Ilford: State of the Photo World ?

Ralph Javins said:

Possessing a desire to help keep our local shops in business is not always easy when the shops do not seem to be willing to participate with me in that process.

Click to expand...

I find it surprising that they are saying that kind of thing. Seems like a great way to go out of business. Brings up a memory which is somewhat aligned in relation to the Ilford slant of this thread.

Years ago, before Latte had hit this land in the upper left hand corner of your map of the US lower 48, I walked into a shop south of you, Ralph, down in Auburn. I needed film. I asked for what I was then using for reasons that will soon be apparent: tri x. I was told "We don't carry tri-x. We have Ilford products. They are better." Well, I wouldn't argue about that, but my response was "I was in Friday Harbor (end of the world up here) last month and ran out of film. Somebody drove in to the drugstore for me, the only place up there that carried film. All they had was tri-x. In my business, I really have to use what I know I can get on the road, regardless of what I might prefer for my own aesthetic reasons." Next time I went in, he had tri-x.

I might even agree with him (at the moment, I prefer shooting FP4 for myself) but customers have their reasons why they need or want one thing over another and it isn't always about price. Another guy, in Tacoma (he's gone now) used to try to sell me RC paper, even though I told him my client wouldn't buy my prints unless they were made on fiber. He said that the reason I should buy it is that RC is better and my stupid client just didn't know that. I know that the real reason he thought I should buy it is just because that's what he had. Take care of his needs; to hell with mine. That guy was a piece of work.

I heard the stories from the folks at Rainier, though, as they were going out of business. People would come in and boast about the prices they got stuff for from the web, and often, those prices would be higher than they'd have paid at Rainier. They seemed just to assume that the prices must be lower simply because it was on the web. Very sad. It was a great store, with great people; one that I knew from when it started, more than 30 years ago.

It is quite difficult to support local shops because this economic system has already been killed.

Now the "Starbuck" system is there. Everybody gets the same, in a same cozy environment anywhere from the same brand store. Everything is sold there and cameras or related photographic items are just diluted between TV screens, computers, etc... Even B&H looks more like Best Buy than a camera store now !

What we need to support are the "niche" stores or companies (Ilford) who decided as a planned strategy to sell film and photo products. Freestyle is in my mind.
Also people who have specific items related to photography, like Moersch or B&S. There are many other like that. Without them it would be really tuff.

The only way to survive is to have a unique product, to fill the niche. Then we can support them. And it's a paradox, we could even have more good stuff
than before.

Lets face it guys, analogue B&W is a niche & has been for years

We effectively became a niche when colour film took over.

Colour film is now a niche product with a far less certain future than B&W

The only thing we have to worry about now is the size of our niche market – is it large enough to be sustainable ?

Martin

wogster said:

You can make them yourself, simply print your digital image onto clear film used for overhead projectors, then contact print that onto film, process the film and print normally. I would think the best image for the least cost would be to print your images so that a single sheet of 8x10 has a bunch 6x4.5cm images on it, as close together as will fit, cut them apart after processing, then print them in a medium format enlarger onto whatever size you want.

Click to expand...

So have you actually tried this? Just curious.

Nothing wrong with a niche: it's a very good way of ensuring top quality.
Which is precisely what we get nowadays:

I'd hate to be stuck with the old 60's emulsions, b&w or colour negative or slide. I have many examples of those, and the modern equivalents beat them by a country mile.

What we got nowadays is absolutely the best that can be made and is a long shot better than anything we had before. At very good prices.

Call me weird, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Guillaume Zuili said:

It is quite difficult to support local shops because this economic system has already been killed.

Now the "Starbuck" system is there. Everybody gets the same, in a same cozy environment anywhere from the same brand store. Everything is sold there and cameras or related photographic items are just diluted between TV screens, computers, etc... Even B&H looks more like Best Buy than a camera store now !

Click to expand...

And it is quite difficult to support local shops when you get no extra value for a higher price. If they stock items, show some expertise about the products etc. then I am willing to pay more. But I do not want to pay extra money for explaining to them what they are going to sell to me. I gave up on the local store when they once wanted to sell me some APS film when I asked for rollfilm 120. Now I support 3 or 4 online niche stores and of course Wolfgang Moersch.

Cheers
Ruediger

Ian Grant said:

This is bit more apt, as the thread is about Ilford

Ian

Click to expand...

Do I need new glasses or is the film box labeled "IFLOCHROME"?

Justin Silber said:

Do I need new glasses or is the film box labeled "IFLOCHROME"?

Click to expand...

Selochrome

Justin Silber said:

Do I need new glasses or is the film box labeled "IFLOCHROME"?

Click to expand...

No it's Selochrome, was an Ilford film which was available for many years, Ilford had taken over the Selo Company by 1925, it was still made in the early 1960's

Selochrome wasn't panchromatic but had extended red sensitivity so gave more natural tones than an Orthochromatic film, with a speed of 29° Schn approx 50ASA/BS.

There were also:
Selo Fine Grain Panchromatic 27° Schn approx 30ASA/BSand
Selo Hypersensitive Panchromatic 31° Schn approx 64 ASA/BS

By the end of WWII the Selo brand name was dropped and the Ilford name was used for all the films. Speed ratings also increased quite rapidly partly due emulsion improvements, but also to revisions and standardisation of testing criteria, Selo FP2 & HP2 evolved into Ilford FP3,4 & 4+, and Hp3, 4,5 & 5+.

