ILFORD Photo Request APUG Feedback On 120 Film

[Simon R Galley]

Dear All,

My name is Simon and I work at ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology : I have had feedback that our numbering on our 120 film wrappers is too feint to read through cameras that have red windows ( mostly, but not exclusively Chinese ).

I have promised ( on the product availability thread / PERCEPTOL lives ) to look into this issue for APUG members, this has started a wider discussion in ILFORD about wrappers, believe it or not they are very complicated and expensive to manufacture and to make any changes is a huge effort, we are happy to undertake this, but we need some feedback : At present we have different wrappers for each film type, our manufacturing people have asked the question 'what if we just had one generic 120 roll film wrapper for all the film types'?

I have to admit its a good question : My immediate reply was 'how would the end users know which film ( or the lab for that matter ) it was ?' the mnfc people came back and said most re-wrap in the foil or put in the box or they could write on the film type...

Well here is the question, could we update our wrapper, could we use a generic wrapper ?, would it lead to film being developed incorrectly : Please give me your feedback, it would really be appreciated :

Thanks for taking the time:

Simon.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

It's not just the Chinese backs, but many classic folding cameras of European and US manufacture have a red window.

How about having a generic paper backing but a specific end paster for each film type?

 

[Ole]

I'm with David on this: The sticky end paper thingy is enough identification for me. One of my roll film backs insists on spooling the film/paper with the black side out anyway

 

[colrehogan]

Wasn't the original concern with the lighter print on the wrapper to avoid bleed through of the numbers and if so, wouldn't writing on the wrapper pose the same problem?

Would the little sticky part at the end of the wrapper have the film type printed on it?

I have used some FP4 in an Agfa 6x9 folder that I had trouble seeing the numbering too, so it's not limited to the Chinese cameras, but could affect those using the older cameras as a lot of those had red windows too.

 

[L Gebhardt]

A generic wrapper and putting the film id on the end wrappers should be fine.

How about a self adhesive end wrapper so we don't need to lick it - like Fuji has?

How about a cleaner ripping tape to hold the film to the paper, also similar to Fuji?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think the most readable backing I've seen is on some of the East European film, which has black paper and silver printing. I'm not sure if that avoids the print-through problem. On the other hand, some of the backing on those films isn't quite wide enough, and there can be light leaks, which seem like an avoidable problem.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Another nice Fuji innovation--that little hook in the takeup spool that grabs the leader for quicker loading. Can you do something like that without violating a patent?

 

[Ara Ghajanian]

How about a self adhesive end wrapper so we don't need to lick it - like Fuji has?

I like the Fuji end wrapper a lot. I think it's a great idea.

A generic wrapper might lead to problems. It's always nice to have the reassurance of the film type on the wrapper.
Ara

 

[Ole]

I forgot to mention: Due to the "invisible ink" I have only been using Ilford film in the Bronica the last few years. All folders and similar - with red window - gets Agfa APX 100. I hope the new Ilford rolls with legible numbers is out by the time my last-minute supply of Agfa is gone

 

[haris]

I don't have problem you all are talking about, cameras I use (Mamiya RBproS backs and Yashica MAT 124 both have in camera film counter) but I belive I am begginig to understand specific problem... Identification of film type at the end wrapper should be fine. And if it can be selfadhesive, much better. But, if film can come in plastic canister with film type printed on it, like ADOX 120 films, or any 35mm film, that would be cosmic. That way I won't be afraid (like I am now) will film unroll (did I firmly and secure enough licked and glue sticker - don't laugh, English is not my native language ...) and be accidentaly exposed while going back home after shooting.

I know, I know, that would raise film price, but can one have a dream? ...

Of course, film type will be clearly visible on carton box in which film comes?

 

[BWGirl]

I'm with the others...a generic wrapper is okay by me with the film type on the inside sticky thing (self-adhesive, please ) and on the label on the outside of the film roll. That's plenty.

I have a folder too, and noticed this when I ran FP4 through it... but I just figured it was me... hahaha

 

[Craig]

Well here is the question, could we update our wrapper, could we use a generic wrapper ?

