ILFORD Photo / CHANGE TO 120 WRAPPERS

Simon R Galley · Feb 8, 2007

Dear ILFORD Roll Film Users,

Back in 2006 I asked for feedback from APUGGERS on changing to generic wrappers for 120 film. With your positive feedback we have progressed this.

Between now and mid Year 2007* all our 120 films will change to generic wrappers, essentially all the branding ( FP4+ / HP5+ / Delta 100 / Delta 400/ PAN F + / SFX 200 etc , will be removed from the wrapper and transferred to the exposed and unexposed labels , the wrappers are identical in quality to the branded ones they replace. As originally stated this is being done to improve flexibility and to try and help offset rising costs.

* All ILFORD 120 films will move to generic wrappers by approximately mid Year, timing is purely dependant on manufactured volumes and existing branded wrapper stocks, so it could be any film any time.

To give you an example of added flexibility, it is one of the reasons why we have been able to re-introduce SFX 200 film in 120 as we can now use a generic label.

So once again thanks for your feedback and contribution to our product offerings.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited:

arigram · Feb 8, 2007

Hmmm, I guess there is no chance of implementing the features of the
MF film rolls: design and convenience
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
thread...

The problem with generic wrapping is that you won't be able to tell the film unless its either in its box or completely opened. For example, we will have to mark the wrappers if we place different film without boxes inside a pouch.

Steve Smith · Feb 8, 2007

Simon R Galley said:
essentially all the branding ( FP4+ / HP5+ / Delta 100 / Delta 400/ PAN F + / SFX 200 etc , will be removed from the wrapper and transferred to the exposed and unexposed labels

This shouldn't be a problem as the only time it is not visible is when it is in the camera.

Steve.

David A. Goldfarb · Feb 8, 2007

Sounds like a sensible move. Just be sure the new printing is visible through red window backs!

Jim Noel · Feb 8, 2007

I hope youalso switch back to blacker inks for printing the frame numbers so the films are more easily used in older cameras with red windows. The present gray inks require either facing the red window towards the sun, a bad idea, or using a flashlight.

This would be a tremendous help to those of us wh like to use antique cameras.
Thanks,
Jim

Simon R Galley · Feb 8, 2007

Ahh Mr.Goldfarb,

This has been mentioned to me several times before, we are aware that our numbers can be hard to see, but its better that than the number transferred right onto the image you have just exposed ( called wrapper offset in the trade ) a major problem with...you have guessed it ...red window back cameras...

Honestly though its a balance, and where film is involved, we will always err on the side of extreme caution, our motto is 'you can make another print, you can never have a single moment in time again'.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

David A. Goldfarb · Feb 8, 2007

Also those brand new Chinese rollfilm backs and pano cameras often use the red window.

Foma's backing is probably the best in this regard--silver print on black paper with very clear dots leading up to the frame number.

Simon R Galley · Feb 8, 2007

Dear David,

I agree FOMA's are the clearest, but our backing paper is totally different to theirs, its about the interaction between the backing paper and the film, we could not print like that on our wrappers without introducing a risk to the film product.

Kind Regards

Simon.

PKM-25 · Feb 8, 2007

arigram said:
Hmmm, I guess there is no chance of implementing the features of the
MF film rolls: design and convenience
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
thread...

The problem with generic wrapping is that you won't be able to tell the film unless its either in its box or completely opened. For example, we will have to mark the wrappers if we place different film without boxes inside a pouch.

Hats off to Ilford for keeping things going. If this is what they have to do, then this is what they have to do. We can adapt, it is the least we can do in these stormy times...

David A. Goldfarb · Feb 8, 2007

Thanks, Simon. I think we were posting at the same time.

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Feb 8, 2007

arigram said:
The problem with generic wrapping is that you won't be able to tell the film unless its either in its box or completely opened. For example, we will have to mark the wrappers if we place different film without boxes inside a pouch.

It's going to be like the Efke films, in that the paper label sticking around the roll contains the brand name. So even if your film is out of the package, the seal has the name on it. When it's exposed, the closing seal also has the name.

FrankB · Feb 8, 2007

No worries re the wrappers Simon, but is there any chance of a return of the peppermint sticky-tab? Its loss could endanger the entire future of after-dinner photography!

(Seriously though, it would be a nice touch if it could be returned.)

