Reply From HARMAN technology Limited Re True IR Film.

[erikg]

I'd have to say, Ilford has a pretty impressive B&W range of film. I don't shoot much B&W, mostly color, but I generally do shoot Ilford when it's B&W (the exception is in the IR film, where I typically shoot the Rollei IR400s).

Let's take a look at what you can get in the Ilford/Harman line from B&H (I'm only looking at 35mm here, since that's what I primarily shoot), traditional grain films first:
ISO 50 - Pan F
ISO 100 - Kentmere 100
ISO 125 - FP4+
ISO 200 - SFX
ISO 400 - Kentmere 400
ISO 400 - HP5+

In the T-grain type 35mm films, we have:
ISO 100 - Delta 100
ISO 400 - Delta 400
ISO 3200 - Delta 3200 (note this film has a true speed of 1000, but low contrast so it looks good when pushed to 3200).

And finally in the chromogenic films:
ISO 400 - XP2 Super

So Ilford/Harman has an offering for B&W film in box speeds ranging from 50 to 3200, including 2 100-speed films and 4 400-speed films. Contrast this with Kodak B&W emulsions, also available from B&H:
Traditional - 400TX
T-Grain - TMax 100
T-Grain - TMax 400
Chromogenic: BW400CN

And finally Fuji, available from B&H:
ISO 100 - Neopan Acros 100
ISO 400 - Neopan 400

So Ilford has 10 B&W films, Kodak has 4 B&W films, and Fuji has 2 B&W films. I dare say Harman is doing something right to be able to support that many B&W films! Would a true B&W IR film be a good thing to have? Sure, but not if it hurts Harman's ability to offer the impressive variety of film it already produces.

Yes! Very impressive. You could also add Ilford Pan 100 and Pan 400, available in some parts of the world and easily obtainable in the US. And to think that two of the films you list have been added within the last 10 years, no grass growing under Ilford/Harman's feet.

 

[Paul Cunningham]

It's a bit of a Catch-22, similar perhaps to what is happening with the New55 project; you can't build a market of new customers until you have the product for them to use and love. And you can't build a new product until you have a market for it. The devil is in the forecast I guess.

 

[lxdude]

Nope. That Harmon is audio products. For example, Harmon/Kardon.

Oops. Harman. And Harman/Kardon.

 

[StoneNYC]

Dear Paul,

The world market for IR film is very, very small.

It would not be viable for us to produce one and we have capacity to make down to pretty small coated volumes if needed.

I have mentioned many times some of the complicated manufacturing issues around very low volume products that may be attractive to film users.

1 ) 35mm / 120 and Sheet film are typically produced on three different bases with three different
formulations.

2 ) You can produce small volume products ( and we do ) but when you are trying to get a return on your R&D investment and have to spread that over a very small volume it would make the cost per film prohibitive and you would sell less.

3 ) IR film has very poor keeping qualities compared to normal panchromatic emulsion types.

4 ) Making a true IR film would compromise sales of ILFORD SFX film, we have a policy of keeping all films currently made in production in all existing formats.

5 ) When making small volumes waste rises to a higher percentage of good coated stock.

Finally I noted somebody saying ' HARMAN may never introduce another film' well that is an opinion not based in fact, but of course its an opinion to which everyone is entitled....

We will look, and do look at new product opportunities on a monthly basis, in depth, and the team of 7people that discuss it have well in excess of 120 years experience in the photo market, balanced against our wish to innovate and satisfy customer requirements is to run a profitable and stable business that continues to focus on analog monochrome photographic products as its core market ( although we do other things ) and to offer and manufacture now, and in the future the largest range of ultra high quality monochrome photographic products in the world, bar none.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Simon,

Is it possible, that perhaps since SFX is not available in sheet film, that you would look at the sheet film market for IR.

I feel like the yearly special order ULF might be a good place to get a sense of the market interest? With everyone's stock of aura 820 and other LF sheet IR running low, it might be a good time to introduce this just in sheet film?

Sheet film users are already used to spending a bit more, and it wouldn't interfere with SFX sales as there are none for sheet film (as far as I can recall, please correct me if I'm wrong).

So perhaps this is an option? Maybe not this year but next years ULF special order run?

