The Future of Colour and B&W Film with Ilford...

[dcy]

It's not. The younger generation shoots film, then scans film, or has it scanned. They don't need paper. You can't post paper on Instagram.

Sad world....

I have no particular insight into what the younger generation is doing or thinking, but I suspect that most people on this thread don't know either. I don't use Instagram, but I'm GenX, so I guess that's not a useful data point. But my 100% biased gut feeling is that even people who use Instagram all the time would still enjoy and prefer physical photos that they can touch and even hang on the wall.

I live very far from my family. Almost 100% of the photos I share with them are digital photos taken on my phone and shared on our family chat on WhatsApp. It's not because I'm too young to appreciate physical prints. It's because physical prints are comparatively hard to make and even harder to share. What I'm saying is... I don't think WhatsApp is causing me to print a lot less than I otherwise would.

 

[dcy]

I tend to agree more with @koraks here. The overwhelming majority of folks I know who shoot film only end up with scans. Hell, I have a darkroom and even I only print a tiny fraction of the stuff I shoot.

Optical printing takes effort.

I enjoy the process of darkroom printing infinitely more than fiddling with curves on a computer. I also enjoy the resulting prints much more than the 4x6 prints that I get from my photo printer. But at the end of the day, the darkroom process takes time and effort. I could spend 10 h in the darkroom and I'd produce fewer prints than I'd produce in 1 hour of digital fiddling and then hitting "print".

In general, out of each roll of B&W film, I get 72 half-frame shots. Of those, I make around 8 digital prints, and 2 darkroom prints. For color film, I only make the 8 digital prints because I don't have the equipment or know-how to print RA4.

It's just effort and access. Not lack of preference for physical paper, or optical prints.

 

[Todd Niccole]

IR film has always been a niche within a niche. Back when it was plentiful, and you could get it for $15 a roll, no one shot it. People didn’t used to like the look. The only reason that people like the look now is because some folks with super big followings shot some of it, and decided that they really liked it, so everyone else decided to jump on the bandwagon. Yes, the film is very expensive now, but that’s only because there’s so little of it left and the people that want to shoot it are hoarding it. When Kodak and Konica stopped making IR film, that was the death of IR film. it’s not coming back. As much as I hate to be that guy, it’s just the truth. The die sensitizers go for hundreds per milligram now because no one uses them on a large scale. That stopped with the film. And to make a new emulsion? You’re going to need at least tens, possibly hundreds of grams of it for R&D. If you ordered 100 g of it would the price go down? Sure, but you’re still going to be paying a whole lot for something that might not even pan out, and even if it does, it’s not going to have mass market appeal.

Thanks for the explanation. Come to think of it, military and other scientific use of IR film is probably what allowed it to be made available to the consumer market.

 

[BMbikerider]

The only gap I can think of in Ilford's B&W is a technical film, but that's niche and currently covered by Adox.

There is no replacement or an equal for a technical film with the demise of Kodak Technical Pan. I used it but only in small quantities for a few reasons The speed (iso) was low. It was difficult to handle in high contrast light situations, and the fine grain made it very very difficult to use a grain magnifier and it was a risk you did not always manage it. But when it all came together there was nothing to equal it before or since

 

[albireo]

Is there still a certain amount of R&D going into Ilford's established product line?

If I understand correctly HP5+ is the + revision of the fifth iteration of the HP product. I have never used HP3 or HP4, were they much different? Is Ilford actively working on the formula so that there'll be an "Hp6" at some point?

Similarly how about an FP5 or a Delta 400 II?

Not saying I see a need for a revision for these fine products, just curious to know if they'll keep evolving.

 

[koraks]

Is there still a certain amount of R&S going into Ilford' s established product line?

If you listen to what's said in the interview, it becomes clear that there's no real product development going on in that area. There's R&D occurring to replace materials that become unavailable and to bring down cost. So they evolve, yes, but not in a meaningful functional way.

I think most people that appreciate the beauty of analog sooner or later have an interest in darkroom prints.

It's not a viable business plan for a firm like Harman to await the much-hoped/anticipated Second Coming. We can philosophize all we want about the 'true nature' of things, but fact of the matter is that silver gel printing is a small niche, the product is relatively expensive to make and the remaining few manufacturers seem to have been running at rock bottom margins for several decades now. There's no plausible reason that's going to drive the hordes back into dimly lit caves to breathe wafts of acetic acid.

 

[albireo]

If you listen to what's said in the interview, it becomes clear that there's no real product development going on in that area. There's R&D occurring to replace materials that become unavailable and to bring down cost. So they evolve, yes, but not in a meaningful functional way.

