What's up with rebranded film? (IMAGO 320)

[Gerald C Koch]

Today I was shopping at ars-imago and I stumbled upon this:
http://www.ars-imago.ch/imago320blackwhitefilm13536-p-15274.html

They are offering their "own" brand of film, which (their description) is not a new emulsion but not currently on the market.
What's up lately? It seems that private-label films like this are popping out quite often this year - is there a huge collection of forgotten mater rolls around the world? Or people are cleaning their cellars? Or is it possible that they actually had it coated for them? I thought I would be quite expensive to do a custom coating run (and finishing, and everything). I dropped them an email as I am curious...

Not re-branded but rather re-purposed. There is an important difference. There have been several threads complaining about re-purposed film not meeting expectations. Be careful and get as much information as possible about the film(s). For example re-purposed surveillance film may exhibit higher than normal contrast and may be a challenge to work with.

 

[BMbikerider]

Do you mean this here ? View attachment 191433
FPP to me is the most worst group of guys in film business I personaly know.
Better make business with our fallen chineese comrades.

with regards

I am a little intrigued by the name on the box Eastman XX film. I days of past, no make that decades ago, around 1962-3 I did use Eastman KODAK XX film which was 200ASA (ISO) and used to buy it in bulk from certain suppliers in London that specialised in out of date ex military materials. It was a truly dreadful film! It had a heavy base fog and grain so large you could almost see it before printing. If it is the same film it is going to be useless even at $5 a pop.

I suppose you could always fix the entire roll without developing it and reclaim the silver

 

[AgX]

For example re-purposed surveillance film may exhibit higher than normal contrast and may be a challenge to work with.

Surveillance film typically means films on PET base, sometimes with IR sensitivity. It was used for inhouse control and traffic control. It has normal contrast.

 

[AgX]

Re-purposed and Re-branded indeed mean something different, but nevertheless in cases can apply both.

 

[trendland]

There is no hint at all that this an Agfa film.

Yes - you are right - there is no hint that is an Agfa film.
From me - look above - it was just a speculation : It may be Agfa APX400.
They stated it is a film with smal grain on acetat basis. Well - I can't remember jet - is APX 400 onto acetat base?
Never mind because meanwhile there are so many different types of Agfa APX derivates on the market that is is likely confusing (AgX stated it simular before).
But if someone is still interisted to the origin of his new film I would like to state : "You should't be focused on the box speed the manufacturer rated this film
(ISO320) "
Because of first : We can't say precisely what the origin of Foma Retro 320 soft is.
It may be a reformulated film from Foma with higher speed (we discused this some weeks before). Foma obviously feel competent to give their new Retro emulsion a box speed of ISO 320 due to smaler grain - to me it isn't a fine grain emulsion at all but pls. never mind about.
2) the manufacturer we see this new ISO 320 film stated it is recomanded as ISO 320 but you may use higher speed (nice we were told about this - because this is to every bw film )
But this may be an issue that the original
film is with higher speed?
I would interprete this statement of the manufacturer in exact this way.
3) as there is mentioned ISO 800 as possible alternate to choise as E.I it seams to be possible that it is indeed a Foma film (Retro 320) I remember the recomandation to ISO 800 from Foma.
But to be sure one has to buy this film
and compare with Retro 320.
I will not buy this film because to the same price I know films with total clear
ancestry and phantastic characteristics.
But if someone is curius - have a try!
(but don't whimper about grain and tonals after that....)

with regards

PS : I have a bad smell from manufacturers who are not able to state :
" Folks we have a nice offer to you - here is a film originaly manufactured at foma,
the production date is 2013 but we made tests - the film is still ok.So hurry up we have just 2 masterrolls and it is a limited film because it is out of production - so look at our special price."

 

[Arctic amateur]

I find it odd that several of you take it for granted that this film is relabeled Foma Retropan 320, given this text on the product page:

Is it a new film?
No, it is not a new emulsion, but it is a film that is not presently on the market. We have used an existing emulsion, tested and studied it in order to determine which ISO and development times guarantee the best results.

Both B&H and Macodirect have Foma Retropan in stock, so it is presently on the market.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I am a little intrigued by the name on the box Eastman XX film. I days of past, no make that decades ago, around 1962-3 I did use Eastman KODAK XX film which was 200ASA (ISO) and used to buy it in bulk from certain suppliers in London that specialised in out of date ex military materials. It was a truly dreadful film! It had a heavy base fog and grain so large you could almost see it before printing. If it is the same film it is going to be useless even at $5 a pop.