Ian

Ian, the depth of your knowledge staggers me

Martin

My father used Selo films Martin, I still have the packets showing where he bought film & had it processed in India & the Middle East during WWII.

I also have a Selo handbook/manual of Photography published by Ilford, it's aimed at amateurs so much simpler than the Ilford Manual of Photography.

Ian

It's been posted before, but for anyone who does not have Ian living next door to them ( ), there is an Ilford history site here: http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Chronology.html

donbga said:

So have you actually tried this? Just curious.

Click to expand...

No but there are folks at the Hybrid photo site that have.....

Thanks Bob, there's some material I have scanned & photographed I should send to the owner of the site, plus things like the Selo book to dig out on my next visit to the UK, when it's warmer

Ian

Guillaume Zuili said:

It is quite difficult to support local shops because this economic system has already been killed.

Click to expand...

There are still a few around that haven't been Starbucked, and I try to encourage them when possible by continuing to patronize them even if I have to pay a reasonable amount more (which usually isn't the way it turns out to be, anyway, because they must compete with online sellers). Don't get me wrong, I've been buying from Freestyle since they were selling roll ends and miscellaneous surplus (some 40 years by now), and I am a customer of Photographer's Formulary, Bostick and Sullivan, and other online "niche" providers. It is fantastic and wonderful that they are there, and I appreciate the support we get from them, wholeheartedly.

I find it troubling that the LOCAL sense of community, so tenuous now, isn't being supported very well by those who stand to benefit the most. I suppose that the basic issue is the "real vs. virtual" thing. I value greatly the wonderful reach that the web has given us - I've been active on it for almost 20 years now, which is about how old it is - and have no intention of stopping. But, I can't live entirely on a computer screen. I have to wonder how much time I really can afford allowing for things that must be, or could be done. I've come to think that I really spend too much time doing what I'm doing right now...

My point is that we need both. Especially as travel becomes more difficult, it will not be quite as convenient to meet people all over the country or the world. It is helpful to know actual human beings who you can be sure are endowed with bona-fide bodies.

Simon R Galley said:

Dear MamiParis,

"We have NO quality problems with our chemical products WHATSOEVER, in fact quality has risen to unprecedented levels"
Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

Click to expand...

Been a user of Hypam for years. My trusty supplier (Photostock in Paris) recently talked me into trying Kodak fixer ("it's cheaper than Ilford").
I got problems after fixing only a few films (my negs had orange stains...).

Back to the shop to get Ilford fixer, refixed faulty negs (a chore) everything went back to normal. I stick to Ilford fixer, don't like unreliable chemistry...

Simon R Galley said:

Dear MamiParis,

...snip....

If you do not like ILFORD thats absolutely fine, I have no problem with that, but please get your facts correct, I think you will also find APUG to be non commercial, yes we are a sponsor, and we are proud of that. We do not ADVERTISE we communicate....

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

Click to expand...

sounds to me like his local shop or, at least one sales guy there, does not like Ilford....

I'm chuckling over this Brad. Here I am, a dedicated Kodak engineer and I think that anyone who bashes Ilford products should have his head examined. As I've said before, they make good stuff for us analog people. There, I went and said it. (No I don't get a kickback from Harman/Ilford-but I may get tweaked by Kodak --- Just kidding)

PE

You can get digital prints on Ilford's Digital B&W paper from mpix.com. Lustre finish, unfortunately, as with all their services. (No surprise, they are the web side of Millers, who are a portrait printing house. Portrait photographers want lustre surface.)

I really wish I could get digital B&W prints on Ilford's glossy paper, and Kodak's glossy Endura paper.

John Shriver said:

I really wish I could get digital B&W prints on Ilford's glossy paper, and Kodak's glossy Endura paper.

Click to expand...

You can, with a DeVere digital enlarger. You can find it in Freestyle's current Education catalog. The only problem is the thing costs something in the neighborhood of thirty thousand dollars.

I really wish I could get digital B&W prints on Ilford's glossy paper, and Kodak's glossy Endura paper

Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with Kodak Endura but, as I recall, the Ilford FB Digital has a 'glossy' surface, the same as, air dryed, MG FB Glossy.
If you want to make it really glossy, I guess you could glaze it afterwards.

Jerry

Digital glossy papers cannot be glazed, as they should not be wetted after imprinting. Also, due to the lack of incorporated chemistry, the digital papers tend to be more glossy than analog papers.

PE

Ron (PS) this is a Digital fibre based paper so apart from it's emulsion being faster & having different sensitivity it's the same as any other Ilfor FB paper, requiring B&W processing. The Kodak paper is very different it's essentially a single colour, colour paper designed for RA-4, in the same way as CN400 & XP-2 are to film.

Ian

Ian;

I understand about this, but I wanted to make a clear distinction between it and Ilford Digital papers which are intended for digital inks. Thanks though. It just emphasized what I was trying to point out.

In any event, in the long run I would not use a dye based print of any sort for what I want as an archival B&W print. No dye is as stable as silver.

Sorry my phrasing was not clear in the above post.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Digital glossy papers cannot be glazed, as they should not be wetted after imprinting. Also, due to the lack of incorporated chemistry, the digital papers tend to be more glossy than analog papers.

PE

Click to expand...

My Epson R1800 has a separate glossy overcoat that can be used or not as I choose. I can't use the printer right now because one of the inks has run out. That is my real complaint about digital printers. If one ink color runs out, you cannot print. If light magenta is gone, I cannot even print black text. If Epson gave away printers, they would still get rich selling the ink.