Unofficial Ilford update (products)

[Aggie]

I've just spent the past few days with a non gloom and doom gallery owner from New Zealand. What he tells me is that he is seeing the beginnings of a revival in analog. The weddings he does as a side line are the high end ritzy weddings. The other photographers are the digital ones, and they are all scrambling for the lesser weddings. Now some of those who left analog are rethinking and a lot when faced with buying ever increasing digital cameras that are not covering the cost they pay for them, are wanting to go back to film. Ok, He is one guy in a small country (sorry Sean) Now lets fast forward to today. Interesting to note that the Ansel Adams gallery in Monterey is no more. they have moved their entire operation to Yosemite. From some of the people I talked to both in Monterey and Carmel, they are seeing the sales of analog increasing and the prices going up. Listening to the people who came into the galleries, I overheard one comment on how she wanted to buy as many real photographs, before the investors found out that they are increasing in value. Camera stores I have visited in the last week have al had good supplies of Ilford, and surpisingly agfa paper. there was even a good stock of polariod 55 in Monterey. Many of the suppliers I have been dealing with lately are telling me they are finding an increase in film sales and related chemistry.

I am not going to bemoan that a company has decided to discontinue a film. I will not lose sleep if a company goes out of business. Like clay there are alternatives. (I have my camera) I just see another trend starting to grow. I personally think that in about 5 years you will see a lot more abandoning digital for their professional work. the suppliers of film and paper may be smaller companies better able to deal with our smaller numbers compared to large governmental purchases. We are not down and out.

Look at apug. On sept 7th last year we had 831 members. Our 1000th member joined on Oct. 29th. We are growing and picking up speed.

 

[FrankB]

Sorry Les but on this one I have to disagree with you. It is not only arriving but the journey which are important

Well stated, Tony.

Les, huge respect to you but on this one I'm afraid we differ.

 

[Fintan]

Thanks for that upbeat post Aggie.

 

[Max Power]

FWIW, last Sunday I ordered 2 x 30m rolls of Delta-400 Pro from Henry's in Toronto. They processed the order with nary a peep on Tuesday and I had the package yesterday when I got home from work. The expiration date is late 2007, so I am going to assume that it is a fairly recent batch. Although I have no idea how much Ilford stuff Henry's moves, I was rather pleased that I wasn't sent a message about it having been BO.

Il y a encore de l'espoir

Kent

 

[eclarke]

Hi All,
Just bought FP4 8x10 and 4x5 from Badger Graphic. He has FP4 and HP5 in stock, no problem (quote)..EC

 

[Les McLean]

There's a myth that digitised converts carry about: one is that making images is not about process.

Making images i.e. creating is all about the process of creating. Geddit? Making = creating = process. This isn't difficult. Even I can understand that. Exhibiting prints is about the product - i.e. exhibition; end product. Not the process.

The thought that film will dry up in our lifetime? How catastrophic is that. Just think of when all those digital lithium batteries are outlawed in a few years when they're discovered to be linked with brain cancer which causes delusions of digital grandeur.[/QUOTE]


Tom, I'm not a digitised convert trotting out the phrases that people like you either invent or perpetuate. When I started making analogue photographs nearly 30 years ago I quickly learned that there were two schools of thought in photography: one was all about the process, what film what paper and dev etc; the other was about seeing and thinking about the image. Yes, the process was and still is important but to me it is the means of getting to express what the image and my seeing is all about. If you are from the other school that's fine. Would you rather see a mundane boring photograph where the process had been executed perfectly or an exciting meaningful photograph where the process left much to be desired. I know which one I'd prefer.

The digital/analogue debate has been well discussed on this forum and I've no wish to start it all over again but I do take exception to some of the phrases you choose to use, "delusions of digital grandeur", for example, especially as you've quoted me at the start of your post. I think you should try to debate the issue without including snide phrases like that. I've no axe to grind about your views and do agree with a lot of what you say but at least let me have my views without throwing veiled insults because I happen to choose to use a different process.

 

[Jorge]

Would you rather see a mundane boring photograph where the process had been executed perfectly or an exciting meaningful photograph where the process left much to be desired. I know which one I'd prefer

.

I dont understand Les. I have seen you post here that you choose the particular process (either digital or traditional) to best fit the image. So, in some measure, you do care about the process. Or shall we say the method in which a print is presented. If, as you say, the process does not matter, why not make all your prints via ink jet?

