Ilfochrome - sales drive

[perkeleellinen]

Even better for me as I shoot only negative film which I print (B&W & RA4). If I bought some Ilforchrome material it would be a one-off to print slides I've shot before. The Ilfoflex has more potential for me.

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

Ilfoflex and Ilfovinyl is not an inkjet material. They are Ra-4 analog papers for traditional printing of colour negative film.

This is the first time EVER that I hear about these products. There goes their marketing/advertising strategy. Sorry but I stand on my position.

 

[Stephen Frizza]

This is the first time EVER that I hear about these products. There goes their marketing/advertising strategy. Sorry but I stand on my position.

Just because you haven't heard about it doesn't mean their marketing sucks, perhaps they just aren't marketing it towards people like you? its like ilford or agfa glass plates....they still make them but you dont get them promoting them to people like us, they get promoted to nuclear science facilities, observatories...etc.

these products are specialist products marketed to a niche group, it just happens a lot of people know about this product over many lesser known ones. Anyway Look at our conversation! why market it we already know about the product. lets stop talking and start buying! BUY BUY BUY!

 

[Ektagraphic]

Is there anyone in the US that has these products?

 

[Stephen Frizza]

yes many!

 

[sandholm]

Ilfochrome isnt the only product of theirs which goes largely unpromoted look at Ilfoflex RA-4, IlfoVinyl RA-4 etc....

What the h%ll is that, never heard about it (and I really meant that)!!! What a irony, i ramble about ilfochrome and i just realize they have RA-4 products

Saying Ilford would go bankrupt if they ditched ilfochrome is like saying kodak will go bankrupt from stopping the making of Kodachrome.

No, Kodak has other larger products, Ilfochrome (I think, or at least before i heard about Ilfoflex RA-4) were the only product of that company, and under that impression i thought if ilfochrome fails, the company fails.

Just a question, how big is ilfoflex and IlfoVinyl? Is anyone here using it?

cheers

(I will see if the photo stores here can get hold of it)

 

[Bob Carnie]

Nothing new with Ilford flex , I printed with this material and other Ilford RA4 colour products in the late 80's.
Today I use Fuji products as the supply line is completely professional and I get next day delivery.
It was *ilfoflex* and probably still is a good product.
If I remember RA4 product came in flex, pearl, glossy, clear.
Cibachrome came in RC pearl and glossy and Melimex high gloss only but in three different paper grades.

What the h%ll is that, never heard about it (and I really meant that)!!! What a irony, i ramble about ilfochrome and i just realize they have RA-4 products


No, Kodak has other larger products, Ilfochrome (I think, or at least before i heard about Ilfoflex RA-4) were the only product of that company, and under that impression i thought if ilfochrome fails, the company fails.

Just a question, how big is ilfoflex and IlfoVinyl? Is anyone here using it?

cheers

(I will see if the photo stores here can get hold of it)

 

[AgX]

This is the first time EVER that I hear about these products. There goes their marketing/advertising strategy. Sorry but I stand on my position.

What the h%ll is that, never heard about it (and I really meant that)!!! What a irony, i ramble about ilfochrome and i just realize they have RA-4 products

I totally agree about their lack of marketing.
However, these products are presented at their website at equal level with Ilfochrome. So, everyone interested, nonwithstanding lack of marketing, would learn about them.

 

[2F/2F]

So, everyone interested...

Nobody is interested!

 

[AgX]

Well, with the internet upcoming there started a trend at industry in general that people who at least had some idea of a company/product existing to have a look at that company and its portfolio. That was different in times of broshures.
To this extent we too have to change our attitude. Or at least are expected to do...

 

[2F/2F]

