Shocked at how much bulk TMY-2 costs

[koraks]

Does Harman do all the manufacturing i.e. its the whole process as in Ilford films?

It wouldn't make much sense to only outsource part of the product, so I assume so, yes.

I presume that this is done to a recipe that has been given to it by Fuji?

Maybe. Maybe not.
Harman is perfectly capable of engineering emulsions, so it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Acros II is in fact a fully-fledged Harman film with only a Fuji label stuck to it. "Inspired by Fuji" or something like that, see what I mean?
To me, it wouldn't make much sense to first engineer an emulsion in Japan, and then 'give' it to Harman in the UK to manufacture it, given that manufacturing and product engineering/development are closely intertwined activities for this kind of product. It would be needlessly complex to try and rip those apart and I don't see much business sense in it either.

Fuji's equivalent of Ilford XP2 Super?

Does something like that exist at this moment? I'm not aware of it.

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, Harman does confectioning/finishing for a lot of different film suppliers. In most cases, things like re-purposed aerial films.
So it is certainly possible that they are doing that for Fuji and Acros II.
That, apparently, is enough to get you "Made in UK" on your film box.
All reports indicate that the new Acros II has similar, extra-ordinary reciprocity behavior as its predecessor. One might expect that if Harman could make film that does that, they would incorporate that technology into their own Ilford films.

 

[Craig]

FWIW, Harman does confectioning/finishing for a lot of different film suppliers. In most cases, things like re-purposed aerial films.
So it is certainly possible that they are doing that for Fuji and Acros II.
That, apparently, is enough to get you "Made in UK" on your film box.

I've seen jars of olives in the grocery store with "Made in Canada" in them, and yet there are no olives grown in Canada. It about where value is added that can determine origin with respect to labelling laws. So it's entirely possible that Fuji is coating master rolls in Japan and Iford is confectioning and packaging those rolls for retails sale; and that's enough to give it a "Made in UK" label.

 

[pentaxuser]

It wouldn't make much sense to only outsource part of the product, so I assume so, yes.



Maybe. Maybe not.
Harman is perfectly capable of engineering emulsions, so it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Acros II is in fact a fully-fledged Harman film with only a Fuji label stuck to it. "Inspired by Fuji" or something like that, see what I mean?
To me, it wouldn't make much sense to first engineer an emulsion in Japan, and then 'give' it to Harman in the UK to manufacture it, given that manufacturing and product engineering/development are closely intertwined activities for this kind of product. It would be needlessly complex to try and rip those apart and I don't see much business sense in it either.



Does something like that exist at this moment? I'm not aware of it.

I don't know either whether Fuji still has a film that was the equivalent of XP2 Super so I suppose we will never have an answer as to whether it was identical to XP2 Super

I know it was discussed on Photrio and I feel pretty sure that some said that they could see no difference but no-one conducted any kind of a scientific test as far as I know, nor do I know what the difference was in the two films prices when they did exist side by side

As Matt has said, nothing in the Ilford range has the amazing reciprocity of Acros II but if Ilford Photo now makes Acros II from beginning to end I presume that Fuji has had to share its recipe with Ilford Photo but the latter has had to sign a contract that the peculiar qualities that makes Acros II unique will not be copied

Acros II in the U.K. sells for considerably more than its equivalent speed Ilford film of Delta 100 so I wonder what it is that justifies the difference in price?

It has to be the need to cover the expensive search for the new ingredients that enables Acros II to replicate the qualities of the original Acros, doesn't it? The actual production costs, given it is made in Mobberley, must be the same or very close to those for Delta 100 or so I'd have thought

Of course we shall never know just how much this Fuji expense was nor whether on that basis the differential in price is justified

However such questions surely serve to illustrate that what we pay for a film may suggest that we need to bear a critical attitude in terms of whether any film company charges its consumers as little as possible for its films commensurate with ensuring it survives


Still at the end of the day it would seem that we all belong to one of two families: Those who do believe that film makers always act to minimise prices and those who are in a more sceptical family

I feel that "never the twain shall meet" on this subject

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

Those who do believe that film makers always act to minimise prices

That seems like a very odd belief to me. Every company out there tries to maximize profit.

 

[MattKing]

Those who do believe that film makers always act to minimise prices and those who are in a more sceptical family

That seems like a very odd belief to me. Every company out there tries to maximize profit.

The real question is something different. It is a question of strategic pricing.
It involves questions like whether there is short or long term gain in pricing something at a particular point.
Bulk film is an example, because such a tiny percentage of customers are interested in it. The suppliers need to decide whether minimizing the margin for people like student users will help build loyalty that may pay dividends when those users have more income.
Or whether the availability of such products adds to the general goodwill associated with the product line.
And as for people who point to the price per 36 exposure roll length from a 400 foot movie roll, that ignores how relatively little of the retail cost of a single roll of a 36 exposure film comes from the manufacture of the film itself.

 

[Agulliver]

Does Harman do all the manufacturing i.e. its the whole process as in Ilford films? I presume that this is done to a recipe that has been given to it by Fuji?

