Ilford Imaging is illiquide

Photo Engineer · Feb 28, 2014

I know what is in the bleach, yes. I don't know the exact proportions. I also know less suitable substitute chemicals that require much more tinkering to balance the curve shape.

However, to answer AgX, I think any responsible person formerly or currently with an insolvent company has a moral responsibility to help out floundering former customers who need to use up their existing (and expensive) stocks of paper without having their investment spoil on them!!!1

PE

AgX · Feb 28, 2014

Beware of the legal issues.

Ilford Imaging is still in existance legally.

Any patent on the processing bath would not be valid by now, but any secrecy imposed on former employees would still be valid. There may be a moral obligation. But in charge know is someone obliged not to customers, but to creditors.

AgX · Feb 28, 2014

by the way: in post #45 it must be creditors...

MattKing · Feb 28, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
I know what is in the bleach, yes. I don't know the exact proportions. I also know less suitable substitute chemicals that require much more tinkering to balance the curve shape.

However, to answer AgX, I think any responsible person formerly or currently with an insolvent company has a moral responsibility to help out floundering former customers who need to use up their existing (and expensive) stocks of paper without having their investment spoil on them!!!1

PE

Ron:

Are you too looking for the "tongue-in-cheek" emoticon.

I wonder what a Swiss barn might look like.

Ken Nadvornick · Feb 28, 2014

MattKing said:
I wonder what a Swiss barn might look like.

Maybe like dollar signs, if all the cards dealt out correctly?

Ken

Photo Engineer · Feb 28, 2014

Surely an NDA has expired for someone! Or with a bankrupt company someone has a shred of morals. You see, the patents have just about all expired. In fact, IIRC, they have ALL expired, or are well known (and ignored) and are of NO MEANING WHATSOEVER. The emphasis is to show that Ilford Cibachrome had no competitors and was thus a Monopoly. If the law is true to this, then they are bound to release the formulas. Don't you think?

PE

Xmas · Mar 1, 2014

NDAs do not expire, they normally only have one escape clause

'except with written permission from the company secretary' a UK term for a incorporated company officer.

a company secret NDA might omit that clause.

so when a company folds lots of unpublished IPR dissapears except written or computer material. I've known a company that 'lost' the process computer disc cause it was too secret to archive - normally.

Many companies firewall information like a torn up pirate treasure map to prevent one person collecting a joining present from a competitor...

So when a whole team is made redundant unless the whole team stays together they cannot easily 'find the treasure', unless they take their note books with them they will need to rely on memory.

Ian Grant · Mar 1, 2014

RalphLambrecht said:
Ilford has successfully confused the entire world of photography with their split identity crisis.that just cannot be good for business,If you buy something Ilford these days ,it could come from any number of places.phew... makes me dizzy.

It's even worse with Kodak, and similar with Agfa, and what about Polaroid where the name's still in use on all sorts of products.

There's a widely held perspective (outside of those of us still using film) that Kodak, Ilford, Agfa etc have all gone bankrupt and stopped making film. It's not hel[ed in the UK by Jessops the monopolistic photography chain ceasing trading last year, although a few stores dis start again.

Ian

Ian Grant · Mar 1, 2014

The Ilfochrome formulae are an asset which could be sold to a third party so they aren't likely to be published. However a number of alternative formulae have been published in the past allowing people to make up their own chemistry.

Ian

AgX · Mar 1, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
The emphasis is to show that Ilford Cibachrome had no competitors and was thus a Monopoly. If the law is true to this, then they are bound to release the formulas. Don't you think?

Which law? The US have a history of monopoly legislation and jurisdiction. Europe evolved such later and in different form. It is swiss law that applies in this case and that may be different.

railwayman3 · Mar 1, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
As a courtesy to customers, they should publish the formulas for Ilfochrome processing solutions!

PE

Has Kodak published the official formulae for E6 chemicals ? (Just asking...)

Photo Engineer · Mar 1, 2014

Xmas said:
NDAs do not expire, they normally only have one escape clause

'except with written permission from the company secretary' a UK term for a incorporated company officer.

a company secret NDA might omit that clause.

so when a company folds lots of unpublished IPR dissapears except written or computer material. I've known a company that 'lost' the process computer disc cause it was too secret to archive - normally.

Many companies firewall information like a torn up pirate treasure map to prevent one person collecting a joining present from a competitor...

So when a whole team is made redundant unless the whole team stays together they cannot easily 'find the treasure', unless they take their note books with them they will need to rely on memory.

Actually, NDAs vary from country to country. Mine had an expiration date, and even that was ruled invalid by the courts here because the job "Photo Engineer" was so restrictive, many of us could not get jobs if laid off unless we violated the NDA in some way or another. So, the NDA was ruled to be excessive restriction in a small area of potential re-employment. You see, we had become too specialized.

