• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Ilford Simplicity - new processing system from Ilford

Latest Gallery

Cone and Hoop

A
Cone and Hoop

  • 0
  • 0
  • 22
Snow on Willoughby

A
Snow on Willoughby

  • 0
  • 0
  • 26

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
202,759
Messages
2,845,212
Members
101,511
Latest member
hkoepke
Recent bookmarks
0
  1. One could no help but notice that they actually measured the surfactant!!! The squirters and the drippers are going to go bonkers!
  2. The kit contains stop bath, there will be a lot of crying in beer from the anti stop bathers.
  3. It is virtually fool proof, but someone who thinks they know better will experiment and fill the website with "why didn't it work?!?"
  4. It is virtually fool proof but some others will find a way.
 
Ces1um said:
I'm thinking the ilford products are essentially an in and an out. You buy it when you're ready to develop your one or two rolls of film. You bring it home, use it the same day, and everything is discarded at the end of the process. There's nothing to store at any point.
Now if you're buying a small kit, likely that kit of small 100ml bottles will do more than just two rolls so at the end of the day you have something that will be kept in your house.
Click to expand...

Now I see what you meant. But as solution for the rarely user (good wording?) I think the better idea is just to have a kit in house.
 
RalphLambrecht said:
could also work as a travel kit if you're afraid of airport exposure, I think.
Click to expand...

Ha to this! Try taking one of these kits to Bali and see what happens with Customs at the airport.

There is aso the matter of yet more plastic contaminating the environment. Ilford should be more ecologically responsible and go the way of larger kits with disposable/easily biodegradable materials. But no. Why ever not?
 
AgX said:
Over here in most towns it is available for 30€cent per Liter. But why should I schlepp around 5L containers (there is life without cars) if I can have water from the tap? Using destilled water for the final rinse is something different, but one could reduce the volume easily.
Click to expand...

I'm at the grocery store anyway. And the closest grocery store is still over a mile and a half away, along a major road with 50+ mph traffic and no sidewalk, and no public transportation.

It's very different over here surviving without a car. It's possible, barely, in major cities. Only a very few major cities (NYC, I think maybe Chicago) have sufficient public transportation, and sufficiently awful traffic, to make it both easily workable and preferable for a lot of people.

I have two cars and a motorcycle. The second car is a bit of indulgence but it's a small wagon with high miles on it and not worth much so I kept it as a "backup" and for the cargo moving ability of the small wagon when I bought my other one.

People I know who cannot drive due to handicap tend to move into big cities. You literally cannot survive most places in the US without driving or relying on someone who does.
 
Greg Davis said:
That idea is nice at first, but then you would be purchasing equipment you already have the next time you want to develop with a second kit. And then a third time, etc.
Click to expand...

Well you don't sell it ONLY with the kit with the hardware. Just another option. So first time you buy that. Then you can buy a few without the tank etc. and then as you get into it graduate to more conventionally packaged material and upgrade your equipment at your own pace.
 
Anybody know if the packaging is recyclable for this stuff? I seem to be reading a lot of backlash against how much packaging is involved. If the packaging was recyclable it would go a long way to mitigate issues with this type of system.
 
What does recyclable means and to what extent such materials are practically recycled?
Re-moulding of plastics makes only a share within re-use of plastic waste.

Here in Germany since nearly 30 years we got a nationwide (finally consumer paid) recycling system for plastic packagings (as part of a general packaging recycling system) and 75% of this collected plastic waste is incinerated. And one can argue over the use of the rest too.

So here the term recycling more and more gets substituted by exploitation.



Furtheremore, seen the sheer amount of packaging used for prepacked foodstuff likely we all consume daily, the ecological foot print so to say of these sachets intended to be used rarely should be negligable.
 
Last edited:
this is awesome! I shared with a few friends.
 
Ces1um said:
Anybody know if the packaging is recyclable for this stuff? I seem to be reading a lot of backlash against how much packaging is involved. If the packaging was recyclable it would go a long way to mitigate issues with this type of system.
Click to expand...

The backlash comes from people who do not have anything to do but complain without investigating first.
 
John51 said:
The containers seem over engineered to me. Meaning more cost to the end user. Cafes have sachets of vinegar so why not photo chems in a simple, ie. cheap, sachet?
Click to expand...
That's the way the Kodak stuff came, and you could even buy it in multiple. Strictly one shot but very convenient.
 
Sirius Glass said:
  1. One could no help but notice that they actually measured the surfactant!!! The squirters and the drippers are going to go bonkers!
  2. The kit contains stop bath, there will be a lot of crying in beer from the anti stop bathers.
  3. It is virtually fool proof, but someone who thinks they know better will experiment and fill the website with "why didn't it work?!?"
  4. It is virtually fool proof but some others will find a way.
Click to expand...
"virtually fool proof"? NEVER underestimate the ability of fools!
 
No. You fell for the shell game.
Just before processing they had a different take with the cylinders exchanged in succession. At least the designations were changed.
 
"2 rolls of 35mm or 1 roll of 120 film", where are the maths of that? What am I missing?
 
Anon Ymous said:
600ml can only cover 1 120 film in a Paterson tank.
Click to expand...

600ml also covers a roll of 220. A member here has got 2 x 120 onto the reel by winding the first roll right to the base of the reel and then adding the 2nd 120.
 
John51 said:
600ml also covers a roll of 220. A member here has got 2 x 120 onto the reel by winding the first roll right to the base of the reel and then adding the 2nd 120.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's true, but I don't think Ilford would fancy putting any footnotes to their statement. Besides, this product is aimed at novices, such a trick is a tad too advanced for them IMHO.
 
I think this is a great idea and anything that can encourage people to try their own film developing is very welcome.

I am sure there is someone somewhere that will try and reuse the chemicals, load two film back to back on a single reel, use ju-ju and the casting of chicken bones in the light of a full moon, but I think Ilford is onto a good thing.

It begs the question, why not a similar idea for C41 and E6.
 
Kodak did sell single use C41 and RA chemistry back in about 199X, (I forget when) and they were discontinued due to lack of sales. I have parts of one left over here AAMOF.

PE
 
Did any other manufacturer ever use glass phioles as Tetenal did once ?
(Now Tetenal use tiny glass bottles with screw-on cap.)
 
I checked that very page when this thread started, but did not see such. Nor do I now.
With phioles I refer to tiny glass containers, fused tight. Similar to medical ones.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:
Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom