New own-brand paper from Germany

[cmacd123]

Very interesting, @mooseontheloose. I have some old Ilford paper from the 60s(?), which is marked Ilford Australia, so I guess branding for a particular market is simply good business sense to help sales.

Likely because of import duties, I understand that Ilford had a branch plant in Australia, much like Kodak had Branch plants in England, France, Germany and Canada. so the Aussie Paper was likely wholly or partly made "Down Under".

(near the time Kodak was winding down their world wide factory system, I got a package of US market Kodak Paper marked "Made for Eastman Kodak by Kodak Canada"

 

[AgX]

Ilford Australia did no coatings.

 

[cmacd123]

Ilford Australia did no coatings.

many of the worlds branch plants confined their activities to converting. Kodak Canada apparently did do some coating, although they likly also converted some stock on big rolls from across Lake Ontario.

 

[MattKing]

Kodak Canada apparently did do some coating, although they likly also converted some stock on big rolls from across Lake Ontario.

aka Canadian Kodak.
They also assembled cameras.

 

[ozphoto]

Ilford Australia did no coatings.

That may well be true, however, I was pointing out, that in the 1960s, the paper that was sold in Australia, was branded "Ilford Australia" - much like the chemicals above, are branded "Ilford Japan". In this instance, however, they've also chosen a snazzy new name, for what is obviously Ilford chemicals, to appeal to the Japanese market.

The place of coatings and actual production weren't the point of my original post - simply that there has been a conscious effort (by Ilford) to rebrand their chemistry for Japanese consumers, while also showing that the product is made by Ilford and sold by their Japanese entity.

Again - if this means more support (and $$$$) into the Ilford company to keep it viable, all the better; personally, I don't really care where Ilford (or Kodak etc) make their chemicals or coat their papers, nor that they may brand differently for a wider market. If it keeps their target markets around the world buying their products, they're obviously doing something right.

Likely because of import duties, I understand that Ilford had a branch plant in Australia, much like Kodak had Branch plants in England, France, Germany and Canada. so the Aussie Paper was likely wholly or partly made "Down Under".

(near the time Kodak was winding down their world wide factory system, I got a package of US market Kodak Paper marked "Made for Eastman Kodak by Kodak Canada"

I've got a few darkroom products here marked "Made by Kodak Australia" - their plant here was huge, by our standards anyway. Before GST (equivalent to VAT) was rolled out, photographic products attracted a 33.3% tax when imported, so maybe these subsidiaries got around this tax by importing huge quantities and then manufactured the sizes required here, at a cheaper cost?

I'm too young to know the whys and wherefores behind "Ilford Australia": by the time I got into printing my own photos (mid-80s) they didn't exist - all Ilford paper was imported from Mobberley, Cheshire and marked as such.

 

[Bikerider]

I am not really concerned where it is made so long as silver based materials are still readily available.I use mainly Ilford and Kentmere for films and occasionally Fomopan but they will have to be really outstanding to equal or better the new Ilford MG5 which in UK at least is cheaper than most of the others. It is the closest printing paper to a fibre based that I have used.

 

[MattKing]

The quality of the chemicals may be the least challenging aspect. The quality of the distribution network may be the most important aspect. Localized branding may be one way to achieve that - think Bogen tripods.

 

[mooseontheloose]

That may well be true, however, I was pointing out, that in the 1960s, the paper that was sold in Australia, was branded "Ilford Australia" - much like the chemicals above, are branded "Ilford Japan". In this instance, however, they've also chosen a snazzy new name, for what is obviously Ilford chemicals, to appeal to the Japanese market.

The place of coatings and actual production weren't the point of my original post - simply that there has been a conscious effort (by Ilford) to rebrand their chemistry for Japanese consumers, while also showing that the product is made by Ilford and sold by their Japanese entity.

Again - if this means more support (and $$$$) into the Ilford company to keep it viable, all the better; personally, I don't really care where Ilford (or Kodak etc) make their chemicals or coat their papers, nor that they may brand differently for a wider market. If it keeps their target markets around the world buying their products, they're obviously doing something right.


I've got a few darkroom products here marked "Made by Kodak Australia" - their plant here was huge, by our standards anyway. Before GST (equivalent to VAT) was rolled out, photographic products attracted a 33.3% tax when imported, so maybe these subsidiaries got around this tax by importing huge quantities and then manufactured the sizes required here, at a cheaper cost?

I'm too young to know the whys and wherefores behind "Ilford Australia": by the time I got into printing my own photos (mid-80s) they didn't exist - all Ilford paper was imported from Mobberley, Cheshire and marked as such.

I believe these are NOT Ilford chemicals. Chugai is a well-established brand here in Japan, have been using their chemicals for years, and they own the Ilford name (as mentioned in previous posts). So these are Chugai chemicals with an Ilford brand on them. What I'm curious about is the paper - as far as I know they have never produced paper, so what is the paper that is being labelled as Ilford Silverchrome?

 

[ozphoto]

I believe these are NOT Ilford chemicals. Chugai is a well-established brand here in Japan, have been using their chemicals for years, and they own the Ilford name (as mentioned in previous posts). So these are Chugai chemicals with an Ilford brand on them. What I'm curious about is the paper - as far as I know they have never produced paper, so what is the paper that is being labelled as Ilford Silverchrome?

Aha - I didn't realise that Chugai was actually producing this stuff, I thought they were the importer and having it re-labelled, "Ilford Japan" for the Japanese market only. Perhaps they've been granted the rights to use the name "Ilford"?

And yes, it will be interesting to know whose paper this is." Ilford Silverchorme" rather points in a particular direction, but given that it's possible the chemicals in your post are only using the name "Ilford" (and may not actually be produced by the Ilford we know), it is highly possible that yet again, the name is being used with possibly no connection to Ilford at all.

 

[twelvetone12]

Ilford Japan/Chugai is the company that owns/owned the Ilford plant in Marly right?

 

[pentaxuser]

I write this only semi-humorously: It is a great pity that when Harman arose out of the ashes of Ilford, Mobberley in 2005 it didn't ban the use of the word Ilford which now rightly belongs to another company altogether. In the context of who makes what the word Ilford on this site only serves to confuse further what is at best a confused situation.

I propose we call it Pemberstone film, chemicals and paper. I nearly proposed that we call it Galley film. When we applauded a Harman action as we often did then GO GALLEY has a better ring to it than GO ILFORD. Much better for rallies at which we all wear baseball caps, don't you think

If Galley means nothing to you then it's your fault for not being older

pentaxuser

 

[cmacd123]

I write this only semi-humorously: It is a great pity that when Harman arose out of the ashes of Ilford, Mobberley in 2005 it didn't ban the use of the word Ilford which now rightly belongs to another company altogether.
If Galley means nothing to you then it's your fault for not being older
pentaxuser

the management buyout was for the B&w Film business, and included a license for the Ilford name in relation to B&W silver photo products if I understand it correctly. At the time the swiss division was also sold to make Ink jet products - but that division has the rights to the Ilford name. at the time their was little confusion, and the swiss folks even set up the website so that if you went to ilford.com, and selected B&W you were taken to pages that were up to date on the current Mobberley Products.

the swiss operation has now changed hands a few times. HARMAN has had to set up ilfordphoto.com and promote that on their packaging. They have also made the Harman name Much more visible. (and ADOX.de has gained control of one of the swiss coating machines, (originaly an experimental coater)and rebuilt it)

What is unclear is that the folks who know own what was the swiss division have an agreement that prevents them form using the name for B&W film.

Unfortunately Simon was bought out himself, and so no longer can speak about this, for all we know he is on a lifetime NDA.

if the next redesign of HP5 Plus boxes shows the Harman name bigger than the ilford name, we will have a strong hint

 

[twelvetone12]

I'm not sure there is a Swiss branch anymore, as it went belly up years ago, and the Ilford factory (now the Marly Innovation Center) is (at least partially) owned by the état de Fribourg and leased/sold to companies and startups (and partially demolished). For example in the building near Adox there is a beer brewery. AFAIK what happened is that the Ilford brand is still owned, not by Harman, which can use it only on BW products. This is why their direct positive paper is "Harman direct positive" and not "Ilford direct positive".

