This is fascinating. Kodak has (had) such a significant business in Great Britain, I'm sure they had political pull. God forbid Ilford struggles to come out of the current economic chaos. Ilford is the only one left with a full range of B&W and (Web based) technical outreach.The British Covernment took control of Ilfor during WWII and made decisions that did irrepapairable damage, they stopped all Colour research and that had been quite advanced. By the time Ilord re-entered the Colour market they were two generations behind then to add insult to injury the UK Monopolies Commission said that Ilford's processing was a Monoply situation, but the volume wasn't like Kodachrome whoich had lost a similar lawsuit in the US. Ironically Kodak Ltd in the UK had a Monopoly here for Kodachrome processing and that was never challenged but Ilford's colour films dissappeared rapidly.
Ian
By the time Ilord re-entered the Colour market they were two generations behind then.
Well, Ilford could have gone the Agfa way, with quite some information being accessible and with practically no patent restrictions for them. Instead they chose for the Kodachrome way, and even had to circumvent some Kodak patents
From my personal point of view.Ilfocolor from the 1980s till the early 2000s was rebadged film.
IIRC it was Ilfocolor 400 by Konica, Ilfocolor 100HR by Agfa and Ilfocolor 100 Plus byFereania. (of course I stand to be corrected as the memory is what it used to be).
Yes it would have been easier to go the Agfa process way, with both negative and transparency film but I think the biggest drawback was that the Agfa way was not that popular in the USA, probably the largest and most lucrative single market at that time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?