It was out of date you would would expect some fog. I have used Double XX 5222 for several years and find it to be an excellent film. However you get what you pay for. There are several sites that sell it on the web either as bulk or in cassettes. Try a roll or two and see if you like it now. BTW Kodak rates the RMS granularity at 14 (very fine), finer than that of Tri-X.

 

[RattyMouse]

Agfa makes good film.

 

[AgX]

You might even use the past tense. They recently cancelled so many types.
But once they said they would be the last one standing... We shall see.

 

[twelvetone12]

Agfa film is (was?) all surveillance right?

 

[rpavich]

It was out of date you would would expect some fog. I have used Double XX 5222 for several years and find it to be an excellent film. However you get what you pay for. There are several sites that sell it on the web either as bulk or in cassettes. Try a roll or two and see if you like it now. BTW Kodak rates the RMS granularity at 14 (very fine), finer than that of Tri-X.

I shoot a lot of XX also. I find it to be a nice looking film though not as good for huge subject brightness ranges. The grain is fine and it's pretty reasonable if bought in large bulk. I buy it directly from Kodak at 400' for 250.00 and 15.00 shipping.

 

[faberryman]

I am happy with Kodak and Ilford. My photographs are valuable to me so I stick with those two. If you want to support others please feel free to do so.

Me too. I value predictability and consistency. I shoot Delta 100/400 in bulk spools. A 36 exposure roll runs about $3.50, which is cheaper than all of this rebranded stuff you know nothing about. I have had my bulk loader since the mid-1970s, so it is fully depreciated. Of course, some people like the mystique of shooting film nobody has ever heard of, as if that has some redeeming value.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Today I was shopping at ars-imago and I stumbled upon this:
http://www.ars-imago.ch/imago320blackwhitefilm13536-p-15274.html

They are offering their "own" brand of film, which (their description) is not a new emulsion but not currently on the market.
What's up lately? It seems that private-label films like this are popping out quite often this year - is there a huge collection of forgotten mater rolls around the world? Or people are cleaning their cellars? Or is it possible that they actually had it coated for them? I thought I would be quite expensive to do a custom coating run (and finishing, and everything). I dropped them an email as I am curious...

Well, real world details - every "new" film is traceable to original manufacturer. And where are only few of them and shrinking... But who cares!

I think I know then and where it exactly started. On ex-APUG or else it was the thread about good guys in Australia, if not on the Moon, where film supply is on big distance, but people are still into the film. Just for once and once in awhile.
So, this good owners of small shop purchased bulk film and empty cassettes and did good thing for customers and themselves. Customers have "we are here on the Moon" special edition of custom film and two owners made profit on bulk film in cassettes.
It took some time to google search engine to pick it up and then, BINGO. All you have to do is to buy existing film in bulks, new or old, load into cassettes and make something like Zorki label with Minolta SLR camera picture on it. Most of the people will take it without asking. It is new label amnesia.

It is smart and cost effective marketing. Those who are doing this are well aware of majority on photo-forums and film new-hipsta current time motivation. Most importantly, it all fit into the consumerism as hobby.
Film is the niche product now, almost shifted in consumer, hobby category.
And this is what we have as majority on forums, which are places serving as consumerism originators and engines. We are buying and trying folks. Because it is easy as hobby now. If you are not progressing in photography it is cool and easy to start buying and trying. It is even more cool to report your tests on forums, blog it, share it on facebook and so on. On top of the buying and trying of the latest gear, same crowd is trying different plug-ins for digital post processing. Instead of catching light with quality, we live in believe what post processing could make it better. Or how here is new and better camera sensor. So, it so cool to try film again and brag about it in the media. And as any consumer we are not into real world details. It is all about keep on the groove.
The groove is to try "new" film. Just like we did with plug-ins and sensors.

And just like with almost all products in time of globalization and consumerism, where different brands made at the same factory, same people, same regime in China, but globally people are so leveled these days, all they agreed to take is different and new label...

 

[AgX]

Agfa film is (was?) all surveillance right?

No, Agfa made all kind of films you could imagine.
(Except for hassle-free instant film, though they kind of invented it.)

Agfa never offered more than two surveillance films the same time. One even was just a consumer emulsion on PET base.