 

[Terrence Brennan]

Likely because of import duties, I understand that Ilford had a branch plant in Australia, much like Kodak had Branch plants in England, France, Germany and Canada. so the Aussie Paper was likely wholly or partly made "Down Under".

(near the time Kodak was winding down their world wide factory system, I got a package of US market Kodak Paper marked "Made for Eastman Kodak by Kodak Canada"

Interesting...I was on a training course at Kodak Canada, on Eglington Avenue, in 1990, and I asked a Kodak TSR if any film or paper was still coated at that location. He told me that some graphic arts products were made there.

I wonder if the paper you allude to was coated and converted (cut and packaged) at that location, or perhaps it was just converted, with the master rolls being shipped from Rochester or elsewhere.

 

[cmacd123]

AFAIK what happened is that the Ilford brand is still owned, not by Harman, which can use it only on BW products. This is why their direct positive paper is "Harman direct positive" and not "Ilford direct positive".

yes, I recall that the Brand was one of the few things that is left and it had been part of the deal when the Swiss ilford was reorganized.

the Harman Inkjet paper was also called just that as whoever owns the brand used to sell an Ilford Inkjet paper.

I suspect that the emphasis on "Harman" in current Ilford Photo products is a backstop in case their are problems with the brand. Presumably, Harmon does own the Kentmere Brand outright and that may be a fallback position with Kentmere Id 11 and all.

 

[AgX]

I believe these are NOT Ilford chemicals.

They are "Ilford" products, but not of the Harman Ilford.

yes, I recall that the Brand was one of the few things that is left and it had been part of the deal when the Swiss ilford was reorganized.

Yes, Chugai bought up at least immaterial assets of (legally true) lford in Switzerland, when the latter went into insolvency.

 

[AgX]

Ilford Australia did no coatings.

Well, I was off Apug for some time.
Shortly after posting the above I found some more technical hints of the plant. Some hints speak against coating activity, some speak in favour...

 

[jtk]

The paper stock itself (vs coating) increasingly comes from SE Asia because the best fibre is grown there. Much more appealing than that plastic crap especially if you're into fine art papers (such as Crane and Hahnemuele), which demanding inkjet printers are.

 

[mnemosyne]

Ilford Japan now lists the Silverchrome papers on their website and have made some simple data sheets available.

The technical information presented (ISO speeds, wavelength of safelight recommendation) indicates a close affinity to Foma Variant papers.

My more or less intelligent guess would be that this paper is manufactured by Foma or (less likely) by some third party based on a Foma recipe.

 

[Bikerider]

) and films. I suspect the same for the aforementioned Silverchrome, however the chemistry is made in Japan which puzzles me.

The production costs may have a lot to do with it. Kodak farm out the production of the Ektacolor RA4 developer and bilx to China, well is says so on the bottle anyway.

 

[mnemosyne]

The production costs may have a lot to do with it. Kodak farm out the production of the Ektacolor RA4 developer and bilx to China, well is says so on the bottle anyway.

Japan is not China. Japan been has a high cost country for decades. The chemicals are most likely made in Japan because the ()co-)owner of ILFORD (Japan) happens to be Chugai Pharmaceutical, a Japanese company that have a tradition of producing photo chemistry for the Japanese market. So the origin of the chemicals is actually the least puzzling part of the puzzle.

 

[miha]

One month short of two years after my OP it seems this paper vanished from the market.

 

[mooseontheloose]

One month short of two years after my OP it seems this paper vanished from the market.

It's definitely available here in Japan (both chemicals and paper). Maybe it's meant to be a domestic product here OR the pandemic and disrupted supply lines have made it unavailable elsewhere.

 

[miha]

It's definitely available here in Japan (both chemicals and paper). Maybe it's meant to be a domestic product here OR the pandemic and disrupted supply lines have made it unavailable elsewhere.

Thanks for the update Rachelle. Does the supplier / vendor offer any kind of data sheet for the paper?

 

[fdonadio]

Hey, @mooseontheloose ! I have just read the whole thread again and found an old post of yours, from around March 2020, saying that you would “work from home for the next four months”. How did that end up? I thought the same at that time and I’m still mostly working from home!