Message for Simon of Harman/ Ilford

[clayne]

The larger question is why isn't Simon interacting here anymore. I haven't heard from him since before the uproar over price increases. Who is the spokesperson for Harman/Ilford or have they gone Kodak on us?

At the risk of assuming, something tells me that whatever reason why Simon hasn't been interacting here wasn't Simon's choice. He always seemed cheery and happy to talk to us, honestly.

Ilford? Simon?

 

[coriana6jp]

Eric,

I read the article as well and agree with your assessment. The number of home darkrooms has declined over all. The article over all is not bad, I think. Getting upset over one line is silly. It would be nice to hear from Simon, but there is nothing to get upset about here. I will continue to give Ilford my support.

Gary

 

[Colin Corneau]

Hear hear, Gary.

Less yap, more shoot.

 

[MattKing]

At the risk of assuming, something tells me that whatever reason why Simon hasn't been interacting here wasn't Simon's choice. He always seemed cheery and happy to talk to us, honestly.

Ilford? Simon?

I recently exchanged pms with Simon and he certainly seemed cheery .

He did say he was very busy, however, and that he'd been keeping his eye on APUG, even if he hadn't had a chance to post.

Matt

 

[Brandon D.]

Before we all get in a tizzy lets take a breath. I think it's more about interpretation than anything else. Back in the 50's, 60's and 70's many amateur photographers had darkrooms. Both purpose built and bathroom types. Now we see that most amateur photographers are tooting around digi cams. Hence the rapid demise of darkrooms being used by amateurs.

We on APUG are a minority. We may think we create a big wave but in the grand scheme of things it's more like a ripple.

So to now interpret what was said, the "traditional" enthusiast.
What is that today? It's the digi shooters not us. We are now classified as non-traditioinal as the tradition for the past number of years has been for people to pick up a digi camera rather than a film camera. The traditioinal enthusiast does not use a home darkroom. However the non-traditional film photographers still do.

Naturally if you take a broader view of things then the definition of traditional and non-traditional flips, but that is not the context in which Steven Brierley was asked the question in.

So lets all settle down and just enjoy our uniqueness. Just MHO.

Agreed.

Even though I'm young and even though I've grown up in a digital era, I'm sort of happy to be shooting film at a time when it's considered more "unique" than it ever was before.

I'm also glad that professionals and amateurs have the option to shoot one way or the other. No one is forced to use just one method. People can produce work with the materials and methods that feels most suitable in their own mind.

 

[Alex Bishop-Thorpe]

You can read this both ways.
Yes, we consider ourselves the traditional enthusiasts, so of course we have home darkrooms - and we take a lot of pride in that soggy red-lit room of ours.
But the "traditional enthusiast" is the also amateur, the everyman, the main market of the industry, and the hayday of the home darkroom for that person is over. Today's amateur photographer doesnt go out and buy paper and some bottles of chemistry, they buy a handful of memory cards and maybe some software to edit their photos.

Take two photos and see if you still care about the whole matter in the morning.

 

[ntenny]

I read the article as well and agree with your assessment. The number of home darkrooms has declined over all. The article over all is not bad, I think. Getting upset over one line is silly. It would be nice to hear from Simon, but there is nothing to get upset about here. I will continue to give Ilford my support.

Well said. The wording of the statement as quoted in the article seems a little unfortunate, and I think it's not unreasonable that Ilford's attention be called to it, but surely wrath and carnage are uncalled for here, especially with such limited context for the quote.

The boom in MF sales mentioned in the article is great news.

-NT

 

[Ian Grant]

The comment is perhaps slightly out of context, the article is commenting about the significant increase in Ilford's B&W processing service. Then you need to realise that most of the UK amateur photo magazines are almost 100% Digital in content, a an issue of Practical Photography last year dedicated to B&W photography had no mention of film at all.

In real terms the whole B&W market and number of darkrooms has declined very rapidly and that decline began in the late 1960's and accelerated in the 70's and 80's as colour began to dominate sales, and then dropped to current levels with the growth of Digital photography.

So Ilford's B&W service is a very good way to introduce new people to using B&W films, and perhaps may lead them into future darkroom use.

It's worth commenting about Ilford's processing service which uses a specially converted Fuji Frontier minilab, those of us who have seen it on factory tours, or used the service can tell you that the quality is very significantly higher than the old fashioned B&W D&P services of the past, or the B&W RA-4 type papers.