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Stone,

I suspect that sheet film IR or near-IR (i.e. SFX 200) sales would be absolutely tiny and Harman would get into the usual difficulties of cost and wastage in production etc.

Tom

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone,

I suspect that sheet film IR or near-IR (i.e. SFX 200) sales would be absolutely tiny and Harman would get into the usual difficulties of cost and wastage in production etc.

Tom

Maybe, but I think the LF'ers might consider the higher price to snag fresh 820ish IR... It doesn't interfere with the SFX and is only one base to deal with instead of 3 different ones, so it's a little more reasonable of a request.

EDIT: I'm talking 4x5 and 8x10 only (maybe 5x7). No extreme cutting sizes to start, just basics.

I'll wait to hear what Simon thinks.

 

[removed account4]

Yes! Very impressive. You could also add Ilford Pan 100 and Pan 400, available in some parts of the world and easily obtainable in the US. And to think that two of the films you list have been added within the last 10 years, no grass growing under Ilford/Harman's feet.

wow, and some say this is the twilight of film photography ?

its great to see ilford/harman moving ONWARD+UPWARD!

its too bad they don't sell some of their emulsion in a bottle !
i'd buy it in a heartbeat ...

 

[Xmas]

Maybe, but I think the LF'ers might consider the higher price to snag fresh 820ish IR... It doesn't interfere with the SFX and is only one base to deal with instead of 3 different ones, so it's a little more reasonable of a request.

EDIT: I'm talking 4x5 and 8x10 only (maybe 5x7). No extreme cutting sizes to start, just basics.

I'll wait to hear what Simon thinks.

Same emulsion R&D even smaller market volume.

 

[blaine.minazzi]

I would like to say thank you to Simon and Ilford / Harman for listening to the customers, and caring enough to actually let us know why things may be doable or not.

I was somewhat concerned that I may be making a mistake by pressing forward with film, and building a darkroom - but I am fairly confident that as long as companies like Harman are around, we should expand our use of their products.

I also would also love to see Ilford produce a run of 220 and 127 every year, but would also like to see them spool up some 620 if that is within reason. Seems that it may only require the slightly different spool size for 620. If people can use their old favorites again, then I would think that would be additional film sales.

One thing we can ALL do, is encourage people to dust off their old film camera's and start shooting film again. Get people interested in the FUN side of photography again. And get them using Ilford products. The most important long term goal is that Ilford / Harman remain profitable. That is what will assure us of having the products we love.

So, Thank you Simon. And let the everyone know that the hard work and great products are truly appreciated.

Warmest Regards,

Blaine

 

[Tom1956]

I wish Ilford could get the formula from Kodak for the emulsion for infrared, because it really was a good emulsion. A good emulsion on a LOUSY base. I remember it was "Estar AH" base, whatever that is. Curly damn stuff. No grey dye to stop blooming, so the pictures always came out with an "aura" around everything. I could live with the horrible grain, but not the grain AND that awful base. If Ilford could get hold of the formula and put it on a decent material, then the world would have its first good roll of infrared film. Oh, that's right--30 years too late; nobody to buy it anymore.

 

[StoneNYC]

I would like to say thank you to Simon and Ilford / Harman for listening to the customers, and caring enough to actually let us know why things may be doable or not.

I was somewhat concerned that I may be making a mistake by pressing forward with film, and building a darkroom - but I am fairly confident that as long as companies like Harman are around, we should expand our use of their products.

I also would also love to see Ilford produce a run of 220 and 127 every year, but would also like to see them spool up some 620 if that is within reason. Seems that it may only require the slightly different spool size for 620. If people can use their old favorites again, then I would think that would be additional film sales.

One thing we can ALL do, is encourage people to dust off their old film camera's and start shooting film again. Get people interested in the FUN side of photography again. And get them using Ilford products. The most important long term goal is that Ilford / Harman remain profitable. That is what will assure us of having the products we love.

So, Thank you Simon. And let the everyone know that the hard work and great products are truly appreciated.

Warmest Regards,

Blaine

Blaine,

220 is a no go, Simon has said so before.

However ilford does have a "ULF special order" period, which is mostly sheet film, but a few roll films in bulk, one of which is 46mm non perforated... Which is for re-rolling your own 127. The order happens once a year and if you miss the cut off date you have to wait a year to order.

