NOt at all, I am only realistic.
In a bad mood again?
Can you please tell me what does Adox manufacture? We have not a clue of that ... not any ... Adox is also rebranding , no more.
Can you please tell me what does Adox manufacture? We have not a clue of that ... not any ... Adox is also rebranding , no more.
Can you please tell me what does Adox manufacture? We have not a clue of that ... not any ... Adox is also rebranding , no more.
Roger, I'm sure there is the "TX" somewhere of the Propack box that you can cut out and use as a reminder.
Aint this why they make memory card wallets
The flap on the pro-packs has most of the same information as the box ends and is sized to fit exactly in the holder on the back of the 120 film holders and on the back of many cameras - just tear it off
I didn't realize that and that's great when I buy a whole Pro Pack, which I just did and sometimes do. But sometimes I buy unboxed rolls from the dealers too. Usually ones that I have also bought packs of, so I'll do that, and put them in a memory card wallet!
Well for one thing, my Mamiya 645 backs have holders for the box ends as film reminders, much as many 35mm cameras do. Kodak's move to only selling Tri-X in ProPacks means I don't have the "TX" box tops to put in those reminder holders. Same for Portra and Ektar. I do have them for Ilford films and even my stash of IR820 Efke.
With enough masking tape to make notes regarding let say development.Masking tape and a black sharpie marking the letters, "TX", always worked for me!
Whenever Rollei/Maco brings out a new film people badmouth the company and praise Adox. Adox has made some great products and so has Maco their lith line was one of the best products on the Market, Rollei/Maco offers one of the best liquid emulsion systems yet nobody seems to care about their good products. They might not manufacture the products but they make it available to the average joe and that ought to be honoured. Maco was a bit creative in their marketing so was Adox. I for one am happy that we those two companies.
Whenever Rollei/Maco brings out a new film people badmouth the company and praise Adox. Adox has made some great products and so has Maco their lith line was one of the best products on the Market, Rollei/Maco offers one of the best liquid emulsion systems yet nobody seems to care about their good products. They might not manufacture the products but they make it available to the average joe and that ought to be honoured. Maco was a bit creative in their marketing so was Adox. I for one am happy that we those two companies.
I just wonder why it is always so hard to get definitive, direct statements and proof on so many of these if they are truly new emulsions or not. Always seems to be hemming and hawing when those in the know are asked. Why can't someone directly say: "This is a completely new emulsion, made from scratch. We made it. It's NOT just some repackaging of other film."
Without that I always suspect it just another film being renamed and repackaged under some other name.
Why should that be a problem?
I just wonder why it is always so hard to get definitive, direct statements and proof on so many of these if they are truly new emulsions or not. Always seems to be hemming and hawing when those in the know are asked. Why can't someone directly say: "This is a completely new emulsion, made from scratch. We made it. It's NOT just some repackaging of other film."
Without that I always suspect it just another film being renamed and repackaged under some other name.
If Ilford is involved as with the other RPXes, they are not allowed by contract to talk about any production detail. The same should be for other manufacturers and retailers. Only exeption I know is Agfa Belgium, they can't "cannibalize" (hope that's understandable) their own products because there are none made for consumers. And still Maco makes a secret about which emulsion in detail is in the package, see RR400s, 400ir, superpan200, universal200 and so on and so on, they most probably are all the same.I just wonder why it is always so hard to get definitive, direct statements and proof on so many of these if they are truly new emulsions or not. Always seems to be hemming and hawing when those in the know are asked. Why can't someone directly say: "This is a completely new emulsion, made from scratch. We made it. It's NOT just some repackaging of other film."
Without that I always suspect it just another film being renamed and repackaged under some other name.
From Stones remark about Harman film production above, I think he is missing the point somewhat. If one of their products sales was going downhill for some reason, I strongly suspect that they would be very agile about finding out why and then fixing the problem or developing the product further. They are not a massive, sleepy company with some cobwebs over a pile of film they have in a shed
Yes I agree, of course ilford would do whatever they could to keep the product around, however if the product just doesn't sell it doesn't sell, and there's nothing they can do about it and they have to pull it, they just recently pulled a type of print paper, I don't know what type but they pulled it and explained that the sales have dropped below an amount that they could reasonably produce it and so they had to pull it and apologize of course, but reassured people that they would still produce many many amazing papers and film for a very long time as long as it was sustainable.
You should be at least precise when criticising others, MartinP: Ilford Imaging Switzerland has gone bankrupt not Ilford Photo, which is a Harman Technology company. The way you wrote is misleading.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?