Ian

 

[alexmacphee]

Whilst it seems a comment open to more than one interpretation, my interpretation is that he's saying the traditional base of home processing has gone as a significant component of their business. It seems self-evident to me that he's not saying there's no business there at all ; he describes an increase in rollfilm sales and a significant increase in their online D&P business as film customers route their processing round the disappearance of silver processing in high street stores. I agree there's a 'mixed messages' feeling about how it's been expressed, but the signals about a small but significant bounce-back in film and gelatin prints are there, and re-assuring.

My feeling -- and it's just that, and should be treated as no more than anecdotal -- is that all those who are going to convert from film to digital have already done so. My traditional darkroom is gone for the time being (i.e. in storage), so I'm developing to neg and scanning to print in the meantime. I've been an Ilford photographer since I was a schoolboy, and that's not going to change. (The Ilford part that is, the schoolboy bit is long gone.)

 

[archer]

After suffering through countless interviews and press conferences for the print media for many years, in particular sports writers, I would take anything quoted by a reporter with a huge grain of salt. In my nearly twenty years as a professional athlete, I was quoted accurately only twice, once by Sports Illustrated after I won the US open and once by the Sacramento Union, after I reached #1 in the world. One reporter even made, out of whole cloth, a story about me having dated a certain movie star whom I had never met, just because I had done the Dinah Shore show two weeks after his appearance there and during the same interview, when asked what the future held for me after retirement, I told him that I had always been a serious photographer and intended to resume my photographic career after retiring from competition. The SOB quoted me as saying that I "dabbled in photography and it would be a welcome diversion from competition". I've wanted to get this off my chest for over twenty years so please forgive my rant but do give Mr. Brierley the benefit of the doubt and take all quotes with a huge grain of salt. Let actions speak louder than words. I for one am very grateful for Ilford's support and only wish them success and a healthy bottom line.
Denise Libby

 

[martinhughesireland]

Might be an idea for people to email Amateur Photographer amateurphotographer@ipcmedia.com for them to get Mr "Brierley" or Amateur Photographer (if they miss quoted Brierley) to clarify what they are talking about and where they got this incorrect information from....

 

[Matt5791]

So Ilford's B&W service is a very good way to introduce new people to using B&W films, and perhaps may lead them into future darkroom use.

Ian

You hit the nail on the head Ian.

I was speaking to Steven Brierly just a couple of days ago. There is an interpretation issue here as Ilford are 100% behind any darkroom use. The expression Steven uses is that Ilford are in "the darkroom business".

However, AP are desparate for us to advertise with them, so I will tell them to adjust their content before we are remotely interested.

The main problem is the people who run these publications, and also the likes of Jessops and Calumet, are simply not aware of the interest in and potential of analogue. They take, much of the time, a "Digital good Analogue bad" approach, when of course the market is a lot more complicated than that.

Matt

 

[alexmacphee]

The main problem is the people who run these publications, and also the likes of Jessops and Calumet, are simply not aware of the interest in and potential of analogue. They take, much of the time, a "Digital good Analogue bad" approach, when of course the market is a lot more complicated than that.

I largely gave up dealing with Jessops when they moved in a different commercial direction towards a different business model (my deciding moment was when I had to instruct a salesman 'up a bit, left a bit, back a bit' to find a roll of HP5 on the shelf), and Calumet supply things for my D&P needs that Jessops don't. I guess they need to make commercial decisions, even though they occasionally seem counter-intuitive to me. However, AP doesn't strike me as a publication that has a "digital good analogue bad" approach ; it's the only periodical I take regularly, and I have it on subscription. This is because, by and large, I trust its editorial judgement, and it gives plenty of space to the likes of Geoffrey Crawley, whose sainted picture should be on every darkroom wall.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear All,

I note with some concern the 'feedback' regarding Steven's interview with AP. First let me state that he did not say home darkroom 'has gone' . What Steven actually commented was that the levels of home darkroom in the UK had 'diminished'. I think we can all agree that this is a sad fact. We at HARMAN are disappointed that he has been misquoted in this way.

This interview was conducted primarily regarding our UK market and our own UK photo processing service, especiallty in relation to the increase in monochrome films being sent to photofinishers to be processed rather than being processed at home and those films being imaged onto colour photo paper rather than original monochrome photo paper.