As for someone buying Ilfords formulas, well, no one is going to get into coating the paper so that is virtually out. That leaves just the paper out there and the people willing and able to mix their own! That market is "frozen in time" and will eventually vanish. Who wants to make processing chemistry for a vanishing market?

Just about everything Ilford owns in this color range of products is defunct forever.

Even Kodak has published their formulas for processing and coating in patents which will either expire in a few years or in which the claims are not for the processing solutions. Thus, the chemistry is being donated to us in those publications. It is for you to look up the patents and get that data.

Even Ilfochrome formulas are out there in patents in one form or another. A good researcher will find them in a German or Swiss patent! I admit that the formulas are "generic", but with some tinkering they can be made to work. But then I alluded to that above.

PE

Rudeofus · Mar 1, 2014

railwayman3 said:
Has Kodak published the official formulae for E6 chemicals ? (Just asking...)

Fuji did in their Provia 400X patent, see the discussion (there was a url link here which no longer exists).

darkroom_rookie · Apr 14, 2014

http://iis-liquidation.ch/

AgX · May 12, 2014

The Ilford brand will live on.

A consortium of a japanese and an australian company have bought the brand (and seemingly all IP). It seems that inkjet materials of Ilford Imaging will live on under that brand, even with same characteristics.

Harman will keep their brand licence for use on their b&w materials (marketed in their Ilford Photo range).

andrew.roos · May 12, 2014

AgX said:
The Ilford brand will live on.

Harman will keep their brand licence for use on their b&w materials (marketed in their Ilford Photo range).

I was hoping that Harman would acquire full rights to the Ilford brand name, not only for those products that existed before the split, since "Ilford" is a much stronger photographic brand than "Harman Technology".

AgX · May 12, 2014

Harman has a good position with "Ilford Photo" and their b&w products still bearing their classic names. The problem rather is that the confusion is going on. Also it is not clear what new products under the Ilford brand will emerge from the new owners aside ink-jet related ones.

Xmas · May 12, 2014

andrew.roos said:
I was hoping that Harman would acquire full rights to the Ilford brand name, not only for those products that existed before the split, since "Ilford" is a much stronger photographic brand than "Harman Technology".

The other side of the coin is that lots of people only buy own store brands in supermarkets or generic drugs because they are cheaper and in some cases the same product made in same factory.

I happen to have 30m box of Kentmere 400 beside me it says "Harman Technology" on it and Mobberley.

I like the larger grain and it is cheaper...

StoneNYC · May 12, 2014

Xmas said:
The other side of the coin is that lots of people only buy own store brands in supermarkets or generic drugs because they are cheaper and in some cases the same product made in same factory.

I happen to have 30m box of Kentmere 400 beside me it says "Harman Technology" on it and Mobberley.

I like the larger grain and it is cheaper...

But that is not Milford Film, if it has specifically said that they do not outsource their film any longer to other companies for rebranding, they decided it was too obvious and that people knew that the film was there and so they would buy that instead of the more expensive namebrand, so they stopped doing it.

Kentmere is not ilford.

AgX · May 12, 2014

But both are brands and both films behind these brands are made by Harman. And that is what Xmas indicated.

Xmas · May 12, 2014

There is no shenanigans involved the Kentmere film is not as sophisticated as HP5+ or Delta400 so cheaper.

And neither Harman tech... nor Ilford have breached the rules quoted.

I shoot gritty grainy so I like it.

MattKing · May 12, 2014

Harman bought Kentmere. Harman consolidated all Kentmere manufacturing in the Harman premises. Harman sell their Kentmere products under the Kentmere name. Harman manufacture and sell different products under the Ilford name.

Harman (Simon R. Galley here on APUG) have stated that they will not re-brand any of their Ilford or Kentmere products under different names, but will manufacture different products to a customer's specifications

StoneNYC · May 12, 2014

MattKing said:
Harman bought Kentmere. Harman consolidated all Kentmere manufacturing in the Harman premises. Harman sell their Kentmere products under the Kentmere name. Harman manufacture and sell different products under the Ilford name.

Harman (Simon R. Galley here on APUG) have stated that they will not re-brand any of their Ilford or Kentmere products under different names, but will manufacture different products to a customer's specifications

Thanks for stating more clearly what I said, you're much better with words (and probably reputation as well) lol

RalphLambrecht · May 26, 2014

Calumet is dead;long live B&H.

Ilford Imaging is illiquide

Photo Engineer

AgX

AgX

MattKing

Moderator

Ken Nadvornick

Photo Engineer

Xmas

Ian Grant

Ian Grant

AgX

railwayman3

Photo Engineer

Rudeofus

darkroom_rookie

AgX

andrew.roos

AgX

Xmas

StoneNYC

AgX

Xmas

MattKing

Moderator

StoneNYC

RalphLambrecht

Ilford Imaging is illiquide

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency