ILFORD ULF Make : Poor Level Of Orders [But Ilford comes through in the end!]

[Curt]

Simon, how about some free samples so the rest of us can see what we are missing? A couple of sheets. Recently Kodak sent some new film, why don't you send out some film. Maybe the orders will go up. If you produce Pan F in ULF then yes I will be buying film in quanitity.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Simon, I asked several times for a run of HP5 in 3.25 x 4.25, but it was not included in the offering. I would have committed to buy 20 50-sheet boxes, and I know of at least one other photographer who would have bought substantial quantities of this size. Sanders

 

[Rob Skeoch]

The problem is we're all setting in front of computers when we should be out taking photos. Let's take some photos this week so we'll have a need to buy some film.
Even Weston forced himself to take photos when things were slow, there must be something in the fridge you can photograph. something original like a cala lily or pepper.

 

[Oren Grad]

Simon, I asked several times for a run of HP5 in 3.25 x 4.25, but it was not included in the offering. I would have committed to buy 20 50-sheet boxes, and I know of at least one other photographer who would have bought substantial quantities of this size. Sanders

Sanders, (there was a url link here which no longer exists).

The challenge for us is that one needs to read every APUG thread on the topic religiously to stay on top of details like that as they emerge. The challenge for Harman is that this is a time sink already, and they have to prioritize their promotional efforts. So the question for those of us who care about this is, as always, what can we do to make this work for everyone involved?

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Sanders, (there was a url link here which no longer exists).

The challenge is that one needs to read every APUG thread on the topic religiously to stay on top of details like that.

Wow, that's terrible. I missed that post. I thought the definitive last word was Kerry Thalmann's February 28 post:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

which provvided this link to the sizes available:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Shame on me for missing the post you mentioned.

Sanders

 

[waynecrider]

Simon, I asked several times for a run of HP5 in 3.25 x 4.25, but it was not included in the offering. I would have committed to buy 20 50-sheet boxes, and I know of at least one other photographer who would have bought substantial quantities of this size. Sanders

As Rob noted it as offered, but I decided to cut down 4x5 instead at what I remember as being a cheaper route.

Btw, was there ever a poll on how many people are shooting ULF?

 

[PHOTOTONE]

I wonder, if the packaging is the problem in producing low volumes of ULF film? What if a standard box of say 16x20 dimensions was used for all ULF down to 11x14, then an 11x14 box was used for all sizes down to 8x10? Would this be enough economy to allow orders to proceed? Since the film is in a foil pack inside, I don't see any downside to having oversized boxes, if that is the only way to get the film. I would be curious to Mr. Galleys thoughts on this.

 

[colrehogan]

I have not placed an order for 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 because of a current lack of available film holders. As this situation is about to change, I would be happy to order some if it will help make the minimum quantity. If the quantity burden is too great, I'll have to pass for this year.

I placed an order for 6 1/2 x 8 1/2, but just received two boxes from the Wynit stock (not complaining, I can give this camera a shot now!) I had only ordered 5 of this size, since I decided I wanted some 5x12 also.

 

[jgjbowen]

Let me start by saying I don't have a horse in the Ilford race. I shoot TMY in ULF. With last year's TMY order Kodak shipped my 7x17 in 16x20 boxes. Do I wish they had used 7x17 boxes?...YES, but I understand that the marketing folks hadn't let the processing folks know the details, thus 16x20 boxes.

Any how, when J&C announced their "moving" sale, I took advantage and purchased a significant quantity of 7x17 TMY. Recently J&C inquired as to folks interest in a new ULF order for TMY. I let John know that since I had ordered so much last year, I would not be ordering TMY in 7x17 this year. My freezer if full, and I probably have 5+ years on hand.

My point is that I can't be alone on this. Folks likely stocked up on Ilford ULF sizes during the J&C sale and thus don't need any for a while. I commend Ilford for their efforts to support us, and can understand why orders might be down from last year. I think a lot of us stocked up the freezers with ULF to last us a few years.

We are all in this ULF situation together and I let John @ J&C know that I didn't expect to order ANY ULF TMY this year, but if he needed help to make a minimum order of 7x17, to let me know and I would pitch in to help make it happen.

Best to all of you,

John

 

[Curt]

I asked several times for Pan F in 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 and Pan F or a slow speed 5 x 7. Why are these and other non ULF requests rebuffed or just blown off? And there is a time to photograph and a time to sit in front of the computer and do business. There isn't a manufacturers rep. who comes to the local camera store any more, in fact there isn't a local camera store any more. It's right here that the rep. comes and right here that the questions are asked. Some one will say that Adox / Efke has those speeds. I say that all of the ULF films are available from other manufacturers, what's the matter with those brands?

 

[Terence]

It's been stated NUMEROUS times that the Pan F emulsion is not compatible with the sheet film base.

 

[Bob F.]

It's been stated NUMEROUS times that the Pan F emulsion is not compatible with the sheet film base.

Don't bother him with facts Terence... The guy has a bee in his bonnet over Ilford and takes the opportunity to be tedious every time their name gets mentioned. If they gave away free one-ounce gold bars with every pack, he'd still moan that it was only 22 carat gold... :rolleyes:

Cheers, Bob.

 

[Curt]

Thanks Bob and I thought you were a great guy. Do a search, a lot of people want a slow speed, Pan F like emulsion in 4x, 5x, and even 2x3, that's inches. And believe it or not they would like Ilford to make it. I don't care if Ilford can't put Pan F on sheets. They can put slow emulsions on sheets. Its been done in the past and present. Check Adox/Efke, Rollei and others they are producing it.

Another thing about film. The ULF film is available in all sizes from other manufacturers not just Ilford so why are so many whining, please Ilford make something for me?

When the non Ultra Large Format users ask for something they are totally blown off. What are the ULF photographers who don't have AZO or a silver chloride paper to contact print on using; Ilford Silver Chloride paper? If Ilford cares so much why hasn't it stepped up and produced some contact printing paper?

Here is the tire, in one size, and you can find the car elsewhere.

Why is there a poor level of orders? Maybe because the company is doing something wrong, like not listening to the customers, it's expensive when you are disconnected. Maybe ULF has reached its peak and now is the time to step down.

I admit I am a hard sell, I can see and smell the BS thousands of miles away. The business environment today can't succeed for very long without honesty. If something can't be done it would be in the best interest for the company to explain in clear and honest words why.

If your community water was going to be changed and something was going to be added you would want a complete and clear explanation wouldn't you?

Bob maybe you should use the ignore button like Simon, and believe me I am not smiling.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear All,

Thanks for all the feedback on ULF, ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology will do what it always does, listen to its customers and find a solution, which I will post in due course, I have to speak to people internally and in the US.

As to PAN F+ emulsion in sheet film, yes people are passionate about it, we would like to have it in the range and make it.... but it really is a bridge too far : Why, I will explain, once again :

1) Our sheet films are coated on a different base
2) R&D for transfer of a PAN F+ film emulsion to that base
3) Test coatings on a pilot coater
4) Manufacturing test coatings
5) Actual coating ( approx minimum 5,000 sq mtrs, minimum emulsion mix )
6) Testing
7) QC pass / fail ( if it fails its destroyed )
8) Finishing to sheet
9) Technical service : Evaluation Processing and sensitometric testing
10 ) Sales and marketing costs / translations etc
11) Cost of stockholding x 24 months

Forecasted sales ( Worldwide ) per annum all sheet film sizes between 1,000 and 1,250 sq metres ( approx 3,100 to 3,875 packets of 5" x 4" in 25 sheets ).

Within our quality regimes we could finish safely twice at a years interval from one coating, therefore we would use maximum 2,500sq metres.

Other 2,500 sq metres would be DESTROYED ( but silver recovered )

Additional cost of cold / controlled storage of parent roll


I have worked out the approx retail cost ( + or - 10% ) of 25 sheets of 5" x 4excluding any local taxes so that we would recover our total spend ( but make no profit whatsoever) in 2 years from the date of shipping the first order :

$ 113.07 per 25 sheets of 5 x 4
__________________________

This is why we do not, and will never make PAN F + in sheet film : No one would buy it at that price.....whether they loved it or not

I hope that explains the situation :

With Kind Regards

Simon. ILFORD photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Scott Peters]

Simon, My guess is that folks have 'stocked' up in the past. Two thoughts - minimum per person order and VOLUME discounts per order to ensure a minimum and encourage larger orders..... If your total minimum in a certain sheet size is not reached, then run it six months from now and don't cut it now.....or run it once a year, stock it until it runs out (probably cheaper to run it once per year anyway and run more at that time.....

I appreciate your efforts.

 

[noseoil]

"I admit I am a hard sell, I can see and smell the BS thousands of miles away. The business environment today can't succeed for very long without honesty. If something can't be done it would be in the best interest for the company to explain in clear and honest words why."

Curt, Simon is the only representative of a "world class company" who has taken an active interest in our needs. Postcard stock was no longer in the line-up after Ilford came out of their gut-wrenching reorganizarion, and it was brought back "on spec" due in part to the members of this forum. If you will take the time to look at his most recent post, his candor is remarkable. I see the tone of your post as a somewhat negative take on things, and perhaps in your comment about bs, the fox is smelling his own hole, no?

I greatly appreciate the work Ilford has done in keeping film alive. Their interest in ULF is a gamble, at best, and is just another indicator of film's viability in the digital world. I wouldn't blame Ilford for the demise of film. If anything, it is the human need for immediate gratification which has caused this shift in market place. tim

 

[Terence]

And don't forget SFX in 120 size.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...on ULF, ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology will do what it always does, listen to its customers and find a solution, which I will post in due course, I have to speak to people internally and in the US.

As to PAN F+ emulsion in sheet film...I will explain, once again...

First, thank you for seeking a solution and posting when it's found. Past behavior is usually a good indicator of future actions; I think we can therefore count on you to follow up.