I would add another question to the one you made. Wouldn't you rather see a meaningful print in which the process enhances the content?

 

[rogueish]

I was also in Henry's (Mississauga) and they had tons of Ilford stock. RC,FB, FP4,HP5,the Delta's and all the chems. It seemed that there was very little Agfa material in stock. (only one lonely bottle of Rodinal in the chem section)When I asked I was told they have sold about equal amounts of both, but they usually stock up extra on Ilford for the students returning/starting school. Seems this year sales between Ilford and Agfa are evenly matched (at this branch). So now they are waiting on Agfa's supply.

Fine by me, I bought lots of Agfa a while back and this time I stocked up on Ilford!

 

[papagene]

I agree with Les's point of view that the process is a means to an end and the final image is paramount.
But I do not in any way enjoy sitting at the computer for hours to obtain an image. It is not my cup of tea. I am more of a hands on type of worker - my sculpture background. I enjoy darkroom work, I like the process and the look of the final print on FB paper.
I am also confident that during my lifetime (which I hope is as long as possible) there will be analog materials available to use. I may have to adapt to alternative materials. And if Francesco's work is any indication, the alternatives are quite good.
gene

 

[mark]

I have to disagree with part of what you said Les. Of course I would love to see a beautiful photo over a technically perfect piece of crap. Of course I would rather see a photograph that was created with a traditional process instead of a digital one. For me the traditional print has much more intrinsic value because of the intimate involvement of the artist. There is no way for an artist to be intimately involved with a computer. This also includes digitally manipulated negatives being used for alt. processes, I feel the soul has been removed once the computer comes into play. It is my opinion. I have marvled at a print's beauty but that feeling disappears when the term digital comes into play.

For a piece of art to be truely beautiful it must have the the artist's hands present in the making of the product. It has to be one of a kind. In the traditional process there is no way to make a print the same every time. There will always be subtle differences. Once something is completed on a computer it can be produced exactly the same again and again. It is the subtle differences in a print that give it the soul and character of a work of art.

I was fortunate enough to see two exquisite Adam's prints side by side. They were both Moon rise over Hernandez. Both were perfect, yet both were different. The subtle differences were what made them individual expressions of the artist.

If one completes something by hand and then attempts to do exactly the same thing there will be differences. This is what sets traditional apart from the supposed technological improvements. I suppose Jenson's digital negs could posess these qualities but this hybrid process is like a power tool being used instead of a hand tool. I prefer what the hand tool creates.

As for lost film. It seems that for every film being lost another pops up. Who cares if the big manufactures can't hack it. They put their money in the digital world let them go. I will stay with the smaller comapnies and their film. I have no allegiance to a film type nor a specific developer. As long as JandC are around I will be happy. if they disappear then Zi will find someone else to buy film from because film will be around. I admit I would miss delta 100 though.

 

[Les McLean]

.

I dont understand Les. I have seen you post here that you choose the particular process (either digital or traditional) to best fit the image. So, in some measure, you do care about the process. Or shall we say the method in which a print is presented. If, as you say, the process does not matter, why not make all your prints via ink jet?

I would add another question to the one you made. Wouldn't you rather see a meaningful print in which the process enhances the content?

Jorge, I said "the process was and still is important to me" and yes I do care about the process but in terms of finding the best method of getting the image on to the paper in a way that expressed my feeling for the image presented. I've spent nearly 30 years teaching myself darkroom skills and take great pride in making the best possible final print using that process but in the end once the image is on the paper the process itself is very much of secondary importance. I don't salivate about any one process in the way that I've seen some photographers do and to be brutal the mundane meaningless images that they produce leave me absolutely cold but if they enjoy that, great I have no problems with that. I appreciate them all and have experimented with many but have chosen to use only the silver gelatin print thus far to express what I feel. When digital came along and before any debate about the future of film I saw something in it that excited me and started the long learning curve involved in mastering it. Like most people I don't really enjoy sitting for hours in front of a monitor but if that's what I have to do then so be it.

I normally wouldn't get involved in this type of debate for there is no right and wrong in whether anyone chooses analogue or digital we all do what we enjoy and I'd be the last to criticise anyone for that. However, whenever the debate has started in APUG there is always someone who starts to make silly and sometimes sarcastic remarks about anyone who addresses the process and I find this unnesessary and sometimes insulting. I'm not thin skinned and can laugh at myself with anyone and take criticism but there is a line to be drawn. I've mentioned this before in posts and the usual response is that the "digiheads" started it first but we have not got any of those in this forum have we.

