ILFORD Photo Request APUG Feedback On 120 Film

[Simon R Galley]

Thanks For All Your Feedback : ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology

Dear All,

Many thanks to all of you for taking the time to reply, the initial feedback has already been given to our manufacturing people. I will give you the feedback when I am told what they are planning to do.

Thanks and Kind Regards

Simon.

 

[Gabe Racz]

Wow, lots of responses here . . . just another voice to add to the chorus -- Ilford's numbers are definitely harder to see through the little red window than Kodak's for example. I think making them easier to read would be an improvement, even if it means using the same backing for all Ilford films.

 

[ti1ion]

>Generic wrapper with printed closure. Licking is OK.
>Keep it simple for manufacturing and users.

The above echoes my thoughts. Cost is very important to me and I have been playing around with re-branded Foma and Forte 120 films for the past year. I was not particularly happy and have just received my order of 50 rolls of Ilford FP4+. I bought this film mainly because I was able to find it at a good price, and that is not easy in Canada (at least for me). The quantity gave me a discount in price. I hope to continue buying Ilford if I can afford it. I have also used HP5+ and PanF+ in the past.

As a result, I would like to make an additional suggestion. I know that Ilford used to sell 35mm film in shrink-wrap only. No canisters and no paper boxes. I used to buy it that way and save money. I believe the same was done on Ilford re-brands (like Arista Pro). I don't know if this practice continues today, but I would love to see this in 120 film. No extra packaging and a lower (or at least the same) price. Even if it is only availabe on purchases of 50 rolls of film and up, I would support it.

As an aside, maybe you can answer this question for me: what is with Pan100/400? Is this film still made? It seems to be available only in 35mm and available in Eastern Europe/Middle East/maybe Asia and Africa. Is that right? I humbly suggest that if this is the case then Ilford needs to either sell more of it worldwide and provide it in more sizes, or eliminate it completely and replace it with FP4+/HP5+ and split the difference in cost for everyone. Why have another traditional film diluting the brand?

I would appreciate learning more about this issue.

As others have stated, thanks for listening and I wish you success in keeping film alive and available to as wide an audience as possible.

 

[Craig]

Where in Canada are you? I'm in Calgary and buy film at The Camera Store, and they bring in the 50 piece boxes of Ilford and it's wrapped just as you suggest. Both the 35mm and the 120 comes as a plastic wrapper roll, no box and no canister. They do have a website so perhaps take a look.

 

[ti1ion]

Thank you for letting me know, Craig.

I am in Ontario. Since I live in a smaller city none of the local stores bring in more than 20 rolls of anything -- or so it seems. And they charge accordingly. I can understand it from their point of view, but I can't pay $4.50+/roll and then have another 15% added on in taxes.

Interestingly, Treckhall-Signware, where I bought the film, has a 50 pack listed in their catalogue, but here is the catch -- I paid LESS for 5 10-packs of FP4+ than the price for 1 50-pack! The price difference is $35. Now, I did not know that the 50-pack is shrink-wrap only. Thank you for that information. Now someone needs to look into the pricing issues!

 

[Jim Noel]

For me the answer is simple.
I have no argument with the tape or with the film ID on the paper backing.

Just use darker ink for the dots leading to the numbers, and for the numbers.

I quit using Ilford roll film when they went to the faint ink because I could not read the dots or numbers without a flashlight.

I am hoping this happens soon as I wish to get back to the films.

 

[Donald Qualls]

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 :

Are you talking about the foil/plastic wrapper, the backing paper, or the gummed tape that holds down the roll end?

As I see it, the plastic airtight wrapper has to be marked, because many end users buy pro-packs and carry the rolls loose in the wrapping; a few discount resellers also sell single rolls from pro-packs, though I don't know that you need to feel you must support this marketing method. However, it might well be cheaper to make this wrapper generic and apply a pressure sensitive label to it indicating the contents, as is done with some rebranded or "custom" films and budget films. In pro-packs, you might simply supply a strip of 5 such sticky labels and let the end user apply them, saving an operation in packaging.

