Is Maco a film manufacturer?

Photo Engineer said:

Not only does this not make sense, but you have nothing to support any kind of statement like this regarding defects. It says nothing of either Kodak or Ilford, and could put the bulk of the defects on either.

I have seen very few reports about defects any of the 3 companies, and they are about evenly matched in number. I have seen many reports of defects from manufacturers other than the big 3.

PE

Click to expand...

I like the way you express yourself! The big 3 :confused: but, you only mention Kodak and Ilford!

uraniumnitrate said:

I like the way you express yourself! The big 3 :confused: but, you only mention Kodak and Ilford!

Click to expand...

Referring to the quote in my post, the big 3 are Fuji, Ilford and Kodak, in alphabetical order.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Referring to the quote in my post, the big 3 are Fuji, Ilford and Kodak, in alphabetical order.

PE

Click to expand...

THANKS!

Our Greek friend was mentioning Ilford + Kodak only, that's why I made the remark so far.

When I first enrolled on a B&W photography course at Leamington(U.K.) College in Jan 2003 we were all given Maco films and told to go out and shoot all 24 frames by the following week with the theme of capturing scenes which contained the letters of the alphabet.

This was simply to test our creativity and primarily to enable us to be shown how to do the development process the following week. There were several courses running each term so the College must have distributed hundreds of Maco films to demonstrate development. As it was the first time for development for all students the college would have been unwise to give students a film with major problems and as it turned out there were no problems.

As Maco was not a film I or many of my students had seen before and wasn't in most shops, most, if not all of us then used Ilford, Kodak or Fuji for the remainder of the course.

However when I made the switch to Ilford, I can't say I noticed an immediate improvement and certainly never heard any of the students complain about the quality of Maco.

I have since become committed to Ilford because its a product I have known about since childhood and have seen at first hand the production facilities and QC methods used.

Had Maco been as well known to me, I may well have used that.

I must admit that I wasn't entirely clear from the various directions the thread has taken whether we were being warned off Maco in particular or any company that outsources some or all of its production or if the real issue was not outsourcing but just not making it clear that outsourcing has taken place?

I'll put it down to a "get it off my chest" thread.

pentaxuser

wirehead said:

The problem with relabeling is that you don't have any assurances of supply.

If there's some maco, bergger, etc. film I like, I'm going to be really pissed if it was really a roll of Agfa that there's no way for them to make more of, even if they wanted to.

Click to expand...

This is just as true with film from "the big three". Where's my APX 25, Tech Pan, Panatomic X (not the different aerial stuff), Verichrome Pan, Kodalith, Super XX, etc.? If you think any of it is coming back you're most likely kidding yourself. Fuji is reintroducing Velvia 50, but it won't be the exact same film, and even they admit that. It may be close, it may even be better, but it WON'T be the old Velvia 50. I'm sure there are some classic Ilford films that were discontinued that will never be seen again, but I'm not familiar with their older products (although I'll put in a plug for restarting 120 SFX since that emulsion is still being made in 35mm).

The fact of the matter is that there is NO assurance of supply for any film product, and there never really was even in the heyday. Accept that things will constantly be in flux. If you like a film, and can't "live" without it, hoard several years supply. That's the best that can be done. My fridge and freezer is full of my precious hoard of discontinued film, including Tech Pan, 70mm EIR, Ektapan, Kodalith, Konica IR, Maco IR, 5x7 Portra, etc.

Terence;

This is a very good point! EVEN FUJI CANNOT BRING BACK VELVIA 50 AS EXACTLY THE SAME FILM!

It is something I have tried to get across here for a long time. Once a line shuts down or a product vanishes in the film industry, it is gone forever, it cannot be exactly recreated. The formulas are just too complex. Once the 'team' moves on, that incredibly complex mix of information and art is lost forever.

Once we Photo Engineers vanish, the knowledge and art are gone. One hundred years from now if analog products vanish, no one will be able to make Super XX if they wanted to and had the equipment and formulas. They could make a film, but not Super XX or Tri X etc. etc.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Terence;

This is a very good point! EVEN FUJI CANNOT BRING BACK VELVIA 50 AS EXACTLY THE SAME FILM!

It is something I have tried to get across here for a long time. Once a line shuts down or a product vanishes in the film industry, it is gone forever, it cannot be exactly recreated. The formulas are just too complex. Once the 'team' moves on, that incredibly complex mix of information and art is lost forever.

Once we Photo Engineers vanish, the knowledge and art are gone. One hundred years from now if analog products vanish, no one will be able to make Super XX if they wanted to and had the equipment and formulas. They could make a film, but not Super XX or Tri X etc. etc.

PE

Click to expand...

My only regret is not realizing this much earlier. I only discovered Tech Pan after it was discontinued and only got into LF after EIR was discontinued in LF.

Thank goodness no one can discontinue bacon or I'd lose the will to live. Of course, even with bacon, there is bacon and then there's BACON.

Aren't they trying to ban pork fat?

PE

at last

Now I sad before that I’m off from this thread because I’m tired of this discussion but one question raised here and I felt that I have something to say for the last time on this thread!

Now the main issue here Is just that question which this thread begin with in the first page and that is we want to be sure of (I don’t know about you) that if I buy Kodak is that really a Kodak or if I buy Forte is that really a Forte or if I buy Ilford is that really Ilford and so on!

Now of course I personally would like to know which companies are really into manufacturing for some reasons and really have know how when it comes to baking emulsion and have a full control over the process! Beside of that big 3! (And I think have a right to know) And not only in it for making a big buck! You know, buy cheap and sell expensive with out any control at all what they are selling! Because than I feel as victim of experiment because I don’t really know what I got! If you not manufacture than that means you depend on others and if that others don’t do it right than I’m sitting on the floor! Now I’m not that type of a guy! I watch when you are in misery and I learn from it!

Now I repeat myself because lots of people coming in but the tendency here is that they are not reading the whole article or thread from the beginning only some lines!

Why this is so important? Because if you manufacture and sell under your own name than you probably have a resource team whom constantly developing the product! You are afraid of your reputation too! I mean now not modernising silver (Ag) out of the film but, apply modern laser technology to measure the size of the grain and choose the right similar size to bake an emulsion of it! Because fine grain gives fine resolution and higher density! This is not the case of the companies who only deliver to other in a re-labelling industry and let them sell their product. They held over the responsibility to each other and the end of the day no one knows anything!

A good quality film should contain lots of silver it should be baked right and use quality base preferable polyester as this have a very good archival status! Coated with knowledge and care! The negative is your only original and I want the best quality or I could say bring it up to scientific quality! To make an exceptional emulsion are art in a high class!
Silver fatigue thin emulsion oxidizes faster than the tick in any cases! Emulsion with less silver fatigue on details in low keys and on high keys less density gives low contrast!

Now this type of know how is only a hands of a few people around the world! Coating a film? I can do that home that’s not a question and I did coat some holographic plates! But can I do quality! No way!

(By the way it should be a low for all manufacturers to state how much silver they have baked into the emulsion per quadrate inch or quadrate cm.)

Anyway I also would like to know all the re-labelling type of brands so called manufacturers that they state where they buy their film so I have a choice to buy what I want and not facing the same problems as a couple friends of mine to ruin there lifetime shut because poor film with bad quality!

Now just think, what do you think why they don’t tell you?

Now the other thing is that its statements like, I can see a difference between or it’s a same I find this film is better and so on! Now people, what do you really mean by that?

What do you based this kind of statement on? Looked two different images taken with two different films? That’s it? I would say very primitive way of seeing things and letting out statements!


Now if you really want to compare quality of two different maker’s film then at least you must measure density! You must take two totally identical images at the same time with the same equipment develop those at total identical conditions and measure density on the negative not on the print! And you got to do several l tests in several developers and so on if you really want to know what that film for go for!

Of course I know I got some really good friends out there now but I really don’t care at all!

Now I’m off!

ivan73 said:

The Foma company is another manufacturer in the EC/EU (Czech Republic) and Ilford/Harman as well (UK)....

Click to expand...

Not to forget Kentmere (UK)...
Useless discussion anyway

M.

I am the original poster, and I was just curious to know if Maco actually "made" film, or if they just "marketed" film. Basically that was my question in a nutshell.

maco...

maco is a "boutique" film producer with quite a bit of history. mitsubishi 100 plus is relabeled efke 100 up. i have shot about 200 rolls of the stuff and it says right on the film up 100 (as did the efke).
i believe they are producing the new rollei film as well.
an "old school" looking film indeed...

emraphoto said:

mitsubishi 100 plus is relabeled efke 100 up. i have shot about 200 rolls of the stuff and it says right on the film up 100 (as did the efke).

Click to expand...

I heard a rumor that Mitsubishi was suppying photographic paper to Fuji as well, but I don't know which product(s) that would be.

Anyway, here in Japan, the new Maco-produced Agfa is already in the market with some rip-off Japanese prices. The 25 sheet pack of the 8x10" old Agfa MC FB paper is roughly about 50 USD each! Actually the importer called Grace Photo is the one that's getting a lot of profit, I think.

Meanwhile the same type of Ilford paper has been priced about 40-45 USD or so since the recent price-raising fiasco, and that's crazy, too. I'm sure it's all about the competition of who sells the stuff more expensively.

So, my point is, I wouldn't complain too much if the prices are adequately set and the contents of the materials are said somewhere on their labels. But then, just like many kinds of the imported food in general, things get mixed up and very mysterious sometimes... Where is the law?

PHOTOTONE said:

I am the original poster, and I was just curious to know if Maco actually "made" film, or if they just "marketed" film. Basically that was my question in a nutshell.

Click to expand...

No film marketed under the Maco-Label is made in a plant belonging to the HANS O. MAHN & CO.

best

Stefan

Now the original poster's question has been answered (for the third or fourth time), we can stop whining, can we ?

I am sorry for not mentioning Fuji before, it's just that the Greek importer doesn't bother too much about B&W and the (otherwise superb) B&W Fuji products are rare around here. So, I haven't got the habit of including Fuji in the group of big companies that fabricate B&W films. I didn't mention Kentmere either (although I ADORE Kentona and like very much some of their other products) because they don't make film and I thought the whole discussion was mainly about film manufacturing.

KODAK Licence!

DO you know, that KODAK is "SHAREHOLDER" at LUCKY FILM in China?

uraniumnitrate said:

Keep the bull! Imported from where? Luckypan or Luckpan??? that is! Untill you not coming with any evidence all information is useless! So get me an answer! Kodak License?????? I would like ask Mr photo engineer in Rochester about this! If You out there Mr Rochester can you tell something about this?

And you see what happens when a lots of manufacturer "re-labelling manufacturer that is I'm talking about!") suddenly aperes from death? And still the question of the day is who made what and where? Real manufacturer that is I'm talking about!

Click to expand...

WRSchmalfuss said:

DO you know, that KODAK is "SHAREHOLDER" at LUCKY FILM in China?

Click to expand...

Yes, but I understand recently Kodak reduced its shareholding. In any case, the cooperation between Kodak and Lucky was/is in color negative film production. The Luckypan 100 and 400 bear no resemblence to any current or discontinued Kodak product. The Lucky emulsions are on a crystal clear base, and do not have much, if any anti-haliation coating, thus causing some "blooming" in highlights, which can be used for artistic effect. They are interesting "tools" for a photographer to have. The Lucky b/w films are unlike any other currently available b/w negative films that I am aware of.

McCluney Photo