Tetenal's Innovation for the future

[AgX]

We discussed in other threads "old" Tetenal's role as toll-manufacturer for film manufacturers. But there it was also pointed out that with the threat of a collaps, that finally took place, these clients had been looking for alternatives, including own manufacturing. And we should not overlook that Tetenal is not the only player in the field of toll-blending and -packaging, not even in the photographic field. Their special competence in the past were custom solutions beyond just blending chemicals, as refill cartridges for minilabs. But this market is going down. There was a reason old Tetenal had added products for non-photographic markets to their production portfolio.

 

[4season]

I like it, but does anyone else think of candies when they see white tablets like that, Certs or Wilhelmina mints for instance?

 

[grat]

We discussed in other threads "old" Tetenal's role as toll-manufacturer for film manufacturers. But there it was also pointed out that with the threat of a collaps, that finally took place, these clients had been looking for alternatives, including own manufacturing.

Did any of them find any? The recent C41 shortage suggests the answer was "no"-- and I know the pandemic was widely blamed, but the shortages were starting to be seen before we all went home for the spring. Who's making CD4 in Europe these days?

And we should not overlook that Tetenal is not the only player in the field of toll-blending and -packaging, not even in the photographic field. Their special competence in the past were custom solutions beyond just blending chemicals, as refill cartridges for minilabs. But this market is going down. There was a reason old Tetenal had added products for non-photographic markets to their production portfolio.

Yes-- and by all accounts, those non-photographic markets were the cause of the bankruptcy.

 

[AgX]

Did any of them find any? The recent C41 shortage suggests the answer was "no"-- and I know the pandemic was widely blamed, but the shortages were starting to be seen before we all went home for the spring. Who's making CD4 in Europe these days?

You mix up things.
We are speaking here basically of firms blending chemicals to mixtures, not synthesizing chemicals.

Yes-- and by all accounts, those non-photographic markets were the cause of the bankruptcy.

Where do you base this information on? All major firms in the photochemical field are meanwhile active in non-photographic fields too. From cosmetics and drugs to IT.

What would have been your proposal? Let the machinery stand idle and fire the employees? The result then would be the same as now. Hardly anone still working at Tetenal.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

On Tetenal's site they announce the future : The developer chemicals in tablet form.

An effervescent tablet form of E6 and C41 developer chemicals would have many advantages. First of all, a tablet has an almost unlimited shelf life and requires extremely little storage space.

For home users with small darkrooms, this would alleviate storage space problems and eliminate wasted liquid chemicals that had "gone badly" between the development of one batch of films and the next. Most photographers now order online instead of trotting into their local store, and tablets have the advantage that they can ship much more cost-effectively.

For fans of mobile lab development boxes, what better way to bring your developer! Simply add water on site, no measurement of various components or worry about leaks along the way. In terms of environmental policy, the tablets would also be more responsible, as they reduce both the ship's space/weight and waste chemicals.

What do you think about it ?

I believe, we had these before.

 

[halfaman]

then Tetenal is pretty much a keystone for our entire hobby, and we should all be encouraged by any new product announcements.

No discouragement from my side, just poiting out that this could be a new product from catalog view but not an innovation. There is nothing wrong with it, after more than 100 years this is a mature market where genuine innovation is not neccesary and also very difficult to happen.

 

[Donald Qualls]

You seem to have been intent on discrediting this announcement by any means possible since it was posted-- this is the first "new" product announcement by a group that's trying to put the remains of the old Tetenal company back into profitable status.

I think you've misread my comments, if you believe that's my attitude. I've said this isn't something I'd use, because, like monobaths, one-shot, one-roll processing products are aimed at a different market from those with a permanent darkroom setup. These tablets would require a little more infrastructure than monobath -- at a minimum, extra graduates to dissolve the tablets in measured water, compared to a single one for a monobath (and no, I don't believe monobath, even one-shot, is practical for C-41, never mind E-6). There would be advantages for the "no space" home processor compared to monobath, however -- always fresh chemistry, mainly -- and with one-shot chemicals, at least in most of the USA, a small volume user can safely and legally dispose of the used chemistry in the regular gray water stream.

Where I see a potential disadvantage in tablets as opposed to single-use packets of powder or pouches/sachets of liquid is that additional materials have to be added to hold a tablet together and make it durable enough for handling and shipping -- even in a tube, medicinal tablets get a good bit of powder in the tubes because the tablet can't be tight enough not to rattle some, or you'll never get it out of the tube. These additional materials have generally been starches and waxes, and would require careful selection to prevent interference with the process (or more likely a tablet developer or monobath would be tested and characterized after the tableting is included in the formula).

Years ago, when press photography was all on film, monobaths were sold in single-use form for on-the-road processing -- even in a hotel bathroom. That would be a real market for photo chemicals in tablet form. "Dissolve tablet completely in 275 ml of water at room temperature, and process up to four rolls of film within 24 hours, then discard solution" or something to that effect. Film photographers on vacation could bring their film back in a form impervious to airline X-rays -- potentially even C-41 film, which, after processing in B&W, could later be bleached and redeveloped in a normal C-41 regimen to produce normal(ish) color negatives.

 

[grat]

I think you've misread my comments, if you believe that's my attitude.

My apologies-- my comment was directed at AgX, and your post slipped into the thread while I was writing mine. Personally, I'm low volume, and don't have a darkroom (and probably won't any time soon), so the idea of an easily stored, easily mixed C41 developer (in particular), appeals to me strongly, and I was dumbfounded by the hostility expressed in AgX's posts to something that at worst, wouldn't benefit him, but would benefit a number of amateur photographers.

Realizing I come to this fairly late, the articles I've read suggest that Tetenal has been a major provider of "small batch" chemicals, and may in fact, be the only company that's done the work to produce certain compounds such as CD4 in Europe-- which doesn't affect me directly, but it points to the fact that this is an established brand who is a major player, and right now, film photography needs all the players it can get.

Certainly, something disrupted the supply chain of chemicals starting in early spring, and a number of people who ought to know better suggested it was Tetenal's difficulties. I don't know enough to know if that's the case, but the article I linked certainly seemed to think Tetenal was an entity that should be saved, and it would be far from the first time an employee-led buyout led to a turnaround in a company's fortunes.

 

[grat]

No discouragement from my side, just poiting out that this could be a new product from catalog view but not an innovation. There is nothing wrong with it, after more than 100 years this is a mature market where genuine innovation is not neccesary and also very difficult to happen.

What a regressive, depressive, attitude. Innovation should always be encouraged-- and even if revolution isn't reasonable, that's no reason to dismiss evolution. We have technology undreamed of 50 years ago, let alone 100, so why not improve existing products?

 

[AgX]

Where I see a potential disadvantage in tablets as opposed to single-use packets of powder or pouches/sachets of liquid is that additional materials have to be added to hold a tablet together and make it durable enough for handling and shipping.

Depending on the formula not necessarily. Anyway, binders for photochemical tablets would be chosen from the range of starch derivates. Whether further additives are necessary depends on the fomula, the binder and as you hinted at, the way the tablet is handled. Basically I do not see a problem with additives. More so as addidives are found already in the sensitive materials and the classic preperations of chemicals.

 

[AgX]

I was dumbfounded by the hostility expressed in AgX's posts to something that at worst, wouldn't benefit him, but would benefit a number of amateur photographers.

Please (if that introductory wording is not already inappropriate to your mind) show me were in this thread I expressed hostility. And to whom.

 

[grat]

Please (if that introductory wording is not already inappropriate to your mind) show me were in this thread I expressed hostility. And to whom.

Please is unnecessary, but appreciated-- I'm usually fairly civil, yesterday was a bit of an exception. Perhaps "hostility" was a poor choice. Would you prefer dismissive? Derisive? And for the record, it seemed to be aimed at anything positive regarding Tetenal and their announcement of tablet forms of developing chemicals, rather than any specific individuals.

 

[AgX]

"Dismissive" should be the right term. Dismissive on their calling their decennia old tablets an innovation. On this point I am not alone in this thread.

That their tablets would be interesting for newbies I explicetely hinted at, you seem to have overlooked that.

Calling a nonsense official technical statement by Tetenal and same statement by one of their affiliates here in a former thread nonsense, I feel justified in a technical discussion. I reasoned my dismissal in detail. You seem not to have read that respective thread. Furthermore my stand was affirmed by engineering fellows out of the photochemical industry.

Concerning Tetenal as firm, I predicted their collaps as likely when a self-acclaimed industry expert here at Apug called the insolvency and its deep effects just a formality and foresaw instead Tetenal arising stronger. My concern rather was with the employees. A concern sad enough not shared here at all, as the availability of stuff seemed to be what it was all about.

For concerning the industry taking precautions for the collaps of Tetenal you can find a example even here at Apug in a detailed posting by the CEO of such firm.
,
I started my photographic career so to say with my very first developing with products from Tetenal in the 70's and up to today I hardly ever used other makes for b&w processing.
I still have their publications from those days. I even got a product I could not find in any of their catalogs I got.
I do not know any other major manufacturer that offered a similar guidance. One only had to call them and could have an even long talk with their consultant.
You seem to have overlooked my respective statement above too. Calling someone with this background and stand hostile to Tetenal is absurd.

Concerning what I called blah-blah, everyone who experienced late Tetenal as I just described, and who looked at the new Tetenal website over the last months has seen a complete contrary appearance. Mood is dominant, no longer products. One does not even learn what all they produce for the consumer. The appraisal of this change though may vary at Apug or elsewhere.

 

[halfaman]

What a regressive, depressive, attitude. Innovation should always be encouraged-- and even if revolution isn't reasonable, that's no reason to dismiss evolution. We have technology undreamed of 50 years ago, let alone 100, so why not improve existing products?

First, take a deeeeep breath and relax. On my side, I am going to ignore the first words of your answer...

It is not about reasonability or convenience, there is no money anywhere in film industry for proper research. Not now, not yesterday, but since many years (20 at least). They have enough surviving in the digital era of photography. But we are also very lucky, the products and processes are so mature after a journey of over a century that innovation is not mandatory. We live nowdays with what we got until late 1990's and it is fairly acceptable in perspective of how dramatically was the film photography fall. Could be better but it could be also worse, much worse.

All new products we see today are normally things from the past reintroduced again, sometimes by new companies (even with old names) trying to find their place in this small market. Is that a bad thing? Absolutely not, it is on the contrary a sign of good health of the market that we should encourage. But call it "inniative", not "innovation" or "evolution".

I hope that my point is now more clear.

 

[grat]

First, take a deeeeep breath and relax. On my side, I am going to ignore the first words of your answer...

I am relaxed-- don't be presumptuous. It's just that you're demonstrating why, in my humble opinion, society has been going straight down the drain for years-- In the early 90's, keyboards were loud, heavy, and reliable. Now we have cheap, disposable keyboards that are terrible to type on. Music has gone from "audiophile" quality being the thing, to heavily compressed, lossy digital files that have the bass pumped up to ridiculous levels (see "loudness wars"). Sedans and compacts are more fun to drive, and more fuel efficient, but they "aren't where the money is", so everyone (especially in the USA) drives SUV's.

It is not about reasonability or convenience, there is no money anywhere in film industry for proper research. Not now, not yesterday, but since many years (20 at least). They have enough surviving in the digital era of photography. But we are also very lucky, the products and processes are so mature after a journey of over a century that innovation is not mandatory. We live nowdays with what we got until late 1990's and it is fairly acceptable in perspective of how dramatically was the film photography fall. Could be better but it could be also worse, much worse.

