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.
Ilford Australia did no coatings.
aka Canadian Kodak.Kodak Canada apparently did do some coating, although they likly also converted some stock on big rolls from across Lake Ontario.
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.Ilford Australia did no coatings.
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?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"
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.
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"?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?
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
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"
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".
I believe these are NOT Ilford chemicals.
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.
Ilford Australia did no coatings.
) 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.
One month short of two years after my OP it seems this paper vanished from the market.
Thanks for the update Rachelle. Does the supplier / vendor offer any kind of data sheet for the paper?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.
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?