In answer to your question, of course I'd rather see a meaningful print in which the process enhances the content, but that is a very subjective view. For example, I have a friend called Pradip Malde who produces the most exquisite platinum prints who did a body of work called Prayer and Despair but when I took a friend who was a wonderful photographer in his own right to see the show he thought it was rubbish, I loved it.

 

[Tom Smith]

Les,

With all respect, you do have a problem. This post was about Ilford UK's analogue future. Then you started interjecting comments like "I told you so" so many times over and over several months regarding the future of analogue photography and citing digital as a viable alternative to traditional processes making veiled remarks about your digital preferences on an analogue forum. You might need to take into account the audience which APUG caters for. I didn't come here to APUG to hear a lecture on digital snobbery using Ilford's crisis as an example of 'analogue going out'. If you want to post your pro-digital views, go ahead - on a different forum. That's why I left other forums. Your message might be welcome there.

If you don't normally get involved this kind of debate then don't allude to subtlely offensive statements and hijack threads about Ilford's analogue future. Your post is not just unpopular, but unwarranted on this thread.


The backpeddling regarding your concessions for acknowledging 'process' makes more sense to me than the fatuous comment - it wasn't about process - it's the image that matters.

And there is no point in comparing a pathetic image captured beautifully by traditional methods with a superior artistic one made by digital captured on the best possible digital means - that doesn't follow. You might compare a classic Henri Cartier Bresson with a modern example of digital brilliance by - ....................... (I don't know any - insert yours here). Go ahead: that's my reference point: I follow the classical tradition which I learn from mentors in college who are too absorbed with the emulsion process to care for mastering technology in order to replace or displace the love for a more visceral and light-based hands-on experience of photography.


"What the hell do I know? At least that's what people say to me"

 

[bmac]

I didn't see any hijacking going on here, did I miss something?

 

[sanking]

I didn't see any hijacking going on here, did I miss something?

Yes, I missed the hijacking also. Les' comment, which was simply that photography is about seeing, not process, was made in response to EricR, who wrote:

"I'm tied to analog. That's what I am identified with, but if I need to use a different process such as digital to get what I want for a particular image I will use it. I will also not feel dirty. It's about creating art and mastering the materials and processes to create it. At least in my little piece of reality."

I agree. Photograhy to me is first and foremost about seeing and then the final product. How and what I see is important, as is the final product and the use made of it. Process is important to me primarily in terms of what kinds of activities are personally satisfying. Taking a sheet of silver gelatin paper from a box and making a print is not very rewarding to me, though it may be to others. What personally gives me satisfaction is making a hand made carbon, kallitype or Pt./Pd. print. I don't personally like to spend much time in front of a computer monitor but if I need to do that to make a digital negative that will enhance the final product I am prepared to do so.

If film becomes unavailable at some point in the future, as may well be the case based on current events, I will use digital capture and make digital negatives, but I wil always be able to make hand-made prints. Or, I may do as Clay, and make my own emulsion.

Sandy King

 

[Eric Rose]

Tom I'm sure you are a good guy and very passionate about your photography. It's probably pretty safe to say we all are. However being that you are relatively new here you have no context in which to place Les. With out this past history your comments are understandable. You might find it interesting to go thru Les's posting from the beginning to insure you have a better idea of where he is coming from. You might also find out some new things about analog photography as Les has given many of us considerable help in this area.

 

[TPPhotog]

Tom, I'm very much with Eric here and I'm sure once you have more experience will be able to understand where Les is coming from. Although relatively new here myself I know of his work from magazines on B&W photography over the years and since joining Les has and continues to advise me and others. He is a very respected and valued member of not only this site but the photography world in general. We may not always agree but then no-one does but all postings are well intentioned and backed up by very valuable experience.

 

[Rob Archer]

What about Ilford chemistry.

Whilst I didn't look on this thread for a re-ignition of the digital/anologue argument I do find it interesting - just not as interesting as whether ilford chemistry will continue to be made! I use ID11 and Microphen mostly. I know there's probably better ones on the market or some exotic home brews but they give the results I like with Delta 100 & 400.

Will Ilford keep them up, or will they just die? Or perhaps another company will by the patents - any ideas?

Rob

 

[TPPhotog]

Rob, I'm sure Les may have a better handle on that one, but from experience the patents for good products do usually get sold on to re-coup losses of the original company. Lets hope if the worst comes to the worst then the better products will continue under new ownership and maybe even some jobs be saved along with the experience.