If there's a market, there's money to be made. The problem is, the CEO's who are going to get golden parachutes whether their company lives or dies, and are only rewarded for instant profit. This is why the pharmaceutical market is relatively stagnant-- the next antacid is big money, but nobody cares about new antibiotics-- or antivirals, until a global pandemic hits-- "because there's no money in it".

All new products we see today are normally things from the past reintroduced again, sometimes by new companies (even with old names) trying to find their place in this small market. Is that a bad thing? Absolutely not, it is on the contrary a sign of good health of the market that we should encourage. But call it "inniative", not "innovation" or "evolution".

I hope that my point is now more clear.

Well, you had to make up a word to make your point, so it's kind of suspect-- but my attitude is that innovation is the only thing that's going to keep film viable. No one's making shutters any longer, and I think Rodenstock is the only large-format lens manufacturer still around. Medium format lenses have gone the way of medium format (either gone, or insanely expensive), and in the case of this thread, most developing processes (especially for color) are based on large scale-- and that scale simply doesn't exist any longer. The article I referenced mentions that apparently Kodak owns two shuttered plants-- but they're designed for such large volumes that the only way to operate them profitably is to completely tear them down and start over. Tetenal, in theory, has a history of working with thousands of units, rather than millions, and hopefully, will be better positioned to profit in the new order.

Take Kodachrome-- Expensive to make, expensive to develop, and as I understand it, involves a number of highly toxic chemicals. If someone came up with a process for manufacturing a film that looked close enough to Kodachrome, and announced it tomorrow, it would be global headline news. Fuji and Kodak have both reintroduced films that were previously discontinued, and in both cases, that was only possible by improving the existing technology.

Since the 1990's, we have made gains in pretty much every aspect of manufacturing-- saying those improvements shouldn't be applied not just to update existing products, but to reimagine past, or existing products, is just silly.

 

[fs999]

Sedans and compacts are more fun to drive, and more fuel efficient, but they "aren't where the money is", so everyone (especially in the USA) drives SUV's.

So true !

Well, you had to make up a word to make your point, so it's kind of suspect-- but my attitude is that innovation is the only thing that's going to keep film viable. No one's making shutters any longer, and I think Rodenstock is the only large-format lens manufacturer still around. Medium format lenses have gone the way of medium format (either gone, or insanely expensive), and in the case of this thread, most developing processes (especially for color) are based on large scale-- and that scale simply doesn't exist any longer. The article I referenced mentions that apparently Kodak owns two shuttered plants-- but they're designed for such large volumes that the only way to operate them profitably is to completely tear them down and start over. Tetenal, in theory, has a history of working with thousands of units, rather than millions, and hopefully, will be better positioned to profit in the new order.

Take Kodachrome-- Expensive to make, expensive to develop, and as I understand it, involves a number of highly toxic chemicals. If someone came up with a process for manufacturing a film that looked close enough to Kodachrome, and announced it tomorrow, it would be global headline news. Fuji and Kodak have both reintroduced films that were previously discontinued, and in both cases, that was only possible by improving the existing technology.

Since the 1990's, we have made gains in pretty much every aspect of manufacturing-- saying those improvements shouldn't be applied not just to update existing products, but to reimagine past, or existing products, is just silly.

I totally agree with you !

 

[Team ADOX]

Their special competence in the past were custom solutions beyond just blending chemicals, as refill cartridges for minilabs. But this market is going down. There was a reason old Tetenal had added products for non-photographic markets to their production portfolio.

The facts are that
- the demand for photo chemistry is increasing
- the not film related products (like Inkjet) caused the insolvency of Tetenal, not their traditional film/photo chemistry business.
That is also the reason why they have continued their business after the insolvency with a strong focus on traditional photo chemistry only.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.

 

[Team ADOX]

Concerning Tetenal as firm, I predicted their collaps as likely when a self-acclaimed industry expert here at Apug called the insolvency and its deep effects just a formality and foresaw instead Tetenal arising stronger.