Here is the 46mm link...

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/1174843-Ilford-HP5+-400-ISO-46mm-x-50-ft.-UP-EI

Also Maco/Rollie is now making a new 127, it's currently being re-sold under some weird Asian name, but I hear there will soon be Rollie branded 127 as well. But the price of the Ilford bulk roll works out to about $5/roll (plus labor to re-roll) where the Rollie will be about $10/roll I believe (and it's not yet available except on eBay as that other brand name). So the ilford comes at a good price, I buy it, works great.

Also B&H hires people to re-roll a bunch of Kodak and Fuji films into 620, it's a little pricey but there's a good selection of films to choose from.

This link SHOULD work...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Format_620&ci=2545&N=4294548524+4130468169

Hope that's helpful info.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

it's currently being re-sold under some weird Asian name,

You are making an assumption there. That Asian film has nothing to do with Maco/Rollei. You should re-read your thread: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Xmas]

Hi Tom

Please read Simons post earlier.
And EK or KA receivers might want to sell IPR but who would want to buy?

Noel

 

[MattKing]

Hi Tom

Please read Simons post earlier.
And EK or KA receivers might want to sell IPR but who would want to buy?

Noel

Yes. Except no receivers are involved now. EK is out of bankruptcy, and KA has never been close to it - they are busily making money with the production of colour paper, printing kiosks, and digital scanning equipment, along with a small revenue stream from Kodak still films and chemistry.

Where are you going to find all those film requiring aerial cameras that need the film, and need it in large enough quantities to make the specialized production runs economically practical?

 

[Xmas]

I was thinking of the future not past.

The group EK or KA who own the IR film IPR arnt likely to sell it, if they fold the receiver would want to sell.

No one is going to buy...

Ilford would need to do R&D for a similar far IR film and have said no.

I understand there is not enough sales volume to be viable, it is StoneNY who envisaged you pay a premium $ for 4x5 sheets.

 

[StoneNYC]

I was thinking of the future not past.

The group EK or KA who own the IR film IPR arnt likely to sell it, if they fold the receiver would want to sell.

No one is going to buy...

Ilford would need to do R&D for a similar far IR film and have said no.

I understand there is not enough sales volume to be viable, it is StoneNY who envisaged you pay a premium $ for 4x5 sheets.

Well if you recall, sometimes asking for something in different forms that might make more sense instead of asking for everything at once makes things happen.

I asked ilford about 70mm for 2 years, then discovered it was about the perforations machine, well I asked could we have a special price for the perf version to offset the creation of the machine, he said yes and through organizing and a last minute push by myself, we were able to get the global orders in and the perforation machine was created.

70mm wouldn't exist by ilford if I hadn't asked the way I asked, so now I'm trying a different tactic, if you don't want to pay the premium for the R&D then don't, but if others are willing to, it could at least possibly be an option if enough people order. And again my proposal doesn't cut into the SFX film line because it doesn't exist in sheet form.

 

[giannisg2004]

... And again my proposal doesn't cut into the SFX film line because it doesn't exist in sheet form.

Why shouldn't it?

I mean, everybody's paying a premium for the grainy (and with poor keeping qualities) SFX just because of its (limited) IR sensitivity, not to use it as a normal panchromatic.
Why not axe that and offer a true IR emulsion? I doubt anyone would miss SFX.

I know that true IR is a different beast, and maybe the sensitizing dyes are really expensive and not easily available, and since Ilford doesn't have an in-house IR formula they'll have to R&D it from scratch, but I'm just saying that the argument about not introducing a true IR so as not to axe SFX is misguided.

If Simon had the time and patience (and also business clearance) to respond, does Ilford have an IR formula?
Have small test runs/prototypes been coated internally?
I.e., if Ilford wanted, could it axe the SFX and replace it with a true IR without huge R&D overhead?

 

[StoneNYC]

You are making an assumption there. That Asian film has nothing to do with Maco/Rollei. You should re-read your thread: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I re-read the thread, the second post gives a link that specifically says the asian film Reropan 100 is maco film...

And another poster says maco will soon come out with some of their own.

What am I misunderstanding?

 

[StoneNYC]

Why shouldn't it?