I have known Steven Brierley for 23 years, indeed, he actually recruited me into ILFORD as it was then. A more passionate advocate of monochrome photography and especially the art and craft of monochrome silver gelatin printing I have yet to meet.

The home darkroom has clearly not gone away, nor will it, and whilst it has diminished it is, and will remain one of the key cornerstones of the ILFORD Photo / HARMAN tcehnology business, every decision we ever make about products or our marketing strategy addresses this segment as a key element of our current and future buisness, it is , without a shadow of a doubt as close to our heartsas it is to yours.

It is also why we are a very proud sponsor of this site, and why we take heed about what is said on it and who is saying it...you, our customers.

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Simon,

Thank you for your clarification. It's a shame Harman don't have a more comprehensive platform for interviews and features, outside of straightforward adverts and press releases.

Tom

 

[Mick Fagan]

Simon, I sort of figured that Archer "Denise Libby" a few posts back had it about right.

You have confirmed that she nailed it.

Good to hear confirmation from the horses mouth, so to speak

Mick.

 

[DLawson]

I think it's a rather thoughtless statement. If "the home darkroom of the traditional enthusiast has gone", Ilford must be fast on the road to nowhere itself. There doesn't seem to be a lot of commercial darkrooms around, so where is Ilford's market?

Professionals and students.

If there were a note worthy hobby market, I'd still be able to walk into a store at the mall and buy developer. I hardly consider this news. I'm just glad that there is still a good market segment for students. When that disappears, it will be a small number of years before darkroom supplies go the way of Heathkit radios.

 

[Bob F.]

It comes as no surprise that Am.Photo. misquoted the actual words. This is exactly as I and others above expected.

Most photographic (and other specialist, but non-professional) magazines recruit "journalists" for their ability to string words together into a coherent sentence: they do not necessarily know very much about the specialist subject they are writing about. The ability to rewrite a manufacturer's press release into the house style is a far more important ability to such magazines. Writers of this type are there to shill their advertiser's message, not be objective informers of reality.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Although not independent, perhaps a 'Harman Quarterly' type publication might be worthwhile to communicate information, although an independent effort could also be interesting, this doesn't seem to exist at the present time.

Tom

 

[Chazzy]

Inasmuch as Harman has had to downsize, I doubt that there is the manpower there to undertake a quarterly publication. Let's all just buy their products and pray that they remain in business.

 

[JBrunner]

Although not independent, perhaps a 'Harman Quarterly' type publication might be worthwhile to communicate information, although an independent effort could also be interesting, this doesn't seem to exist at the present time.

Tom

Simon,

I think this would be brilliant. Circumvent the whole nasty business and do it electronically, and publish through Lulu, like JPEG magazine did. That way there is no inventory, distributor, unsold copies, etc. and costs are minimal.

I'd be pleased to work with you guys on something like that.

 

[alexmacphee]

It comes as no surprise that Am.Photo. misquoted the actual words. This is exactly as I and others above expected.

Most photographic (and other specialist, but non-professional) magazines recruit "journalists" for their ability to string words together into a coherent sentence: they do not necessarily know very much about the specialist subject they are writing about.

Sometimes, you really do have to shoot the messenger, but in this case, the generalised judgement on Amateur Photographer is harsh, and the magazine I read would be unrecognisable from this.

 

[Simon R Galley]

I like the idea of a 'newsletter' let me speak to marketing :

JB Thanks for the offer of help...

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Bob F.]

Sometimes, you really do have to shoot the messenger, but in this case, the generalised judgement on Amateur Photographer is harsh, and the magazine I read would be unrecognisable from this.

It is not intended to be harsh: it is simply an established fact of the magazine publishing world. Most writers for publications move around different magazines or to different jobs during their career, rarely remaining at one magazine for more than a few years. They are not specialists in the subject matter, though inevitably they acquire some understanding after a time. The editor and a couple of writers on the staff may be specialists but the majority will not be. The magazines primarily rely on freelance contributions for their specialist knowledge.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

It is not intended to be harsh: it is simply an established fact of the magazine publishing world. Most writers for publications move around different magazines or to different jobs during their career, rarely remaining at one magazine for more than a few years. They are not specialists in the subject matter, though inevitably they acquire some understanding after a time. The editor and a couple of writers on the staff may be specialists but the majority will not be. The magazines primarily rely on freelance contributions for their specialist knowledge.

Although there are / have been specialist publications, e.g. Ed Buziak's magazine.