Wrong: It was neither a "self-acclaimed" industry expert, but a real one with excellent reputation in the industry and lots of inside knowledge because of his work in that industry, nor was it that he called the effects a formality. He just explained at that time that there is a realistic chance for Tetenal to overcome the hurdles of the insolvency and continue production of photo chemistry production.
And he was right. In contrast to you, who had already kind of "buried" Tetenal at that time.
That the new start is difficult for Tetenal and a slow step-by-step process has never been a question for us in the industry cooperating with Tetenal. We do our best to support them.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.

 

[Team ADOX]

It is not about reasonability or convenience, there is no money anywhere in film industry for proper research. Not now, not yesterday, but since many years (20 at least).

That is fortunately completely wrong: There has been lots of research and new products in the film photo industry in the last twenty years:
- Kodak and Fuji have introduced (in total) more than 10 completely new film emulsions, and also several completely new RA-4 type photo papers in the last 20 years, some of them just lately
- Ilford has introduced Kentmere 100 and 400 as new products, and also several new photo papers during that time frame
- Foma has introduced new products
- ADOX has also introduced several new film and photo chemistry products, and quite a lot of R&D was necessary for these products as well.

All new products we see today are normally things from the past reintroduced again,

That is fortunately also wrong: The new products mentioned above have all been new, and were not 'only' reintroduced former products.
Just some examples from our company:
- our Speed-Boost technology is new, has never been used in the market before
- our innovative CAPTURA dust-binding technology is completely new
- the chemistry for our new, soon-to-come ADOX SCALA BW reversal kit is completely new using a totally new, much more environmentally and user friendly approach
- our long R&D work on Polywarmtone has the aim to come as close to original Polywarmtone as possible, and even surpass it in some parameters; to get there a complete new reformulation with different raw materials has been necessary (as lots of former raw materials are not available anymore)
- new bottles with much better oxygen diffusion protection.
And of course several improvements on existing products.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.

 

[Team ADOX]

No one's making shutters any longer,

Fortunately not true: Millions of shutters are produced every year. And shutters can be used for digital and film cameras in the same way.

......and in the case of this thread, most developing processes (especially for color) are based on large scale-- and that scale simply doesn't exist any longer.

Concerning the market for color chemistry (fim processing):
Color film is by far the biggest photo film segment, being much bigger than BW. BW is a small niche compared to color.
Color film demand is also increasing at a higher rate compared to BW film. The same is true for color film chemistry. We also see a new strong trend for developing color film at home. More and more film photographers are realizing that it is quite easy and very cost effective to do it at home by themselves.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.

 

[halfaman]

That is fortunately completely wrong: There has been lots of research and new products in the film photo industry in the last twenty years:
- Kodak and Fuji have introduced (in total) more than 10 completely new film emulsions, and also several completely new RA-4 type photo papers in the last 20 years, some of them just lately
- Ilford has introduced Kentmere 100 and 400 as new products, and also several new photo papers during that time frame
- Foma has introduced new products
- ADOX has also introduced several new film and photo chemistry products, and quite a lot of R&D was necessary for these products as well.



That is fortunately also wrong: The new products mentioned above have all been new, and were not 'only' reintroduced former products.
Just some examples from our company:
- our Speed-Boost technology is new, has never been used in the market before
- our innovative CAPTURA dust-binding technology is completely new
- the chemistry for our new, soon-to-come ADOX SCALA BW reversal kit is completely new using a totally new, much more environmentally and user friendly approach
- our long R&D work on Polywarmtone has the aim to come as close to original Polywarmtone as possible, and even surpass it in some parameters; to get there a complete new reformulation with different raw materials has been necessary (as lots of former raw materials are not available anymore)
- new bottles with much better oxygen diffusion protection.
And of course several improvements on existing products.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.

Now the big brother is coming...

Ok, even I have some comments about what "completely new" means (Is Fuji 160 NS completely new compared to 160 NPS? Does a new base make a completely new paper?), I am not going to continue this discussion because it is getting a negative connotation that I didn't intend.