The exodus to digital is most of the problem, IMHO. Most of those who used to shoot transparencies now shoot digital as a substitute in their lines of work. Without nearly as many people with transparencies to print, the market for Ilfochrome must have severely diminished along with the market for transparency film, and film in general. There used to be plenty of places around town to have Ilfochrome prints made, and the materials to do them yourself were available in every proper photo shop. With digital wiping out most uses of film, all but a few labs in the area stopped offering the service, and all the retail stores stopped carrying the products. Labs nor retail stores could sell the services and products. Even for those who still shoot film, many have realized the many advantages of color negative materials, and switched primarily to these. (Our own PE is a big proponent of color neg films over pos films, for one, using technical arguments to make his points.) Many of those still shooting film print it using digitization somewhere in their work flow. Ilfochromes can be made digitally, but very few people have a desire for these prints, because RA4 can be done in so many places for so much less money, and because the memory of Ilfochrome has faded. Somewhere along the way during the digital takeover, the knowledge of Ilfochrome, and the desire for it, got lost. Only elitists use it now, and please do not think that I mean the word with a negative connotation. The way I see it, in order for it to do well, it needs to be moved back into the mainstream. There is far more to this than simple advertising. It needs to be practiced and presented to photographers (both fresh and seasoned) as one of the standard ways of printing – not as some magic alternative process. It is a rare oddity now, and there it will stay unless photographic educators start to do their part. A good first step would be to get classes shooting chromes. Now, they are viewed as something weird and scary, with no way to be printed apart from digitization. That attitude needs to go away.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I agree with this post, but I would not hold my breath about it ever coming back into the mainstream.
The supply line is damaged beyond repair, the cost of other medias is more than half to photographers, there are too many digital options.
I threw out a 50k machine in good working order that was made to produce cibachromes., diminishing demand , poor supply of chems and paper, lack of qualified technicians and parts labour for the machine ,and most importantly the real estate cost to house a huge machine outweighed the production in a large Urban setting.
I do see the possibility of rotary single shot, but then again the Jobo's are on their way to extinction , much like the dodo bird.

The exodus to digital is most of the problem, IMHO. Most of those who used to shoot transparencies now shoot digital as a substitute in their lines of work. Without nearly as many people with transparencies to print, the market for Ilfochrome must have severely diminished along with the market for transparency film, and film in general. There used to be plenty of places around town to have Ilfochrome prints made, and the materials to do them yourself were available in every proper photo shop. With digital wiping out most uses of film, all but a few labs in the area stopped offering the service, and all the retail stores stopped carrying the products. Labs nor retail stores could sell the services and products. Even for those who still shoot film, many have realized the many advantages of color negative materials, and switched primarily to these. Many of those still shooting film print it using digitization somewhere in their work flow. Ilfochromes can be made digitally, but very few people have a desire for these prints, because RA4 can be done in so many places for so much less money, and because the memory of Ilfochrome has faded. Somewhere along the way during the digital takeover, the knowledge of Ilfochrome, and the desire for it, got lost. Only elitists use it now, and please do not think that I mean the word with a negative connotation. The way I see it, in order for it to do well, it needs to be moved back into the mainstream. There is far more to this than simple advertising. It needs to be practiced and presented to photographers (both fresh and seasoned) as one of the standard ways of printing. It is a rare oddity now, and there it will stay unless photographic educators start to do their part.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

<sigh> Maybe if the photographers here arguing about the lack of marketing of Ilfochrome could step into a gallery with wall-to-wall chromes, beautifully framed and illuminated under spots — the marketing of the product is done right there and then! Personal experience has shown me that once photographers see what Ilfochrome does to a photograph, those guys are falling over themselves to get prints done.

As intended, Ilfochromes speak for themselves, no matter that the company behind them is mute. So what!? I maintain it's up to the pro labs / printers to promote Ilfochrome as a high-end professional exhibition product (not as an alternative to the very inferior RA-4) and to this day walking into any pro Lab will show just how well professionally executed chromes present themselves: but it's an holistic approach: a pricey Ilfochrome in all its lustrous beauty is never, ever framed cheaply.

I understand Stephen Frizza has chromes up on the walls of his lab; so to, did (defunct) ChromaColour in Adelaide — over 2 floors of eye-popping studies under spots, with the biggest 3.2m blood red and deep blue panorama of the Australian outback stunning people as they came in the front door. But no, as time went on, photographers got carried away with digital, demand dropped away and bang went the lab. Nothing to do with Switzerland or whoever else you think (but supply problems and delays, faulty media etc. are now a common skid mark).

There is one thing that needs to be remembered: Ilfochrome is a specialist niche market for those that can afford the media — for those that believe their photographs deserve the very best and cost is not an object. If more labs took on Ilfochrome because it is the very best, then we wouldn't be in the sorry position of having just one left wherever we are; the trouble is, the vast number of pro labs have pandered to full-digital production. That stuff is good at the moment (and improving), but it's not a patch on Ilfochrome!

 

[avaron]

Producing transparencies for Ilfochrome requires the right film, correctly exposed and processed. My experience 20 years ago was that the Fujichromes of that era printed poorly. I had the best results with the now discontinued Kodak EPN. Even then, some colors were difficult to work with. I found that process P-30 was expensive and not very useful for serious volume. If I were able to get P-3 bleach and a good supply of paper, I would love to try it with current films.

 

[MMfoto]

Forgive me for not reading all 12 pages of this thread, and possibly finding my answer:

What's the current status of from Ilford on maintaining Ilfochrome? The last I heard was about three years ago, and Ilford had made some overture about being committed to the product...