Woops! I missed the first post and the interview! Thanks.

 

[Lachlan Young]

there's no real product development going on in that area.

That's a questionable reading. On pretty much all of their products, there isn't (and hasn't been) major ongoing R&D outwith keeping them manufacturable once a particular product development cycle has been completed.

To take an example, once MGIVRC went into production in the early 1990s, there weren't any significant outward revisions until MGVRC (MGV's R&D cycle length was disclosed somewhere by the leader of the project, but the key information is that it had kicked off a few years before MGV's launch, not straight after the launch of MGIV).

From recall, Harman's R&D is a big percentage of the company's staffing, but in absolute terms a relatively small number of personnel - and if shifting the focus of product research to Phoenix for a few years yields a good product ahead of schedule, then it'll pay off for them. And the knowledge acquired will likely enable innovation/ spin-offs into B&W products (as I suspect Kentmere 200 is).

 

[koraks]

That's a questionable reading.

So what are the counter-examples? The ones you gave pretty much prove my point - product life cycles that span 30+ years and when a new version is introduced, it's such a marginal change that most won't even notice it.

Also, I wonder if the people critical of my interpretation actually listen to what the guy says, how he says it, and also to what he doesn't say in the video.
Here's a bit starting around 12:00 starting with a question that I paraphrased, but the (montaged) answer is more or less literal transcription:

Q: What is to be expected on the B&W side and specifically LF

A: In terms of new B&W products we have just launched Kentmere 200, so Kentmere is our I say more affordable value range.
They're made through the same high-quality process as any Ilford film is made. And I think that's probably the best value films out there on the market.

In terms of B&W films in general, we now havel 12. Three Kentmere, 9 Ilford. So we conver most of the differen characteristics you can get from black and white film.
And sheet film we've got four different sheet films. So that is something we have looked at, to see if we can start introducing some of our other emulsions as sheet film.
We get asked all the time for PanF+. We've been asked for SFX, Delta3200. So all of these other films people want. We just need to see if we can do it in a cost-effective way.
We don't want to bring products to market that price people out of being able to afford it. So we have to do it in a way that we can do it cost effectively, essentially. It's always a challenge to do that where it's potentially more niche than something else.

Black and white is something that's still very important to us. But a lot of our R&D is going into color.

What he basically says is that the amount of R&D going into B&W is really small. This is in a relative sense to their own R&D effort, and as noted above, the absolute R&D investment of Harman is small to begin with, so we're looking at really, really small investments in B&W. Much of the answer is about bringing existing emulsions into sheet film format (to answer the question asked by the interviewer) and besides the recent introduction of K200, no actual development of brand new products is mentioned, hinted at, promised, foreseen etc. When the answer starts to go in the direction of B&W R&D in general, it basically cust short in the observation that they're really focusing on color.

I don't see how anyone could read into this that there's something major happening in the B&W domain. There isn't. It's mature, it covers all the bases and other than keeping it alive, there's really no impetus to change much about it.
And the talk is all about film, for the obvious fact that this is the cash cow, and not paper for bleedingly obvious reasons that take no rocket scientist to figure out. Insofar paper is relevant, it's firmly the inkjet side of things. IDK how many of you follow Harman on e.g. LinkedIn; if you do, you'll notice that their updates are 95% about inkjet papers and 5% about Phoenix. This reflects where the revenue potential is. They're not going to waste time talking about stuff people don't buy.

 

[Vetus]

Ilford Harman will continue making film and paper until it is not making a profit, if you want to see their products on the shelves buy Ilford. The company also has other business in medicinal uses of silver . I for one would hate to see Ilford go bust.

 

[dcy]

So what are the counter-examples? The ones you gave pretty much prove my point

I don't agree --- or perhaps your thinking didn't come across correctly to me, but what you said sounded like B&W was stagnant, not cyclical.

- product life cycles that span 30+ years and when a new version is introduced, it's such a marginal change that most won't even notice it.

What noticeable non-marginal change would you like to see in MGVIRC compared to MGVRC?

For what it's worth, I agree with @Lachlan Young. MGVRC came out in 2019. To me, that seems quite recent for something like photographic paper. If I was in charge of Harman, I would invest all my R&D resources on color, where there is so much more room for R&D to lead to significant improvement quickly, instead of chasing diminishing returns on 20 other products where Harman is already a market leader, covering just about every niche.

What he basically says is that the amount of R&D going into B&W is really small... When the answer starts to go in the direction of B&W R&D in general, it basically cust short in the observation that they're really focusing on color.