Concerning PAN F+ emulsion in sheet film, please don't explain ever again. Even if you feel compelled to respond to future repetitious requests, a simple link to this thread will be more than deserved. Please don't waste any more of your time typing the same things over and over.

 

[bnelson]

Actually the extra month is great for me. I'm not yet involved in the ULF format but just trying to figure out what size of camera so this gives me a little time to "get my ducks in order" for the camera and still get on the list for the film.

I am a little discouraged that this Ilford special order may not be every year, but now every two years. What will someone new to this area do?

How much ULF film do most of you expose every year?

Bill

 

[eclarke]

Dear All,

Thanks for all the feedback on ULF, ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology will do what it always does, listen to its customers and find a solution, which I will post in due course, I have to speak to people internally and in the US.

As to PAN F+ emulsion in sheet film, yes people are passionate about it, we would like to have it in the range and make it.... but it really is a bridge too far : Why, I will explain, once again :

1) Our sheet films are coated on a different base
2) R&D for transfer of a PAN F+ film emulsion to that base
3) Test coatings on a pilot coater
4) Manufacturing test coatings
5) Actual coating ( approx minimum 5,000 sq mtrs, minimum emulsion mix )
6) Testing
7) QC pass / fail ( if it fails its destroyed )
8) Finishing to sheet
9) Technical service : Evaluation Processing and sensitometric testing
10 ) Sales and marketing costs / translations etc
11) Cost of stockholding x 24 months

Forecasted sales ( Worldwide ) per annum all sheet film sizes between 1,000 and 1,250 sq metres ( approx 3,100 to 3,875 packets of 5" x 4" in 25 sheets ).

Within our quality regimes we could finish safely twice at a years interval from one coating, therefore we would use maximum 2,500sq metres.

Other 2,500 sq metres would be DESTROYED ( but silver recovered )

Additional cost of cold / controlled storage of parent roll


I have worked out the approx retail cost ( + or - 10% ) of 25 sheets of 5" x 4excluding any local taxes so that we would recover our total spend ( but make no profit whatsoever) in 2 years from the date of shipping the first order :

$ 113.07 per 25 sheets of 5 x 4
__________________________

This is why we do not, and will never make PAN F + in sheet film : No one would buy it at that price.....whether they loved it or not

I hope that explains the situation :

With Kind Regards

Simon. ILFORD photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

And after Simon and his company accomplished all that he has outlined above, everybody would let him down with crappy order quantities like this ULF order. Face it, this community is not going to keep any companies alive with B&W film purchases, that is why Kodak, who needs to make BIGGER runs, has their attitude towards film..Evan Clarke

 

[Terence]

I am a little discouraged that this Ilford special order may not be every year, but now every two years. What will someone new to this area do?

How much ULF film do most of you expose every year?

Bill

I have barely made it through a box, but am partially hedging my bets on future availability and partially trying to motivate myself to go out and burn more sheets.

Personally, I'd buy another box, and maybe sell it during the year at a loss to someone new to ULF, to make sure that I and others have access to the product.

 

[Dave Wooten]

1. Which sizes need the boost?

2. How many boxes are we short of the "endangered format" sizes order?

The extended time helps alot...thanks...

 

[Bob F.]

< snip>

Sorry, but when it comes to Ilford you go off on absurd flights of fancy.

Example? You want 5x7 film and you complain that Ilford is ignoring the 5x7 user. You are then told that you can buy it off the shelf in three different emulsions. So, you change tack and insist on an emulsion (Pan-F) that you know is not coated on to sheets. Then, being told it can't be done for technical/financial reasons, you now say you don't care about them producing it after all (!) - now you want them to create an entirely new low-speed emulsion especially for the purpose (at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds/dollars/euro/whatever). It is clear that whatever they do will not satisfy you, hence my gold-bar joke-ette...

Your other contributions are entirely normal: it's just Ilford where you seem to have a strange need to slag them off at every opportunity and write long monomaniacal monologues about their perceived failings.

Please do not put words in to my mouth: you will search high and low without success looking for me saying that Ilford "cares". What it cares about is making sufficient profit to still be in business this time next year and the years beyond. Making films and paper that only a handful of people want to buy is not a valid business model. That Ilford succeed is in all our interests (ditto the film parts of Kodak and FujiFilm). Welcome to the wonderful world of capitalism.

I will not take this thread O.T. any further...

Bob.

 

[colrehogan]

Actually the extra month is great for me. I'm not yet involved in the ULF format but just trying to figure out what size of camera so this gives me a little time to "get my ducks in order" for the camera and still get on the list for the film.

I am a little discouraged that this Ilford special order may not be every year, but now every two years. What will someone new to this area do?

How much ULF film do most of you expose every year?

Bill

I shot 50-60 sheets of 5x12 (a combination of FP4/HP5) last year, but I didn't start shooting that format until June/July. The scary thing is that I have this stuff graphed out in Excel at home.

 

[photo8x10]

I don't know how many sheets can I shot in 8x20, I think when I'll be ready I can shoot 50-100 sheets in this format.
I think also that this special order should be done every one and half/two years.
Best
Stefano