I hope they do. The material is needless to say superb, even/especially for digital printing.

I just wish the matte version were still available.

Also: in creating awareness of Ilfochrome, how about piggy-backing a little info on Ilfochrome Micrographic film?

 

[2F/2F]

Forgive me for not reading all 12 pages of this thread, and possibly finding my answer:

What's the current status of from Ilford on maintaining Ilfochrome? The last I heard was about three years ago, and Ilford had made some overture about being committed to the product...

I hope they do. The material is needless to say superb, even/especially for digital printing.

I just wish the matte version were still available.

Also: in creating awareness of Ilfochrome, how about piggy-backing a little info on Ilfochrome Micrographic film?

I believe that Mr. Frizza has mentioned in the chat room that either the low-contrast emulsion or the matte surface (or possibly both?) are still available, but the minimum order size is enormous.

 

[MMfoto]

I recently (last couple years) saw a show with 4x8 foot Ciba's. They had been printed on a Lambda. There's absolutely no good reason why Ilfochrome can't survive the digital black plague; but that doesn't mean it will.

 

[AgX]

What's the current status of from Ilford on maintaining Ilfochrome? The last I heard was about three years ago, and Ilford had made some overture about being committed to the product...

Their statement is simple: As long as someone buys it, we make it.

No marketing. No R&D.


(At least that is what I conclude from talks with their people.)

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Producing transparencies for Ilfochrome requires the right film, correctly exposed and processed. My experience 20 years ago was that the Fujichromes of that era printed poorly. I had the best results with the now discontinued Kodak EPN. Even then, some colors were difficult to work with. I found that process P-30 was expensive and not very useful for serious volume. If I were able to get P-3 bleach and a good supply of paper, I would love to try it with current films.

Well, that's interesting. Velvia is referred to the gold standard for Ilfochrome printing. Poor results will be obtained printing chromes exposed in bright, contrasty light as the media itself is contrasty. Even masking is limited in how much improvement can be leveraged. Digital files are sometimes written to Ilfochrome; my previous printer said clients were often put off by the additional cost of this and sorting out gamut and at-the-margin contrast problems.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I recently (last couple years) saw a show with 4x8 foot Ciba's. They had been printed on a Lambda. There's absolutely no good reason why Ilfochrome can't survive the digital black plague.

It probably will survive the plague, but be warned, digital media is closing the gap over technology that is now more than 40 years old.

 

[MMfoto]

It probably will survive the plague, but be warned, digital media is closing the gap over technology that is now more than 40 years old.

Yes, absolutely. At this point denying digital progress is like denying global warming. I still shoot film for reasons due it being different than digital, not better.

That said, I still have yet to see a digital print.... ehem... I mean all the ones I've seen have been paper or plastic. I don't think enough people know that you can print digitally onto Ilfochrome.

btw, you have the coolest signature.

 

[MMfoto]

A little off topic, but I've often wondered, since Ilfochrome in matte became commonly unavailable, about the possibility of applying a layer of gelatin to the prints' glossy surface to obtain a matte effect; similar to what I've seen done with carbon prints.

 

[Photo Engineer]

A matte spray would probably be better. Gelatin alone is rather more glossy than most think and is hard to apply evenly. A gelatin layer with fine plastic beads is also usable as is gelatin with starch grains.

PE

 

[MMfoto]

A matte spray would probably be better. Gelatin alone is rather more glossy than most think and is hard to apply evenly. A gelatin layer with fine plastic beads is also usable as is gelatin with starch grains.

PE

Interesting. Is there a specific "matte spray" you have in mind?

I tend to forget that, in my convoluted mind, matte often means "not mirror like." My favorite paper surface was the "glossy" version of Bergger VCCB papers.

For Ilfochrome, I would prefer a sort of ~not quite pearl/semi-gloss, if I was in a position to be choosy.

The hybrid color carbon prints made by Art & Soul are what I had in mind when I thought about a gelatin application. If anyone is interested, have a look at their website, and if you have a chance, do check them out in person. I have never seen finer prints anywhere, period. Unfortunately, they run about $1000 for about an 8x10: http://www.colorcarbonprint.com/

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Wirelessly posted...

Sacré bleu! A matte coat on the super glossy Ilfochrome surface would look bloody awful. How do you think it would look under spot illumination with a dulling coat? To see an approximation, get an Ultrachrome print done, coat it, frame it then illuminate it. "Too much reflection" (a tedious, tired old line) is never the fault of Ilfochromes framed or not, but improper display and illumination.