The backing paper can easily be the same for all films -- might as well be now, since there's no information between frames to remind us what's loaded, and when loading we'll have the wrapper, while unloading we'll have the end tape (and don't much care anyway, since the film is exposed by then).

The crucial point for correct development is the gummed end tape; that *must* be marked with the correct film type so end users and labs can apply the correct development -- but it's also cheap stuff to make, since it need only be lightweight paper, printed in one color, with gum on the back; they don't need to be the peel & stick kind.

So, bottom line, if generic foil with sticky labels, or generic backing will save money and either keep more products in production or keep prices down, no problem, as long as the end tapes show the film type.

 

[Brac]

>
As an aside, maybe you can answer this question for me: what is with Pan100/400? Is this film still made? It seems to be available only in 35mm and available in Eastern Europe/Middle East/maybe Asia and Africa. Is that right? I humbly suggest that if this is the case then Ilford needs to either sell more of it worldwide and provide it in more sizes, or eliminate it completely and replace it with FP4+/HP5+ and split the difference in cost for everyone. Why have another traditional film diluting the brand?

These 2 films seem to fairly robust and I guess they are aimed at places where climate/storage conditions may not be optimal. They seem to be still made in 35mm and you can get them in the UK from a mail order firm called Firstcall. These people aim them at the education market. At one time they were also in 120; maybe still are. Firstcall infer on their web site that the films are not as good (fine-grained?) as FP4+ & HP5+. On the UK Ilford site you can download technical info on these films as an Acrobat pdf document. Firstcall's prices on these films is very reasonable so it would be a pity to see them go; I don't see how their continued production affects anything else.

 

[gnashings]

I've noticed the faint print problem, but didn't even think that its something that anyone at a big film company would take the time to notice. Seeing this thread, AGAIN(!) blew me away! I love the folks at ilford, WOW, this is how you keep your customers happy! I know its a little thing, but my goodness - what a way interact with your buyers!

I have to add my vote to the universal backing/branded sticky.
I found the sticky tags on most 120 films to be a little small and hard to handle in the cold or dark - perhaps it would be an all-around good idea to make them bigger. They would be easier to handle, AND they would serve their newfound marketing role better.
I enjoy most activities that involve licking, so as long as the glue has that minty flavour...

Peter.

 

[ajuk]

I think this question would be better put to pros, in a pro forum.

 

[Aggie]

I think this question would be better put to pros, in a pro forum.

Are not users of the product good enough to comment on what they have encountered? Narrow the scope of those participating and you cut out those who do the majority of the purchasing. Basic Marketing 101 demographics survey, would be a sampling from all areas.

BTW Simon, I have not run into the problems. I do need the little reminder on the end seal thingy so I can remember what I loaded in the tanks. I have blonde roots and need all the help with reminders I can get of what I shot.

 

[Thomassauerwein]

I think this question would be better put to pros, in a pro forum.

That's just plain RUDE! I know I spend 5-6 thousand dollars a year on Ilford films and products. Am very appreciative of their concern "here" for making our life more efficient.

 

[fhovie]

This is an artist forum - the pros all went digital - that is why I can now afford a Blad. Here on this board are authors, chemists and inventors - all in the ranks of accomplished and seasoned artists. Many of whom sell their work in galleries. There is no better place to get feedback on chemical based imaging products.

 

[Lee L]

I think this question would be better put to pros, in a pro forum.

The consensus would be exactly the same in a pro forum as here, and many of the answers in this thread come from current or past professional photographers.

It's also invalid to assume that the average "professional photographer" has any deeper knowledge or experience in any given area of photography than many on APUG.

The typical pro also doesn't consume a ton of Ilford 120 film, and many have gone to digital. Besides, asking all your customers what they want is a very good idea.