The last time I used Kodak film (I was out with a friend and ran out of Ilford, but he had a spare Tri X, my apoligies for using it) the wrapper just says Kodak B&W film, and its the sticky band that has the film type on it. The backing paper is generic.

Craig

 

[pentaxuser]

This problem arose with a red windowed Agfa Isolette 1 I obtained. I had not had a 120 folder for years and found that I had wound most of the film through the camera before realising that I had missed the almost non existent numbers. This was an XP2 film. Since then I have used Delta's 400 and 3200 and the problem hasn't been as bad but it still takes very careful watching.

Pentaxuser

 

[mark]

If I processed my film right away I would not ave the issue of remembering wat I shot. SInce it might be severl months before processing I NEED to know what I shot. AN generic wrapper with identifying sticky thing at the end would be necessary.

I don't mind licking the adhesive.

 

[eric]

How about a self adhesive end wrapper so we don't need to lick it - like Fuji has?

I just used some Fuji Neopan a few weeks ago. First time. At the end of the roll, I said "BRILLIANT!". Self sticking! That's cool! I like that idea. Oh, the bent end is good idea too.

 

[Peter Williams]

Here's another vote for generic wrapper with printed closure. I don't mind licking stuff.

 

[roteague]

I sure wish Ilford made color film; I love the way that Simon (and Ilford) really seeks to find out what the B&W community wants.

 

[Jorge]

I have yet to look at a wrapper. I take the tab from the box put it on the magazine and throw the wrapper away.....This is what I know as the wrapper.

If you are talking about the film transport paper, then even if you have a camera with the little numbers window I dont see what difference does it make. You look at the number, I have yet to see one film that has the number and the film type on the window....but then I have not had many MF cameras and always used one type of film.....

So, in my case I could not care less if you used a plain film transport paper or one with the sistine chapel on it...I still dont look at it...

 

[jd callow]

My concern for Ilford if they have one generic backing paper is that it may harm Ilford's branding. I know others will scoff, but companies do not spend such a large amount of money to brand their products so that they can keep creatives off the dole.

Ilford has maintained a well thought out and distinctive image/brand as long as I can remember. It is recognizable because it has had continuity throughout its product line -- never missing an opportunity to reinforce the corporate image. As you move forward it is, to me, of paramount importance that you continue to do so. In today's world you can not be just the best, you must also look the best.

You can not afford to have Delta, HP5, SFX (Hint), etc.. look like Lucky once the foil is removed. Nor should HP look like Delta.

Geeks (no offence I am one) and engineers will tell you it doesn’t matter, but it does -- and hell these are the same folks who wear tube socks with sandals in the winter.

Further More....
I want flavoured licky tape!!! Make mine an Old Speckled Hen!

 

[Jorge]

and hell these are the same folks who ware tube socks with sandals in the winter.

YOu are just envious because I can wear my bermudas with white socks and sandals while you are freezing your butt up there.....

 

[Kerik]

and hell these are the same folks who wear tube socks with sandals in the winter.

Hey, I resemble that remark!!

 

[jd callow]

If you were to go with a generic backing paper you could make up for it in a couple different ways

1. Make the paper truly distinctive if not loud.
2. make the band on the unexposed roll unique (wider, with a pull tab or other distinctive traits)
3. Brand the hell out of the band
4. Make the closure band (the one you lick) equally as distinctive and liberally branded

 

[haris]

And I belive mrcallow has some points in his postings. Sadly, but today is not only important what you use/buy, how quality it is and how it looks like, but also in which shop you bought it...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I have used HP-5 with a Zeiss Ikon which has the red window. I also used some Fuji Acros, and I never noticed any problems, or that Ilford would be more/less difficult to use in this respect.

In my opinion using a generic wrapper makes sense, and I do take it the wrapper is the paper that backs the film. If so, use tape that is individual for each film. If you're referring to the wrapper as the piece of tape with which you seal the roll, it might present more of a problem. If you do, leave enough room on there to make notes which film it is. I don't really care either way, as I mainly use FP4 out of your assortment anyway.

Hope that helps,

- Thom

 

[removed account4]

generic ( with numbers ) + licky-thing