I don't see how anyone could read into this that there's something major happening in the B&W domain. There isn't. It's mature, it covers all the bases and other than keeping it alive, there's really no impetus to change much about it.

None of this contradicts what @Lachlan Young said. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. You agree that B&W at Harman is mature, but it also sounds like you wish Harman was spending more R&D on it. I'm confused. What exactly do you wish Harman would do with its R&D budget? If you think that Harman is using its R&D funds correctly, then I guess we all agree and I'm not sure what we're arguing about.

 

[koraks]

I have no personal norm or expectation w.r.t. Harman's R&D. There's one single Harman product I presently use (occasionally) and it takes little to no R&D to keep that up on its feet. My interest, which hence is quite minimal, is more of an academic one. This involves a certain degree of puzzlement at how some others read or interpret signs that I think are pretty clear and sometimes even literally stated.

As to Lachlan's post - note that he qualified my interpretation as 'questionable'. I asked what the questions are that could be asked of it. He indeed seemed to say nothing that went counter to my interpretation, so I found his qualification puzzling. It reminds me a bit of Walter Sobchak's "am I wrong" routine.

 

[thinkbrown]

So there's some factual information to be had about Harman's situation based on public reports: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/05227615/filing-history

The general trend is that film sales have been increasing year over year. Sales held steady from 2019-2020 and have gained 63% as of Dec 2023 (last available report).

On the flip side, their paper products saw a 47% reduction in sales from 2019-2020 and have only just recovered to 2019 numbers by the end of 2023. Going back to the 2018 report, it was noted that paper sales had increased for the first time in the company's history by 4%, but this was followed by an 8% reduction in sales the following year.

These reports don't provide hard numbers as to how much paper Harman is able to sell but they make it abundantly clear that it isn't and has never in this history of Harman been a market they could grow.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

So there's some factual information to be had about Harman's situation based on public reports: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/05227615/filing-history

The general trend is that film sales have been increasing year over year. Sales held steady from 2019-2020 and have gained 63% as of Dec 2023 (last available report).

On the flip side, their paper products saw a 47% reduction in sales from 2019-2020 and have only just recovered to 2019 numbers by the end of 2023. Going back to the 2018 report, it was noted that paper sales had increased for the first time in the company's history by 4%, but this was followed by an 8% reduction in sales the following year.

These reports don't provide hard numbers as to how much paper Harman is able to sell but they make it abundantly clear that it isn't and has never in this history of Harman been a market they could grow.

This all makes sense.

I'm all for romanticizing the darkroom experience — I usually talk about it as a near spiritual experience —, fact is that photography is about making images, not making prints. And the way these images are shared— that's the point, isn't it? — is mostly through digital means, i.e., the phone or the computer, and partly, if not marginally, through photo books.

There will always be photographic paper because there will always be a need for photographic paper: museum and galleries who mount exhibitions, high-end photographers who still work with film, amateurs like us who enjoy the experience and have the time and means to make it happen once in a while. And while we'd all like more choices, the choices that are there are sufficient, in quantity and in quality, to fill the need.

 

[Todd Niccole]

Is there still a certain amount of R&D going into Ilford's established product line?

If I understand correctly HP5+ is the + revision of the fifth iteration of the HP product. I have never used HP3 or HP4, were they much different? Is Ilford actively working on the formula so that there'll be an "Hp6" at some point?

Similarly how about an FP5 or a Delta 400 II?

Not saying I see a need for a revision for these fine products, just curious to know if they'll keep evolving.

If Ilford could update any of their films it's their Delta series particularly Delta 400. It's a joke. Tabular crystal emulsion but it's way grainier than HP5 which is a particular favorite of mine. What's the point?

 

[Lachlan Young]

If Ilford could update any of their films it's their Delta series particularly Delta 400. It's a joke. Tabular crystal emulsion but it's way grainier than HP5 which is a particular favorite of mine. What's the point?

If you're getting it to be significantly grainier than HP5, you're overexposing it (and possibly processing it wrongly too). Delta technology has a narrower latitude of misuse (for optimal grain/ sharpness) than the older emulsions. It will handle the overexposure just fine (in terms of highlight density control), but overexposure will enhance the release of components that increase sharpness (and control highlight density), hence making grain much more visible. It is very easy to resolve with basic process control.

 

[Todd Niccole]

If you're getting it to be significantly grainier than HP5, you're overexposing it (and possibly processing it wrongly too). Delta technology has a narrower latitude of misuse (for optimal grain/ sharpness) than the older emulsions. It will handle the overexposure just fine (in terms of highlight density control), but overexposure will enhance the release of components that increase sharpness (and control highlight density), hence making grain much more visible. It is very easy to resolve with basic process control.