Can I also ask: Is this the same kind of co-operation as was (still is?) true of Fuji's equivalent of Ilford XP2 Super? I was never very clear if Fuji's chromogenic film differed from XP2 or was this one really a case of an XP2 film with a Fuji label?

Before anyone says that that they are not the same because Simon Galley, formerly of Harman Technology, stated that Ilford does not allow its Ilford films to be rebadged, can I just add that this was then and not now. Harman is now owned by a a company called Pemberstone who as far as I know has made no such statement

pentaxuser

A director of the Pemberstone version of Harman has stated that no Ilford product appears under any other name. That lead to speculation that Kentmere products might appear under other names - likely correct. Indeed Harman repeated that right after ACROS II was launched and people saw "Made in the UK" and started assuming it's an Ilford product....."I can 100% guarantee that we do not put our ILFORD films into boxes for any other companies."

Ergo the Fuji chromogenic film is not Ilford XP2 in disguise.

As for ACROS II....nobody outside of the two companies seems to know. And that's how Fuji like it.

 

[Agulliver]

That seems like a very odd belief to me. Every company out there tries to maximize profit.

No. That is a very short term view. Every company out there tries to survive. And that's a complex calculation of how much they can charge, how much profit they can make vs how long people will keep buying the products and services vs how much they cost in the first place. Among other things.

 

[jtk]

No. That is a very short term view. Every company out there tries to survive. And that's a complex calculation of how much they can charge, how much profit they can make vs how long people will keep buying the products and services vs how much they cost in the first place. Among other things.

not at all valid. companies don't simply try to survive if shareholders decide to cash out. at that point the prices of shares plummet and the old brand name loses much of its value. think about Silicone Valley Bank.

 

[pentaxuser]

Based on the #130 to #133 replies, I rest my case on the two families and never the twain meeting

pentaxuser

 

[Craig]

As for ACROS II....nobody outside of the two companies seems to know. And that's how Fuji like it.

Given the unique properties of Acros, I would be very surprised if Fuji has contracted Ilford to coat it for them. Even assuming NDA's are in place, it's a still risk to Fuji to let a competitor see the formula. Historically, Fuji has always kept information tight to it's chest, releasing that information to Ilford is out of character. Finishing and confectioning finished master rolls is a different matter though.

With it's different performance, Acros is obviously not a current Ilford emulsion.

 

[Arcadia4]

Ergo the Fuji chromogenic film is not Ilford XP2 in disguise.

In the case of fuji neopan 400cn (disc. 2020) this was an exception and was made in ‘co-operation with ilford‘ as the press release at the time made clear and ‘shared many characteristics with xp2’ About as close as any manufacturer might admit it was more or less identical.

The suggestion for acros II is that the emulsion and coating stage is still undertaken by fuji and ilford do the slitting/packaging. Clearly all combinations are possible but has been pointed out emulsions are specific to the coater so it would either need ilford/harman to do all steps (with technology transfer) or the packaging. Only those party to the nda know the true snswer.

 

[MattKing]

not at all valid. companies don't simply try to survive if shareholders decide to cash out. at that point the prices of shares plummet and the old brand name loses much of its value. think about Silicone Valley Bank.

Pemberstone holds all the shares of Harman Technology Ltd. - it is privately held.
And as I understand it, Pemberstone is a venture capital corporation that is also privately held.
Apparently, in the UK, there are a lot of examples of venture capital organizations that invest and hold corporations as long term assets, which they work at building the value of over time.

 

[koraks]

No. That is a very short term view. Every company out there tries to survive. And that's a complex calculation of how much they can charge, how much profit they can make vs how long people will keep buying the products and services vs how much they cost in the first place. Among other things.

In other words: profit maximization.
It's ok if you want to figure out what that means by talking about it though

 

[MattKing]

In other words: profit maximization.

I would say corporate value maximization.
Standing on its own, "profit" tends to make people assume you are talking about individual transactions.
Back in the day, Kodak used to sell box cameras and other basic cameras with a long view. They didn't need to make much money on the cameras, because they were reasonably assured that people who bought a Kodak camera were a bit more likely to buy Kodak film rather than other competing brands, and Kodak did make good individual profits on the film.
The same applied to the black and white darkroom supply business.
Bulk film was a profitable business when volumes were high (sold to school ID and annual photographers), and the related costs per roll were low as a result. When the volumes disappeared, the costs per roll went up. So prices have to be either really, really high, or there have to be good reasons to sell at a lower margin.

 

[koraks]

I would say corporate value maximization.

That's a useful alternative formulation, although equally liable to be misunderstood - just in different ways.

 

[BHuij]

I can’t speak to Kodak’s intent, but for myself, I happily give Ilford/Harman my money for more reasonably priced, excellent Delta films.

I'm in the same boat as you. I know some people have religion about Tmax vs Delta vs Acros, but when I side-by-side compared TMX 100 and Delta 100 several years ago, I strongly preferred the look of Delta. Add on top of that my growing brand loyalty to Ilford, who have been stalwartly chugging along and supplying excellent films and papers through thick and thin... I'd definitely go for the Delta 400 over TMY given the current pricing. If I was in the market for a 400 speed B&W film that wasn't HP5+ anyway.