I mean, everybody's paying a premium for the grainy (and with poor keeping qualities) SFX just because of its (limited) IR sensitivity, not to use it as a normal panchromatic.
Why not axe that and offer a true IR emulsion? I doubt anyone would miss SFX.

I know that true IR is a different beast, and maybe the sensitizing dyes are really expensive and not easily available, and since Ilford doesn't have an in-house IR formula they'll have to R&D it from scratch, but I'm just saying that the argument about not introducing a true IR so as not to axe SFX is misguided.

If Simon had the time and patience (and also business clearance) to respond, does Ilford have an IR formula?
Have small test runs/prototypes been coated internally?
I.e., if Ilford wanted, could it axe the SFX and replace it with a true IR without huge R&D overhead?

I agree personally. I think SFX is not very useful and people only use it because it's the only thing there and they should REPLACE it with a true IR film, and no one would complain. BUT ilford also made a promise not to discontinue any films, so they are sort of stuck on a promise thy made.

But personally I agree, get rid of SFX and bring in Ilford True IR.

My proposal is just to keep ilford from having to cancel a film, and I think once they see the demand for the true IR in sheet film, they will understand that they need to make it in roll film, but at least make it in sheet.

 

[removed account4]

I re-read the thread, the second post gives a link that specifically says the asian film Reropan 100 is maco film...

And another poster says maco will soon come out with some of their own.

What am I misunderstanding?

you made the same mistake *I* did
the blog said it WASN'T maco
Agx caught my mis-read.

if you are fluent in japanese
call or write the otter shop and ask them what it is ?
the otter shop is in Hokkaido Shari-cho

 

[Roger Cole]

I agree personally. I think SFX is not very useful and people only use it because it's the only thing there and they should REPLACE it with a true IR film, and no one would complain. BUT ilford also made a promise not to discontinue any films, so they are sort of stuck on a promise thy made.

But personally I agree, get rid of SFX and bring in Ilford True IR.

My proposal is just to keep ilford from having to cancel a film, and I think once they see the demand for the true IR in sheet film, they will understand that they need to make it in roll film, but at least make it in sheet.

Eh, how about the Rollei/Maco IR film then? Isn't that still available?

I've got more Efke 820 frozen than I'll probably ever be able to use at this (no shooting in ages, even less darkroom time ) rate...

 

[ntenny]

Eh, how about the Rollei/Maco IR film then? Isn't that still available?

I think the old Maco IR film was relabeled Efke, and Rollei IR400 is a near-IR film in the same way as SFX. I experimented with it a little bit, but went back to...

I've got more Efke 820 frozen than I'll probably ever be able to use at this (no shooting in ages, even less darkroom time ) rate...

...filling up my freezer. That last run of sales from the guy in Croatia---a former employee or something, I suppose---was a godsend.

It seems like HIE is out of reach, but I gather there's no basic technical obstacle to another company making a near-IR emulsion like Efke's---it's just that Ilford's scale, resources, and commitments to existing products make it an infeasible product for them. It's too bad, but the reasons make sense. If we're lucky, in the fulness of time, someone like Foma or even Ferrania will get interested.

-NT

 

[Photo Engineer]

Guys, you just do not understand the scale of the cost of making just the experiments to get set up for something like this! I've said it before. A simple experiment may cost on the order of $50 - $100 and that return must be realized in sales of the product. A failure in the experimental stage will double the cost.

In the mean-time, digital (sorry to say) can do a quite credible job in both color and B&W.

PE

 

[AgX]

A good emulsion on a LOUSY base. I remember it was "Estar AH" base, whatever that is.

ESTAR is Kodaks tradename for PET base in this case added with an anti-halation coating.

(Agfa sometimes called their PET base GEVAR, others had no special designation.)

 

[StoneNYC]

Eh, how about the Rollei/Maco IR film then? Isn't that still available?

I've got more Efke 820 frozen than I'll probably ever be able to use at this (no shooting in ages, even less darkroom time ) rate...

Yes the Maco/Rollie IR is stil available, and dare I say it seems much more IR sensitive than the SFX stuff, but it's supposed to be the same I think so perhaps I just had a bad sun day when I was testing my tests weren't extensive or anything.