 

[sanking]

Whilst I didn't look on this thread for a re-ignition of the digital/analogue argument I do find it interesting - just not as interesting as whether ilford chemistry will continue to be made! I use ID11 and Microphen mostly. I know there's probably better ones on the market or some exotic home brews but they give the results I like with Delta 100 & 400.

Will Ilford keep them up, or will they just die? Or perhaps another company will by the patents - any ideas?

Rob

Whether or not Ilford continues to make and distribute Ilford chemistry is mostly irrelevant to many of us. ID11 and Microphen, or similar or better products, can easily be mixed from chemicals so whatever Ilford chooses to do in this regard will have no impact on my work.

The films are another issue. I have used FP4+ (and its PhotoWarehouse sister) and HP5+ for many years and they will be missed for sure if no longer available in sheet film size.

Some of the smaller companies may continue to produce sheet film for a while but my hunch is that this product will be increasingly less common and more expensive in the near future. Many of the contributors to this list are younger than me but it is not at all clear to me that sheet fill will will continue to be available even during my lifetime. I hope that it will be but don't count on it.

It bears remembering that the use of film and papers for our purposes (primarily fine art I assume) is a minuscule part of the total market for these products. When the broader market disappears, as it is doing very rapidly, there will be little financial incentive to continue to manufacture these materials. It is much less about stupid economic decisions by film and paper producers than about the realities of the marketplace. Individually you can wail, cry, scream or knash your teeth but there is little that can be done to stop change.

Sandy

 

[Flotsam]

It bears remembering that the use of film and papers for our purposes (primarily fine art I assume) is a minuscule part of the total market for these products. When the broader market disappears, as it is doing very rapidly, there will be little financial incentive to continue to manufacture these materials.

Apart from creative work, What is the broader market for fiber based photographic papers? Kodak even goes so far as to name it's FB MG paper "Fine Art"

 

[photomc]

I agree that many of the major purchase of film are going digital, but I wonder how much of the purchases that go through say JandC are institutional vs the consumer (fine art) market? Any thoughts? I would say that as long as there is enough market to supply, that there will be someone making film. Will it dry up, don't know...just hope it last for another 20-30 years. But then, there were early photographers coating glass plates, so if we have to..but I plan to use a larger format than 4x5.

 

[sanking]

Apart from creative work, What is the broader market for fiber based photographic papers? Kodak even goes so far as to name it's FB MG paper "Fine Art"

Let us assume that the market for this particular paper is primarily fine art photographers. But this particular product is but one of dozens that are produced with a common infrastructure. Even if this particular paper is is one that is highly profitable the market loss of most of the other products could well result in financial failure of the larger entitly.


Sandy

 

[Colevy]

Just exactly what Mark said... Wow....Couldn't agree more.

 

[Tom Smith]

Thanks TPP -

You're right of course. i don't know who Les is, and I'm not likely to be swayed by someone who tries to hold an aura of authority and says "I told you so" when Ilford is vulnerable and heading down and out (ish). I haven't been on this forum long, but if someone says opportunistically says "I told you so", by gum that has to be one of the most irritating and unhelpful statements. They've clearly been repeating themselves ad nauseam. And don't say I didn't tell you so ;*)


We all have valuable experience to learn from: my problem is that the way Ilford and film-based photography is being pushed out by commercial factors, I'm not going to get 30 years out of using film based emulsion let alone 3.

Digital photography and its future dresscoats will be here for a longer time - this thread is about Ilford's traditional material - not about digital as an alternative. That's what I mean about hijacking a thread - it's so easy to insert *digital* as an option when Ilford is in receivership.

What I like(d) about this thread (in all my immaturity - yep - I'm not socially adept am I) is that I can vent my neuroses about Ilford products and learn about Ilford unofficially.

Sorry if I offended anyone - clearly I need to brush up on my social skills. Time to go back to working in the darkroom (all alone now ;>)

 

[jim kirk jr.]

Tom,
Les is a very well known and respected photographer.You don't need to agree with everything he says but he does have alot of contacts in the industry and field and his
knowledge(at least in the time I've been here)is right on the mark.As far as "authority",goes-yes in many ways he is the person in authority with his vast knowledge and experience.I'm also certain that he isn't pleased with Ilford's woes either.In any event Les needs neither I nor anyone else to stick up for him,his work speaks volumes.

Jim