I never had this problem with Tmax. Both Delta 100 and 400 are too inherently grainy.

 

[Agulliver]

It's not. The younger generation shoots film, then scans film, or has it scanned. They don't need paper. You can't post paper on Instagram.

The nice lady from Harman who gave so much of her time for a podcast in June mentioned that darkroom printing was on the rise.

However, I would agree with those who say that the majority of people using B&W film have it scanned the majority of the time....or scan themselves. The biggest barrier to darkroom printing right now is space. Who in Gen Z and the Millennials has the space for an enlarger etc? And of course there are fewer communal darkrooms around.

 

[Agulliver]

If Ilford could update any of their films it's their Delta series particularly Delta 400. It's a joke. Tabular crystal emulsion but it's way grainier than HP5 which is a particular favorite of mine. What's the point?

It sounds like you're over-exposing your Delta 400. It tends to go very grainy when over-exposed. The film is absolutely not inherently more grainy than HP5.

 

[skahde]

If Ilford could update any of their films it's their Delta series particularly Delta 400. It's a joke.

In such situation I would ask myself what's wrong with my process, not question the material.

 

[thinkbrown]

The biggest barrier to darkroom printing right now is space. Who in Gen Z and the Millennials has the space for an enlarger etc? And of course there are fewer communal darkrooms around.

I have a little darkroom setup in my basement and I'm right on the border of millennial/Gen Z. The bigger limiting factor is time. It takes a lot of time to get setup, start making test strips, and make a print. Scanning by comparison is quick and doesn't have the same setup/cleanup cost associated with it.

 

[Ian Grant]

I first visited the Mobberley factory a few times, a little over 40 years ago. Later I went on a factory tour in 2007, on that trip I was surprised to see the coating line controlled by a DOS program on an early IBM 286 PC. I had worked in the control room of a sugar beet factory 1999/2000, so was used to state-of-the-art Windows software, actually written in-house, which controlled all aspects of production

What was very noticeable in the video in this thread is how significantly Harman/Ilford have invested into upgrading their plant and machinery, since my 2007 factory tour.

Ian

 

[Lachlan Young]

I never had this problem with Tmax. Both Delta 100 and 400 are too inherently grainy.

Different internal structures that respond to overexposure in different ways - and generally speaking, Ilford's effective shadow speeds are a bit higher than Kodak. The difference is that you can get printable negs from Delta that would have been rendered much harder to print by some versions/ uses of Tmax. I've worked a lot with all the current versions of the emulsions in question, and the differences (if you expose them right) are much smaller than you are claiming. @skahde is spot on.

 

[Ian Grant]

If Ilford could update any of their films it's their Delta series particularly Delta 400. It's a joke. Tabular crystal emulsion but it's way grainier than HP5 which is a particular favorite of mine. What's the point?

Different internal structures that respond to overexposure in different ways - and generally speaking, Ilford's effective shadow speeds are a bit higher than Kodak. The difference is that you can get printable negs from Delta that would have been rendered much harder to print by some versions/ uses of Tmax. I've worked a lot with all the current versions of the emulsions in question, and the differences (if you expose them right) are much smaller than you are claiming. @skahde is spot on.

I used Tmax 100 & 400 from their UK release, with excellent results, but when I moved to Turkey in 2006 Kodak B&W films were very difficult to find, so I witched to Ilford and Foma as a back-up. I use HP5 for hand held 5x4 the images are great, very sharp, no grain, But with 120 I far prefer Delta 400 if I need a fast film, because the grain is so much finer.

There is a lot unsaid about film & developer combinations, some sing, others suck. I guess it was 1987/8 when I bought a Leice M3 & 50mm Summicron, made some images on my way home from Sheffield in the UK Peak District (Stanton Moor) on Agfapan 100, processed in Rodinal 3:100. I was blown away at the image quality, extremely fine grain and sharpness. At the time I was in a Camera club, and was asked what new MF camera I had just bought based in the images.

I found that Tmax 100 & AP100 (later APX100) in 35mm gave very similar results in terms of fine grain, but Tmax 100 was really a 50EI film, That matched John Sexton's Darkroom Technique articles.

My point though is you need to match the film to a developer that will give you the best from the combination.

Ian

 

[Todd Niccole]

In such situation I would ask myself what's wrong with my process, not question the material.

If I follow Ilford's recommendation and use DD-X it's even worse. Like so many other films I have done systematic testing in the years past, it's just an inferior product that doesn't live up to what it is being promoted as.