POP ?

Ian Grant said:

In fact the research & sales departments didn't know that the "Barfen" liquid emulsion at that time was made by Ilford. It was only when someone from Ilford sales approached the company behind Barfen branded products that they found it was from the Ilford Nuclear emulsions division, based in London.
Ian

Click to expand...

Ian, can you give more details on this "someone" and how you came to learn it was an Ilford product?
I wonder how accurate your 2nd hand info really is...
I say that with no disrespect intended...
it is just that my 2nd hand info clashes with yours... again.

In 1995, I learned that Barfen emulsion was a Kentmere product; and that makes a lot of sense. The nuclear emulsion could of course have been used, but it would have been different in nature from the ordinary emulsions and this probably could have been noticed by a side by side comparison.

on or off list ...

Ray

Photo Engineer said:

I don't have a reference. If I saved all of them that interest me I would have run out of disk space.
PE

Click to expand...

Photo Engineer stated that, in another thread, Simon Galley said reengineering of the UF wash system was involved in (necessary for or problematic in ?) producing Kentmere's POP at Harman.

My search skills are not as sharp as I wish they were; Can anyone find it?
or remember such a post?

Ray

Ray Rogers said:

Photo Engineer stated that, in another thread, Simon Galley said reengineering of the UF wash system was involved in (necessary for or problematic in ?) producing Kentmere's POP at Harman.


Ray

Click to expand...

If they can't produce Kentmeres POP paper, then they should consider producing one of the Ilford POP papers that in their archives.

Ray Rogers said:

Ian, can you give more details on this "someone" and how you came to learn it was an Ilford product?
I wonder how accurate your 2nd hand info really is...
I say that with no disrespect intended...
it is just that my 2nd hand info clashes with yours... again.

In 1995, I learned that Barfen emulsion was a Kentmere product; and that makes a lot of sense. The nuclear emulsion could of course have been used, but it would have been different in nature from the ordinary emulsions and this probably could have been noticed by a side by side comparison.

on or off list ...

Ray

Click to expand...

Ray, yes I could give you the names of the people involved at Ilford that I used to deal with. The names aren't secret but they are stored with my paperwork & books in the UK. The two main people I used to deal with have left Ilford, and I had no contact with them after about 1984/5.

My sources weren't 2nd hand as I was direct discussions with Ilford at the time, and trialling Ilfospeed Grade 3 emulsion, which they wanted to sell to me. I was taken for lunch in Alderley Edge by Ian? Pilkington and a senior research chemist and it was while talking over our meal I mentioned the Barfen product. In the end after discovering the Barfen emulsion came unofficially from the Nuclear emulsions division the senior management made a policy decision not to supply any raw emulsions to outside companies. This was some time around 1983 give or take a year, so it's quite likely Barfen turned to Kentmere for their liquid emulsion. This would tally with your information.

Ian

Ian Grant said:

My sources weren't 2nd hand as I was direct discussions with Ilford at the time, and trialling Ilfospeed Grade 3 emulsion, which they wanted to sell to me. I was taken for lunch in Alderley Edge by Ian? Pilkington and a senior research chemist and it was while talking over our meal I mentioned the Barfen product. In the end after discovering the Barfen emulsion came unofficially from the Nuclear emulsions division the senior management made a policy decision not to supply any raw emulsions to outside companies. This was some time around 1983 give or take a year, so it's quite likely Barfen turned to Kentmere for their liquid emulsion. This would tally with your information.

Ian

Click to expand...

That might explain it, and then the data would tally as you say.

But, it is still fuzzy where the info came from... it sounds (sounded) like you were told, by a sales rep, who was unaware of it at the time you mentioned it, and [here comes the fuzzy part] somehow that person, approaching Barfen handlers, heard that it was Ilfords emulsion, and he told you. That still sounds 2nd hand to me...

So just to be clear, were you told (a)at that meeting, or (b)later, it was an Ilford product? (this part is not clear to me) ...

Was the person who told you involved actually involved in selling it to Barfen people and therefore knew firsthand, or had he got the info from someone else and if so who?

I guess I could go on trying to pin you down, but I won't;
I do not want to appear as though I doubt you, or worse, that I just want to give you a hard time...
it is just that I HATE rebranding when it is done in secret;
I think it is a very bad way to make money and verges on dishonesty.

I have no problem with private labeling as long as the manufacturer is not concealed.

I don't want to add to the confusion; My questions are only meant to separate assumptions from known facts.

Do you or anyone else here know someone involved with Barfen
that might be able and willing to share some first hand knowledge on this?

I will pursue it if someone has a name or email address...

As a small aside, it is interesting that your story of Ilford paralells that of Kodak;
They initially had no policy, but after discovering their uncoated emulsion was being sold for autoradiography, I belive they prohibited it; then allowed it to be sold at a fixed (and higher!) price.

I am not sure if in your "a...decision not to supply any raw emulsions to outside companies.", "outside companies" meant any at all, but as you are undoubtably aware, Ilford's uncoated medical material is again(?) available.

So the two stories sort of mirror each other.

OK well, back to the subject -- On the otherhand,
my Barfen info IS 2nd hand...
(a rather respected 2nd hand but 2nd hand nevertheless!)