 

[traveler_101]

Want to save some money on bulk rolling? Splice in a leader from scrap film and get 5 more shots per roll.

Cut the end of the scrap like the starting end of a roll and start it in your camera. Once you wind it on, cut it off about where the roll end would stick out of the cassette.
View attachment 332501


Get a piece of 2x4, pound 4 finishing nails in through sprocket holes. I cut them off with a wire cutter.

View attachment 332502

Tape join the rolled film with the leader. Trim the tape with a cuticle scissor and poke through the tape covering the sprocket holes.

View attachment 332503

This is the prototype and as you see, the nails should be a little closer to the edge to save another inch of film. Right away I found that rewinding the leader into the cassette causes excessive resistance to advancing the film. It also probably wears out the felt light trap more quickly too, so I just leave it sticking out..

This might be applicable to something I’ve been wondering about. I don’t want to bulk load for a number of reasons, but I am tempted mainly because of the ability to create short rolls. I wonder if I could adopt this method to divide the film on a standard cassette into two or three rolls giving me a better opportunity to experiment with exposure and developers. The nails used to secure sprocket holes is brilliant. I was thinking unraveling a portion of the film on a cassette in the darkroom and then splicing it onto the remainder film on an old cassette. Then rewind. Anyone ever try anything like that?

 

[koraks]

I wonder if I could adopt this method to divide the film on a standard cassette into two or three rolls

I do this sometimes with film I can't get in bulk, e.g. C41. But my approach is much simpler.

1: Take a factory-finished roll of film
2: Cut off the leader so it's a straight end and tape it to the core of an empty cassette.
3: Assemble the cassette. You now have two cassettes held together by a strip of film between them.
4: In a dark room, pull both cassettes apart until all the film is out. Then hold the (approximate) midpoint of the film in one hand and both cassettes in the other hand, and adjust until you've found the midpoint.
5: Cut the film at the midpoint.
6: Roll the film back into both cassettes (still in the dark of course). Leave a leader out.
7: Turn on light and cut a leader shape to the ends sticking out of both cassettes.

You now have two rolls of film with around 15 exposures each if you started from a regular 36 exp. roll.
The process can be repeated once more for really short test strips - which I've done on occasion as well.

The above requires a darkroom, but no rig of any kind. The only tools needed are a pair of scissors and an end of tape. I use masking/painter's tape of a decent brand (the glue on the cheap stuff isn't so good).

 

[Don Heisz]

3: Assemble the cassette.

Resist the urge to assemble your cassette to mirror the other cassette...

 

[koraks]

Indeed, in step 2 & 3, the second cassette needs to be mirrored to the first so that the emulsion is on the correct side.

 

[traveler_101]

I do this sometimes with film I can't get in bulk, e.g. C41. But my approach is much simpler.

Yes it is better, very doable. Thanks, I am going to try it

 

[Craig]

What I have done is a bit different. I'll shoot however much of the roll I want. Then in the darkroom, open the camera back and snip off the exposed film, and remove from the camera and load into a tank. Turn on the lights.

Now I have a small leader sticking out of the cassette. I can then tape on a piece of old film as a leader and then reload into the camera.

 

[traveler_101]

What I have done is a bit different. I'll shoot however much of the roll I want. Then in the darkroom, open the camera back and snip off the exposed film, and remove from the camera and load into a tank. Turn on the lights.

Now I have a small leader sticking out of the cassette. I can then tape on a piece of old film as a leader and then reload into the camera.

Thanks. Yes, it’s appealing when, for example, you don’t finish a roll that you’ve pushed and don’t feel like waiting around for the same lighting conditions to recur so that you can finish the roll. So if you release the tension on the take up reel, the film comes off easily? Normally I thread the tank reel first with the light on. I’ve done it all it the dark too, but I get to worrying that cutting the film without being able to see it will leave a jagged edge that might get caught in the tank reel.

 

[redbandit]

One can still make money on the bulk roll...

with delta 400,,, IF you get the 18 claimed home rolls from it....

your saving roughly

100' delta 400 is 120 + shipping and tax

a 36 exposure roll costs 11.99 + tax and shipping at BH photo..

math says... 18 rolls would cost 215.82
10 rolls would cost 119.99, the cost of the bulk roll

math also says that if you used 24 exposure factory rolls at 8.99 each

a 100' roll would yield 18 x 36 frame = 648 frames = 27 rolls roughly of 24 exp film or a factory cost of 215.76



I can purchase a roll of 100' of

XP2 super for 119.95
or a 50 pack of 36 exp film for 624.50 12.49 each...

18 rolls of 36 per 100' yields roughly 300' needed.... or 360$ to bulk load 50 rolls....

just as bad for normal black and white...

in some cases they wont even let you bring the personal lubricant if you buy factory cassette.

look on amazon.... some folks selling 3 packs of Gold 200 35mm 24 exp for 50$