Lee

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

I think this question would be better put to pros, in a pro forum.

Like perhaps they did when they choosed the infamous faint ink, thus discontenting just everybody?

Thanks to your "pros", their italian importer went in bankruptcy. Let's hope they will REALLY hear serious amateurs, their true market, this time.

 

[127]

While we're on the subject of the sticky tapes:

Ilford film tastes of peppermint - really nice idea.

However I think peppermint suits hp5 best... Can we have fp4 in strawberry?

Ian

 

[eumenius]

And who we are here, eh? Just went inside to take a leak, say?

I think this question would be better put to pros, in a pro forum.

 

[Bruce Appel]

Generic backing, marked sticky tags. Numbers that can be red through red windows.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Thanks for your feedback : ILFORD Photo / HARMAN

Dear All,

Many thanks for your feedback :

It looks like generic backing would be OK : The sealing strips* would identify the film type ( and yes we do put mint into the adhesive, and no we are not going to do any other flavours ! ) also we would always foil wrap with the film specific foil.

* I do not know of any technical reason why the sealer could not be bigger, I will ask the question, although to be honest no one has asked it to be bigger before, therefore we will probably adobt the 'if it ai'nt broke do not fix it' approach.

I have also read you like the plastic 120 film tubs, I am looking to do a special pack with some free ones sometine in the new Year.

As to pro's / hobbyists / debate, no debate you are all customers, you all have opinions, all are valued.

Please remember, we have not promised to increase the numbering / graphics density, we have promised to TRY and do it, we cannot risk wrapper offset
which is why it is feint in the first place.

Thanks very much to all who took the time to give us the vital info we needed.

Kind Regards

Simon.

 

[haris]

Dear All,


Thanks very much to all who took the time to give us the vital info we needed.

Kind Regards

Simon.

No, Simon, thank you and Ilford/Harman for taking us seriously.

 

[TimVermont]

I think this question would be better put to pros, in a pro forum.

Just to clarify, the "A" stands for Analog, not Amateur.

 

[jd callow]

* I do not know of any technical reason why the sealer could not be bigger, I will ask the question, although to be honest no one has asked it to be bigger before, therefore we will probably adobt the 'if it ai'nt broke do not fix it' approach.

The sealer (as in the thing you lick), maybe not, but the band that wraps the unexposed roll is another story.

A wider band is an oppertunity to set Ilford apart from others. It is not a fix but an enhancement that would leave no one guessing as to which roll they were about to load.

The band might also have a perf or pul tab to facilitate unwraping. Something that might be handy when in a rush, when operating one handed, and or when fingers are numb from cold.

If you'd like me to beat this horse a little longer give me a PM. In my tiny mind I see it as a real oppertunity.

In any event, thank you for asking our opinion.

best

jd (I won't let this die) callow

 

[gr82bart]

I do not know of any technical reason why the sealer could not be bigger, I will ask the question, although to be honest no one has asked it to be bigger before, therefore we will probably adobt the 'if it ai'nt broke do not fix it' approach.

Simon,

Actually, can you ask the technical guys why the sealer can't be self adhesive like Fuji's?

Thanks, Art.

 

[ajuk]

That's just plain RUDE! I know I spend 5-6 thousand dollars a year on Ilford films and products. Am very appreciative of their concern "here" for making our life more efficient.

Maybe I didn't put it right, sorry, I meant as well as asking here.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Actually, can you ask the technical guys why the sealer can't be self adhesive like Fuji's?

If the question starts with "why" the answer is probably "money."

I'd be *flabbergasted* if those nifty self-adhesive labels on the Fuji film didn't cost more per label than the gummed ones on every other film around -- and Ilford would also have to replace the machine that applies them by cutting, moistening, and wrapping with one that cuts, peels just the right armount of backing, and sticks down the tail on the roll; probably an investment of tens of thousands of pounds.

I'd rather see that money put into the film, not the end tape.