Ray,the Ilford nuclear emulsion division was still based in London when I had dealings with Ilford, that's where they made and distributed them too. They had only recently moved the Ilford headquarters to Mobberley.

In our original conversation (over lunch) we were discussing Rockland Colloids and I mentioned Barfen's Liquid emulsion, (which I never tried), I had to explain who Barfen were. The company was based around some Photographic surplus stores who had specialised in selling ex Military/Government surplus film, paper, and even cameras (A.W. Young, Marston & Heard, Harringay Photographic Supplies etc). The Ilford staff were all senior Sales Managers/Research chemists, we all wondered where Barfen were getting their emulsion and they wondered whether Ilford could supply them. A few weeks later during a business call I was told "by the way that Barfen Emulsion is actually one of our own nuclear emulsions" and that the Nuclear division was small self contained unit based in London.

Ray Rogers said:

I am not sure if in your "a...decision not to supply any raw emulsions to outside companies.", "outside companies" meant any at all, but as you are undoubtably aware, Ilford's uncoated medical material is again(?) available.

Click to expand...

I was told (at the time) that Ilford were concerned that uncoated emulsions could fall into the hands of a competitor, this was the reason I ceased using Ilfospeed Gd 3 emulsion, and presumably why Barfen changed too. Chemical analysis of an Uncoated emulsion will tell you far more than analysing a coated emulsion.

2 or 3 years before I'd had a visit from an elderly Kodak sales rep, he'd been sent specifically to see what I (or rather my company) was doing. In fact he was a retired Emulsion chemist who'd worked at Harrow.

Back to Barfen, the Surplus shops specialised in selling off film & paper mostly Ilford, while still at school I often bought 100ft lengths of FP3 from them and even HP3, (FP4 & HP4 were then the current production) early resin coated papers obviously ex RAF, quite unlike the later consumer Ilfospeed. I think there was a common partner who had a stake in all the shops, he would probably have been the brains behind Barfen, which was just a Brand name first used for E4 then E6 slide films (of Fuji origin) and associated processing kits - made for them (Barfen).

I regularly bought film & paper from A.W. Young or Marson & Heard as a student and continued to use the Barfen E4 then E6 films until the mid 80's. I visited the stores on odd trips to London.

You ask too many questions Ray

Ian

Ian Grant said:

Chemical analysis of an Uncoated emulsion will tell you far more than analysing a coated emulsion.
Ian

Click to expand...

I would like to hear what PE knows about analysis of competitors materials.

I certainly see how it would be easier, and cheaper.
The changes upon drying affect- I belive- mainly pH, pAg (and naturally water content)... things strongly affected by final additions...so if you compared both types of analyses; one might learn more than either alone.

Quite a bit could be learnt either way, if the potential ROI were great enough....but generally, I don't think analysis is of that much use unless you have a specfic problem or goal in mind.

I wonder what Kodak has learned that way?

Ian Grant said:

You ask too many questions Ray
Ian

Click to expand...

Yes, I know. I wish I knew more!
The more I knew the less I would ask...
but
The less I'd ask, the less I'd learn.
and
The less I'd learn, the less I'd know.
But then,
The less I'd know, the more I'd need to ask!

Now,
The more I ask, the more I learn.
The more I learn, the more I know
The more I know the more I forget.
The more I forget the less I know.
The less I know the less I forget
and everyone will agree
The less I forget the more I will know!

We had, at Kodak, a competitor testing division that analyzed all competitive products for content and capability. This unit was also responsible for investigating any and all patent infringement by a competitor or even Kodak. There is a lot to learn from testing film or paper extensively, but once coated it is difficult to analyze for some components and easier to detect others.

The changes are due to evaporation and concentration mainly, with some chemical interactions also involved.

PE

I just received this email from Harman's technical support regarding the future of POP.

It is a good answer to lots of what has been discussed on here without a lot of the conspiracy theory.

"Dear Robert,

We have actually not abandoned our plans to re-introduce this product if we possibly can. However, we have some significant hurdles to overcome before we can be sure that we will actually be able to manufacture this product on our plant. The previous formulation was particularly suited to Kentmere's relatively small and simple manufacturing plant, which precludes us simply transferring it to our larger and more modern plant. More importantly though there are also some signiificant Health & safety manufacturing concerns with the old formulation which we will have to overcome in order to turn this into a manufacturable product again. So, while it is certainly our intention to do this if we can, at this stage, I am unfortunately neither able to guarantee that it will come back, or when that might be. I know that this is not good news for anyone and it is frustrating for us too, but I thought you would appreciate a realistic assessment of where we are with our current plans for the product.

Doug Munson at Chicago Albumen Works is aware of this based on conversations I have had with him over the past few months.

I hope that this at least reassures you that we have not just abandoned the product and our customers arbitarily. Simply put, while a market remains for this product which customer inquiries indicate , we will re-introduce it if we can, given the difficulties I have outlined above.

Thank you for registering your concern.

Best regards

Rod for HARMAN techsupport "

That's a fair reply, and quite obviously accurate.

Ian

That is a great reply, in terms of honesty and directness. Totally encouraging? No, but I think it does show that there would be some value in politely letting Harman know that you are interested in the paper. I'll bet that Doug Munson has made his pitch.

This is quite a bad news. I'm unfortunately not so surprised.