Schlapp · Feb 8, 2007

Sounds cool. Will each of Fp4, Hp5 etc have their own flavour sticky? Can I put a vouch for gooseberry flavour ; Hp5 or PAnf -

arigram · Feb 8, 2007

It would be great if you could tell the film by taste and smell, but Simon unfortunately is no connoisseur when it comes to film: he likes 'em plain and untouched.

FilmIs4Ever · Feb 8, 2007

Hey Simon, smart financial move! I'm sure there'll be some crazies on here that'll lament the "end of an era", but a wrapper is a wrapper, it's what's inside that counts. If that makes you more money and costs us no more money, it's a win-win situation for all involved. Keep making good films and we'll keep buying from you, for volume commercial work too, not just a roll on the weekends

Regards,

~Karl Borowski

Simon R Galley · Feb 8, 2007

Dear all,

Well believe it or not we cannot use synthetic flavours ( because thats what they are ) do you know why not ? because Apugger Ole in Norway is allergic to them, and he came all the way from Norway for our factory tour...and he is considerably bigger than me...

Simon : ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

FrankB · Feb 8, 2007

Awww, OLE! :rolleyes:

Simon, does it help that I'm bigger than Ole? (Well, rounder anyway...)

And substantially closer...!

Fotohuis · Feb 8, 2007

I agree FOMA's are the clearest

If necessary I can discuss the possibility to lower down your roll film costs by making your backing paper by Foma in Hradec Kralové.

Next week i am overthere for the Forte "problem" and some other issues according new production in the Czech Republic.

best regards,

Robert

Bob F. · Feb 8, 2007

I know it's silly, but it used to tickle me pink every time that the seals were peppermint flavoured: that's what I call attention to detail!

Fotohuis: ask them if they have any 220 finishing machines they no longer need that they can let Ilford have...

Cheers, Bob.

Fotohuis · Feb 8, 2007

Unfortunately Foma is able to do 120 roll film confectioning only but I see no reason why there couldn't be any coorporation between the main suppliers of classical film and paper production.
Fuji and Kodak is able to do 220 roll film production only. The main question is : For how long?
If Ilford is able to join our efforts to do something about the situation in Vác, Hungary (Forte), there is no problem to talk with them either.
9:00 O'clock (AM) in Hradec Kralové, Czech Republic Friday 16th February 2007, Headquarter of Foma. The tea (or Becherovka) will be ready .

Best regards,

Robert

kraker · Feb 8, 2007

Simon R Galley said:
Dear ILFORD Roll Film Users,
(...) all the branding ( FP4+ / HP5+ / Delta 100 / Delta 400/ PAN F + / SFX 200 etc , will be removed from the wrapper and transferred to the exposed and unexposed labels

Smart move, and thanks for informing this group in advance.

(...) To give you an example of added flexibility, it is one of the reasons why we have been able to re-introduce SFX 200 film in 120 as we can now use a generic label.

Great way to illustrate the rationale behind this choice, Simon. Even the most sour person can't complain now It's for a good cause!

Black Dog · Feb 8, 2007

fings aint wot they used to be

FrankB said:
No worries re the wrappers Simon, but is there any chance of a return of the peppermint sticky-tab? Its loss could endanger the entire future of after-dinner photography!

(Seriously though, it would be a nice touch if it could be returned.)

Please add my vote to the throng too!

aldevo · Feb 8, 2007

Ahh, yes, we must have that "hint of mint"!

After all, analog photography is a civilized passtime.

I can live with generic wrappers. The only Ilford film I use in 120 is HP5+, so that keeps things plenty simple for me!

Chazzy · Feb 8, 2007

Generic wrappers won't be a problem for me, but the numbers just have to be darker. Please find a way to make it happen without causing the print-through problem. There has to be a way.

Reinhold · Feb 8, 2007

I still have a freezer full of Freestyle "

ILFORD Photo / CHANGE TO 120 WRAPPERS

Simon R Galley

arigram

Steve Smith

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Jim Noel

Simon R Galley

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Simon R Galley

PKM-25

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

FrankB

Schlapp

arigram

FilmIs4Ever

Simon R Galley

FrankB

Fotohuis

Bob F.

Fotohuis

kraker

Black Dog

aldevo

Chazzy

Reinhold

ILFORD Photo / CHANGE TO 120 WRAPPERS

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency