Message for Simon of Harman/ Ilford

[ajuk]

I'm 24 and I have not done darkroom at college, only at home, although I would like to sometime preferably soon so I fit in better and the kids don't look at me as being old.

 

[photomem]

Well, you can forget about not being looked at as old on a college campus. I am 29 and went back to school last January. Most of the girls either 1) Look at me like I am Methuselah, or 2) Hit on me because they appear to have daddy issues.

Now, back on topic...

I think that if the most active people on APUG worked together, maybe a magazine or (more likely) e-zine (though I hate that phrase) could be put together. Maybe start out digital and then work towards a dead tree edition.

Just a thought.

 

[largeformat pat]

I feel another way would be to show them how much money than stand to loose. I only buy Ilford for the availability. I used to get materials from the states. The pack sizes here and the choice is limited. I also feel with the Ilford umbrella getting bigger and there lack of want for our money, alternative products may be the way to go. Foma and so on. The other thing they did was brought the Chicago Albumen Works and shut it down. They also as we know brought Kentmere. Hope this creates a spark.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Now, back on topic...

I think that if the most active people on APUG worked together, maybe a magazine or (more likely) e-zine (though I hate that phrase) could be put together. Maybe start out digital and then work towards a dead tree edition.

Just a thought.

We could put up a website! We could have discussion forums, maybe a few articles, a classifieds section, some galleries, get a few industry sponsors and small advertisers, and we could just talk all the time about what we're doing with traditional photography, help out new users, and advanced users could share their experiences. There could be something for everyone!

Nahhhh...never work. Everyone's gone digital.

 

[jeroldharter]

Kind of missing the point here.The theme of the article was that despite decreased volumes, profits are good. Therefore the price increases (and I assume the acquisition of Kentmere) were a good idea.

I would pay for an Ilford monochrome/darkroom newsletter, print plus pdf. Who wouldn't? Overview of their product lines, BTZS testing of their films and papers in different developers, examples of Tim Rudman toning their paper, lith printing, a "negative interpretation" with Les McLean and a guest (an "Iron Chef" printing issue). It would be great advertising that most would be happy to pay for.

 

[photomem]

We could put up a website! We could have discussion forums, maybe a few articles, a classifieds section, some galleries, get a few industry sponsors and small advertisers, and we could just talk all the time about what we're doing with traditional photography, help out new users, and advanced users could share their experiences. There could be something for everyone!

Nahhhh...never work. Everyone's gone digital.

Just when I was beginning to like you...

I meant like a boiled down version of APUG which would have long articles, images, etc which could be printed or purchased to carry around and read.

 

[Martin Reed]

....
I think that if the most active people on APUG worked together, maybe a magazine or (more likely) e-zine (though I hate that phrase) could be put together. Maybe start out digital and then work towards a dead tree edition.
.....

I tend to think that anything purporting to be a photo technique magazine, done for profit (or at least breaking even) and printed on paper is not the future, it moved on a while back. Anyone who's tried to find a publisher for a technically orientated photo book recently knows how difficult it is.

Because the market has altered. Already there's no real need to build an extensive technical library. I've collected obscure technical material for a long time, but it takes up a great deal of space, and I've realised I'll never turn most of those pages in my lifetime. For example, emulsion making - I spent quite a lot of time & effort sorting out my copy of 'The Photographic Emulsion' by Carroll & Hubbard, but go to a specialist site like Lightfarm & there it is, downloadable or view in situ;

http://www.thelightfarm.com/Map/LiteratureList/LiteratureListPart1.htm

A photo technical book must really offer something special to be justifiable, and technical hard copy magazines don't really stack up any more. Maybe there's a case for hybrid web/print publications, but there seems to be some resistance there.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Already there's no real need to build an extensive technical library.

I suppose it depends on what is meant by extensive, but I often find myself referring to my small library of photography books or varying levels of technicality. E.g. L.F.A. Mason, Way Beyond Monochrome, Controls in Black & White Photography, Ctein's Post Exposure...

Tom

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Just when I was beginning to like you...

I meant like a boiled down version of APUG which would have long articles, images, etc which could be printed or purchased to carry around and read.

Just kidding around. I think the reality is that not everyone involved in analogue photography uses the internet--I would suspect that even a disproportionate number of hardcore film users are not interested in the internet--and for those people, print media like newsletters, magazines, and journals are another way of reaching the target market and letting users know what's available, so I'm all for it.

 

[Photo Engineer]

David;

You are sooooo right. Most of the avid photographers I know are out busy shooting pictures, not browsing the internet. Many don't even have e-mail accounts. This is not meant as a slur against any APUG user in any way, it just indicates that the true numbers of analogers out there may be double or triple the APUG membership or perhaps even larger.

PE

 

[Tom Kershaw]

PE,

Of course there are all those who visit photo.net, largeformatphotography.info, and other sites that may not make it over to APUG. For instance I only discovered APUG via browsing photo.net.

Tom

 

[winger]

Well, since the people out there who do use film have to buy their stuff somewhere, what about a hardcopy newsletter that the sponsors of APUG could send out with orders? I know B&H and Adorama may not be able to do this with the volume that they do, but Freestyle might be able to. Maybe somehow copies could be available to mom and pop shops (there are a few left) as those are the ones who don't always get the news about stuff anyway. Just random thoughts - I know it would be difficult and likely expensive to do. But it could get the word out about new products from all areas within analog and show people how much is happening.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Maybe somehow copies could be available to mom and pop shops (there are a few left) as those are the ones who don't always get the news about stuff anyway.

What do you think about the stores that don't avail themselves of up-to-date product information available via APUG, other websites, and keeping in contact with their suppliers?

Tom

 

[winger]

What do you think about the stores that don't avail themselves of up-to-date product information available via APUG, other websites, and keeping in contact with their suppliers?

Tom

Well, they'd be the tough ones (and they're probably the ones who don't push film as well). But maybe if they get the newsletters with their orders from their suppliers (assuming they buy any film), then they might see that analog is alive. Basically just getting the info to shops and people who aren't aware of APUG is a goal, as I see it.

 

[mikez]

It was a pleasure to meet Simon at photoexpo last year in NY (coming up again this weekend) and he assured me ILFORD is still dedicated to analog photographers. I am sure some people within the company feel differently and are scared to put so much stock into supporting us because of the world they see changing around them and the ways that their companies MUST evolve to survive. I appreciate ILFORD and FUJI and support them over KODAK any day.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Mike;

Thanks so much for reaffirming the negative attitude towards Kodak on APUG. If you look at Fuji and Kodak, they both seem to have similar policies towards their customers, but Kodak always gets bashed. Don't get me wrong. I disagree with a lot of Kodak policies myself, but then they have produced a line of new color and B&W products for us.

PE

 

[pentaxuser]

I accept that each company has to do what it believes will make a profit or it dies but it seems that we have instances of both Fuji and Ilford listening to customer demands and/or explaining why it can't accede to customer wishes. Recently in the case of Fuji it was with respect to one of its films. It has however abandoned the amateur in terms of sheet RA4 paper.

It seems to me that this finally opens the way for Kodak to respond positively and maybe capture a segment of the marketplace by retaining Supra Endura. I think Kodak will get quite a number of e-mails etc from APUGers and others who value Supra. It will be a test of its listening ability in terms of how it responds.

A review of its decision gives it a great opportunity to demonstrate that traditional analogue is still important to it. I await its response and its manner of response with great interest.

One of our U.K. members contacted Kodak about Supra expressing concern and requesting clarification. So far the response he got was somewhat off subject to say the least.

It may be only one reply from one of many customer advisors and not typical but it does not bode well.


pentaxuser

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, the story I got was that Kodak has Edge and Ultra out there and they are outselling the Supra. So, Edge is now the cut sheet paper of choice I guess. They did not seem to want to have 3 competing products.

Try finding CA paper at the Fuji web site. It comes up all digital or not at all. Also consider that by latest reports photoproducts are 3% of Fuji sales but about 50% of Kodak sales.

I don't want to continue with this as the thread might go awry. I'm sorry for the digression. The main topic is Ilford and I love their paper and B&W film.

PE

 

[clayne]

Mike;

Thanks so much for reaffirming the negative attitude towards Kodak on APUG. If you look at Fuji and Kodak, they both seem to have similar policies towards their customers, but Kodak always gets bashed. Don't get me wrong. I disagree with a lot of Kodak policies myself, but then they have produced a line of new color and B&W products for us.

PE

PE, while I think the imbalanced negativity towards Kodak, as opposed to Fuji, is irrational in nature - I believe it has to do with long-term resent by many of Kodak's users as a result of having various films and papers yanked out from under them. AFAIK, Fuji was more popular later in the game - and hence has had less time to piss people off, really.

 

[lns]

This thread is happening just as I've had something of a revelation. Darkroom know-how is disappearing even faster than I have feared. ... But, whether or not people act on that interest and commit to buying a roll of film or a box of paper will be determined by whether or not they feel they know what the heck to do the stuff once they get it home. Recognizing and addressing this basic, very real issue will be the key to generating sales for Ilford.

d

I think this is a very good point, but luckily Ilford has a nice website with very clear and basic information about developing and printing that can be downloaded and printed out. Probably Kodak and Fuji do too. I know all three companies have instructions (time and temperature) for their films and developers. In addition, there are still available basic photography books, like Henry Horenstein's, with more detailed information, because film photography is still being taught. I saw the Horenstein book sitting on the shelf at Barnes & Noble the other day, and this is a store that has very little stock.

So the good news, I think, is that we're not quite at the point that information has disappeared. And I believe the digital revolution actually will keep this information updated and accessible, between company websites, the massive development chart and forums like APUG.

As someone else said, as long as the photo schools keep teaching film, there will be new users (even if short-term users) and a decent, though small market.

There's fantastic information in this thread from the professional printers about the size of the business decline over the last 10 years. Extrapolating from that, one can really see just how small the market has become. But the last men standing are doing okay now, it seems, including Ilford.

-Laura

 

[Photo Engineer]

PE, while I think the imbalanced negativity towards Kodak, as opposed to Fuji, is irrational in nature - I believe it has to do with long-term resent by many of Kodak's users as a result of having various films and papers yanked out from under them. AFAIK, Fuji was more popular later in the game - and hence has had less time to piss people off, really.

I think you have to look at this in perspective.

Kodak was forced to give up its retail stores. It was forced to turn a very complex process (Kodachrome) over to the public and it was forced out of the instant business regardless of the willingness to pay royalties (Polaroids conditions on the lawsuit). It was forced to give up its private photofinishing business.

So, as the biggie on the block, EK was backed into a corner so to speak in every aspect of the business and was forced to share information or leave the market.

Fuji, OTOH, was not affected, nor was Agfa AFAIK. Even so, Kodak prospered but limpingly. So, there is a mixed bag of cause and effect here due to US law and lawsuit decisions.

I was involved in one improvement in C-41 and EP3 processes and Kodak gave up rather than fight GAF, Pavelle and others on changing the process for one even more environmentally friendly and with better image stability. This ongoing "fight" was very discouraging.

Kodak developed C-41, EP3, RA and E6, but Fuji, Agfa and Konica just used the process, with no apparent development costs due to lack of patents or lack of force due to US law and US court decisions that Kodak was a monopoly. Therefore their hands (EK) were tied.

It is easy to look from the outside in, but difficult to look from the in outwards because this information is hidden. You do not know the anguish Kodak people and management suffered with every "trivial?" lawsuit.

PE

 

[cmacd123]

Most chemicals last longer with less exposure to the Air, just use 5 bottles of 1 liter each, you can probably jam a liter into a US 946ML "quart" bottle. OR use a "gallon"and a "Half Gallon".. 3.8 + 1.9 = gives room for 5.7L = Otr a gallon plus a quart 3800+946 is 4746ML but their is often some air space.

The insistence of using US measures is one thing that _Really_ bothers me using Kodak Chemicals. I have been using HC-110 a lot. Dilution B requires 1:31 as it is intended to make some number of US quarts. I use an old Patterson tank that wants 290ML per roll, or a stainless steel tank that seems to like 250ML.

I end up using a calculator each time, depending on the number of rolls I have, then rounding up and generally mixing just a bit more than I need just so I can get an even amount of concentrate to start.

 

[cmacd123]

If the metric system is ever to succeed, it needs at the very least a "metric eighth of an inch"!
Steve

That is the beauty of it all.. JUST MOVE the DECIMAL. A US Inch is legaly defined as 2.54 CM. so a CM is slightly less than a half inch. Each Cm has 10 MM. much smaller than an eighth, more like a 16th.

Your eighth of an inch is about 3 MM. (1/8 is .125 inch) 2.54Times .125 is 3.175MM

 

[dwross]

I think this is a very good point, but luckily Ilford has a nice website with very clear and basic information about developing and printing that can be downloaded and printed out. Probably Kodak and Fuji do too. I know all three companies have instructions (time and temperature) for their films and developers. In addition, there are still available basic photography books, like Henry Horenstein's, with more detailed information, because film photography is still being taught. I saw the Horenstein book sitting on the shelf at Barnes & Noble the other day, and this is a store that has very little stock.

So the good news, I think, is that we're not quite at the point that information has disappeared. And I believe the digital revolution actually will keep this information updated and accessible, between company websites, the massive development chart and forums like APUG.

As someone else said, as long as the photo schools keep teaching film, there will be new users (even if short-term users) and a decent, though small market.

There's fantastic information in this thread from the professional printers about the size of the business decline over the last 10 years. Extrapolating from that, one can really see just how small the market has become. But the last men standing are doing okay now, it seems, including Ilford.

-Laura

Hi Laura,

You are absolutely right to point out that Ilford has a very educational site. I hadn't been there for awhile, even though I've used their films and Multigrade paper for a long, long time. Ilford's 'deciders' get a Christmas toast from me every year.

Actually, though, I think I've identified a problem that could conceivably be a stumbling block to neophytes. When I simply did a search for 'Ilford', something I have to assume would be a logical first step for most people, I got this: http://www.ilford.com/en/. Not a hint of analog info to be found. Now, because I'm an oldtimer, I know to try a 'Harman' address. That's where the real deal is parked, of course, but even that was a convoluted search. Do you have a feeling one way or the other whether or not this is common knowledge, especially among folks new to film? I next went to Fuji, and it was hopeless, but perhaps they, too, have an alternate analog educational site.

Finally, yuh gotta love Kodak's contribution to photography:
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=38/13915/10468&pq-locale=en_US

There's a bit of truly great news on The Online Photographer website, of all places. I have been convinced that Mike J was even more militantly digital than the other Mike at L-L. Since I'm sincerely fond of Mike J's writing and his website, this is really nice to see: http://theonlinephotographer.typepa...10/agfa-mcc-is-gone-adox-premium-is-here.html

d

 

[alexmacphee]

And that's not just a 'continental' thingy: it wasn't until the 1960s that the 'imperial' part of the world decided what an inch or foot should be exactly.

If that gives the impression that the inch floundered about undefined till then, it would be quite misleading. The inch and foot had already been rigorously defined in the Weights and Measures Act of 18-something-or-other, a good century earlier. All that happened in 1959 was that the inch was redefined as a fraction of a metre. It is analogous to the change in the definition of the second from being a fraction of the solar day to being the time taken for nine billion odd transitions between two states of a caesium atom. And after all, it wasn't until 1983 that the 'metric' part of the world decided what a metre should be exactly.

An inch today is as good as it's ever been!