Statement Regarding ILFORD Photo / POLAROID

[Simon R Galley]

Dear All,

I have been out for a few days and several of you have sent me PM's re POLAROID : Please see below :

April 18th, 2008, Mobberley, Cheshire UK and Minnetonka, MN, USA -- HARMAN technology Limited and its monochrome brand, ILFORD Photo and Polaroid Worldwide have been in discussions about ILFORD Photo taking on production of Polaroid's black and white professional instant sheet film. Despite their best efforts, together the prospective partners have determined that they can not find a commercially viable way forward.

HARMAN's Chairman and Managing Director, Phil Harris said. " The processes involved in the manufacture and assembly of professional instant sheet film products are very demanding and it would require substantial investment to re-establish them at HARMAN technology's site in Cheshire, England. When compared with current and projected sales for the products, it was clear that such an investment could not be justified."

Phil Harris continues: " While we had hoped to work together on continuing the production of instant sheet film, it is cost prohibitive to meet the declining demand. As a company, we are saddened that such an inspirational form of expression will disappear, but we will always remain staunchly committed to the long term future of monochrome photography in all its facets and we will continue to do everything we can to support it".


Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Thanks for taking a serious look at it at least and keeping us up to date.

 

[Sino]

Sad news, although well expected and justified, Simon. All the best.

-Sino.

 

[david b]

yeah....thanks for seeing what could be done. It's a real shame.

 

[Photo Engineer]

It was a great effort Simon and truly appreciated. I used a lot of Polaroid products over the years. They will be missed, and it would have been great to see Ilford involved. Maybe Kodak would take it up. Hah, not in a million years after the lawsuit.

Ron

 

[arigram]

 

[SuzanneR]

Bummer, of course, and not entirely surprising, but I think we all appreciate the effort Ilford made in looking into it.

 

[Alex Hawley]

Thanks for your efforts Simon. At least the possibility was duly explored and I know that alone cost some money to do.

 

[fschifano]

I didn't expect it to happen either, but at least you guys explored the possibility.

Fuji? You guys already make instant film. Take on Type 55?

 

[keeds]

Thanks for trying...

 

[keithwms]

Yes Simon, thanks for at least looking into it.

It seems to me that finding an alternative to panatomic-X may be the best way to proceed (assuming that this is indeed the magic stuff in type 55).

 

[kraker]

Thanks for this update, Simon; thanks for investigating the possibility, all those involved at HARMAN. Although the outcome makes sense, it's still a sad moment.

Ah well... I'll enjoy shooting my Polaroids until the very last one.

 

[Chazzy]

Hey, now Ilford can take all the money that they would have spent on setting up for Polaroid sheet film and spend it on fixing their equipment for making 220 instead! I want my 220!

 

[mabman]

Just curious, was anything discussed about licensing and possibly repackaging just the film portion of 665/Type 55? Rumour has it it's supposed to be Panatomic-X, or very similar to it, which might be fun to play with in other formats.

 

[mcfactor]

I know this has been discussed before, but it would be amazing to have some type of low-speed (50 and below) 4x5 film other than efke. I've recently made the move up to 4x5 from 6x7 and I feel like the amount of low-speed films decrease in inverse proportion to the film size.

Are low-speed films harder to coat? I know that Pan-F cannot be made into a sheet film, is the same true of Rollei Pan 25?

 

[Mahler_one]

Thanks from here as well....I guess we can throw out those Polaroid holders for our 4x5 cameras....

 

[PeteZ8]

So what is Polaroid going to do with their highly specialized equipment for making instant film? They're going to sell it to a scrap guy for pennies on the dollar in weight, where they will be busted up and shipped in cargo ships to China to become WalMart junk.

So where is the substantial re-investment? Surely the equipment is the majority of the cost. A logical person at Polaroid would sell at scrap value or simply give the equipment to the other company, but knowing how bean counters think, it will get auctioned off and crushed before anyone else gets it for less than top dollar.

And that, more than likely, is what all of this corporate mumbo jumbo translates too.

 

[amuderick]

PeteZ8, the substantial reinvestment is moving it all over to England, reassembling it, running tons of test rolls to get it working, bringing on extra staff to handle the pod and its own special chemistry, sourcing those chemicals in England vs. the USA, etc, etc, etc. It is so sad, all of it. But it makes sense.

Polaroid could have kept rolling for a while yet if its factories weren't worth more as real estate investments. Fuji has a line running. They have said they aren't interested in expanding their product line. Perhaps we can hit them up again.

 

[gr82bart]

Simon,

Thanks for the note.

Curious that you mentioned the substantial "investment to re-establish them at HARMAN technology's site in Cheshire, England." I agree that re-locating equipment and process across the pond would be prohibitive. This, to be honest, would not have been on my list of viable options.

I assume you did this, but I'll ask anyway. Did you look into taking ownership of the existing facilities and process (where ever they are located) and running production without any technology transfer between sites? I would assume this is the least cost option.

Someone asked about licensing and i'd like to repeat that question too.

I have a feeling that the existing instant film manufacturing facilities are integrated with other manufacturing lines, not being discontinued, that would make it difficult to separate or segregate. If that's the case, a transfer of technology bewteen facilities is inevitable, regardless (and cost prohibitive for any investor). It would also mean Polaroid will eventually decommission these lines. This sad news, but not surprising.

Regards, Art.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think the issue is that Polaroid can get more by selling the land to real estate developers than a manufacturer would be willing to pay for the facility at the current location for the purpose of manufacturing, otherwise Polaroid would just continue to run the lines themselves.

 

[apochromatic]

Can anyone else remember being sent off to the darkroom to process a test sheet of film whilst the boss and the client chatted about cricket?

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

Hi Simon, could I please have a link to the press release concerning your decision not to manufacture Polaroid materials? I can't seem to find it on your website.

 

[zenrhino]

What a bummer. Those Polaroid guys are just a stone's throw from where I'm at. Now I want to go throw stones at them. =P

 

[gothamtomato]

Sigh...

This is sad to say the least. I would love to know how much of this decision was Polaroid making it too difficult. I'm actually very angry about this - not at Ilford, but at Polaroid.

That jerk who bought the company, just so he could use the logo, is just the worst kind of greedy. I hope that all his illustrious consumer electronic products, with the Polaroid pixel logo slapped on them, are the new Edsels.

 

[rpsawin]

Simon,

Thanks to Harmon/Ilford for the analysis. This just reiterates your stated commitment to analog b&w photography.

Best regards,

Bob