B sheets.

 

[munz6869]

Done.

Marc!

 

[bvy]

Check.

 

[Dave Swinnard]

Done

 

[hacked - sepiareverb]

Just finished. I have to let you know Simon that your 1620 and 2024 boxes are so nice I've been saving them for a while. Nice and heavy duty, both for stored prints and for shipping. I'd hate to see them change.

I use the black bags for storing film as well. Film is wrapped in them before it goes in the freezer, and bulk rolls of ORWO or Double-X are broken down into one hundred footers and stored in 810 ILMGIV bags.

And as you're reading this, thank you for the new papers and for being so supportive to us analog folks. I couldn't do what I do without Ilford.

 

[Klainmeister]

Dun.

 

[StoneNYC]

Does this happen frequently to you?
I have never had this issue with printfile sleeves, and I've used nearly all of the various formats and types they offer. The only time I've ever had to alter a sleeve to get it into a binder was when I bought a pack of 35-7 sheets instead of the 35-7B sheets.

The pockets cut incorrectly in order to slide film into them (where I had to rip the end open) has only happened on the 35mm sleeves that are the ultra thick version (not home can't check which).

The size for fitting the film in the sleeve to not have it bend from not being wide enough was some thick version of 120 individual pockets.

And the issue with holes not lining up was 120 and 70mm sleeves, but they seem to have fixed this issue with the new pack I got of 4x5 where they made the end holds an oval shape so that there was some play room. When I called they told me they would look into doing just that, so I guess they did.

Still using my 35mm sleeves and it's getting worse as I go through them, I keep meaning to call them but then I remember how every time I call they say to me they will charge me shipping even if it's their fault.... Lol

 

[jerrybro]

Store prints? I have piles of work prints about, the good ones are hanging up somewhere.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Done.
I frame all of my prints. I would never forgive myself stuffing them away in sleeves... Proofs though are cobbled together in an archive box, Gatorboard mounted, labelled and signed and given out as Christmas presents.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Done.

 

[Terrence Brennan]

Done!

 

[richard ide]

Done. With pleasure.

 

[David Lyga]

I even did the survey but I don't think that my choice to use food storage bags (freezer type) for storage will bode will with their need to market other alternatives. - David Lyga