All current manufacturers have my deepest respect for continuing with us in this film journey regardless of any "innovation" topic and I hope you will go all on for many more years.

 

[Team ADOX]

Ok, even I have some comments about what "completely new" means (Is Fuji 160 NS completely new compared to 160 NPS? Does a new base make a completely new paper?),

Let's have a look at the really new film emulsions (which needed lots of R&D) in the last 20 years:
Kodak:
- Ektachrome E100G and 100GX
- Portra second generation (160 NC / VC, 400 NC / VC, 800)
- TMY-2
- Ektar 100
- Portra third generation (160 and 400)
- Ektachrome E100

Fujifilm:
- Velvia 100F
- Astia 100F
- Sensia III
- Velvia 100
- Provia 400X
- Velvia 50 (RVP 50) (new raw materials needed)
- instax BW
- Acros II.

And both Kodak and especially Fujifilm designed several new emulsions for their RA-4 paper line. E.g. Fujifilm special papers for photo books, and just recently (Photokina 2018) the new 'Maxima' paper as highest quality paper for exhibitions and archives, with long term stability of more than 100 years. Some years ago Fujifilm has made an official statement that they are increasing their R&D efforts in that market segment. In the years after that new papers have been introduced.

Ilford:
- Kentmere 100 and 400
- Direct Positive Paper
- Multigrade FB Classic
- Multigrade RC V

Foma:
- Fomapan 320 Soft
- Foma Retrobrom

The Impossible Project / Polaroid:
- several new, improved versions of their films
- new i-type film
- two new i-type cameras.

InovisCoat:
- three new film emulsions as OEM manufacturer for branding companies.

And concerning ADOX please see the posting above.
This list is certainly not fully complete, but as you can easily see, quite a lot of really new emulsions / products had been introduced in the last two decades. And we expect more to come in the next years.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.

 

[grat]

Fortunately not true: Millions of shutters are produced every year. And shutters can be used for digital and film cameras in the same way.

I'm specifically referring to shutters for large/medium format cameras. While it's certainly true that the same technology could be adapted to medium / large-format lenses, to my knowledge, no one is doing it.

 

[halfaman]

Let's have a look at the really new film emulsions (which needed lots of R&D) in the last 20 years:
Kodak:
- Ektachrome E100G and 100GX
- Portra second generation (160 NC / VC, 400 NC / VC, 800)
- TMY-2
- Ektar 100
- Portra third generation (160 and 400)
- Ektachrome E100

Fujifilm:
- Velvia 100F
- Astia 100F
- Sensia III
- Velvia 100
- Provia 400X
- Velvia 50 (RVP 50) (new raw materials needed)
- instax BW
- Acros II.

And both Kodak and especially Fujifilm designed several new emulsions for their RA-4 paper line. E.g. Fujifilm special papers for photo books, and just recently (Photokina 2018) the new 'Maxima' paper as highest quality paper for exhibitions and archives, with long term stability of more than 100 years. Some years ago Fujifilm has made an official statement that they are increasing their R&D efforts in that market segment. In the years after that new papers have been introduced.

Ilford:
- Kentmere 100 and 400
- Direct Positive Paper
- Multigrade FB Classic
- Multigrade RC V

Foma:
- Fomapan 320 Soft
- Foma Retrobrom

The Impossible Project / Polaroid:
- several new, improved versions of their films
- new i-type film
- two new i-type cameras.

InovisCoat:
- three new film emulsions as OEM manufacturer for branding companies.

And concerning ADOX please see the posting above.
This list is certainly not fully complete, but as you can easily see, quite a lot of really new emulsions / products had been introduced in the last two decades. And we expect more to come in the next years.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.

I surrender. Consider my butt kicked...

 

[MattKing]

I surrender. Consider my butt kicked...

But isn't it great when you lose the battle, but the result is actually good news?