 

[trendland]

You have obviously had a bad experience with the Film Photography Project Trendland and there is nothing I can do about that. But I have been buying film of various kinds from them for years exactly because they re-spool films for formats I like to shoot. I have also purchased other films from them as well, such as 5222 that they have nicely re-spooled onto a reel I can easily use in my bulk film loader. l don't buy a lot because they are a bit expensive for me, but I do buy some from time to time because I like the service they provide. I have yet to run into a situation such as the one you are describing. If they are selling outdated film then it should be described as such. If they are not doing so then you have an honest problem and it should be handled directly with them. If you want to tell the people on this forum which film you bought that was outdated, that is great. But to just run them down for the fun of it is not good.

As for the rest of this thread, speculating about what film Imago may be selling under their own brand is fine. It is always interesting. But using that speculation as an opportunity to run down everyone who sells film whose company name doesn't start with "K" or "I" is BS.

And I am sure I would buy film from the Chinese, fallen or otherwise, if they were selling something I found interesting. I buy stuff from just about everyone else, why not them. In fact, if they started spooling up 620 film I'm sure I would buy some from them.

5222 is a good example to be more precisly Pioneer - of cause this film is no scratch. Not because it is a Kodak film more because it is a real nice emulsion with a good tonal range.You sure will agree and whom I am talking this.
But also remember bulk 5222 from Kodak Motion Pictures.Do you remember the cheapness? And now ? FPP double the price. May be I am bad informed but did not FPP bought the last batches of Kodak SW Cinefilm to offer it soon later high priced?
Well - I am bad informed (checked it meanwile so 5222 is still avaible from Kodak) ....????........ok this is a bad situation now to me. Perhaps I should better inform about the whole program of FPP .... I just remember expired color films long long discontinued from them.
Perhaps the guys from this company are not sooo. ...bad?
But I am able to change my mind.
At last it is a little expensive (just spooling the film) but from your experience it is a service you will pay for.
.....we all can learn from failures in behavior. Hope we can...
with regards


PS : Sorry about statement : "bad guys"

 

[trendland]

I find it odd that several of you take it for granted that this film is relabeled Foma Retropan 320, given this text on the product page:

That is exact the issue of coming neart to the origin of this film - the OP ask about.
Yes you are right Retro 320 is still offered from others.
And IMAGO manufacturers stated it is a Film out of production.
Conclusions ?????
(The more simple way would be the manufacturer stated clear what film it is from origin.)
Conclusions?????
So it don't get together Retropan320 soft is still in programm this IMAGO film comes from a film "out of production"

But if Foma Retropan320 is out of production (some dealers have it nevertheless in program) it would come together.
If I would be Foma I would say to IMAGO:
HERE ARE SOME MASTERROLLS - IT IS OUT OF PRODUCTION BUT I WILL NOT ALLOWE YOU TO STATE THIS FILM IS FROM US.
WE WILL STATE THIS TO THE RIGHT TIME WE HAVE TO DECIDE.
.........
I did not speculate this is the possible true but it would make sence.
If you want to know exactly ask the manufacturers.
No wonder about they will state : " We can't say "

with regards

 

[Arklatexian]

I am a little intrigued by the name on the box Eastman XX film. I days of past, no make that decades ago, around 1962-3 I did use Eastman KODAK XX film which was 200ASA (ISO) and used to buy it in bulk from certain suppliers in London that specialised in out of date ex military materials. It was a truly dreadful film! It had a heavy base fog and grain so large you could almost see it before printing. If it is the same film it is going to be useless even at $5 a pop.

I suppose you could always fix the entire roll without developing it and reclaim the silver

That sure sounds like the old Kodak Super XX film that I did NOT use (before 1952-63). Before the removal of the "safety factor", it was rated at 100 ASA. At that time we had Verichrome/later Verichrome Pan, Plus-X, and Panatomic X films, which I used. .......Regards! (Typo: 1962-63)

 

[twelvetone12]

No, Agfa made all kind of films you could imagine.
(Except for hassle-free instant film, though they kind of invented it.)

Agfa never offered more than two surveillance films the same time. One even was just a consumer emulsion on PET base.

I mean current Affairs in Belgium, only microfilm and surveillance remain?

 

[AgX]

plus X-ray-, aerial-, copy-, graphics-films, and papers

 

[Pioneer]

5222 is a good example to be more precisly Pioneer - of cause this film is no scratch. Not because it is a Kodak film more because it is a real nice emulsion with a good tonal range.You sure will agree and whom I am talking this.
But also remember bulk 5222 from Kodak Motion Pictures.Do you remember the cheapness? And now ? FPP double the price. May be I am bad informed but did not FPP bought the last batches of Kodak SW Cinefilm to offer it soon later high priced?
Well - I am bad informed (checked it meanwile so 5222 is still avaible from Kodak) ....????........ok this is a bad situation now to me. Perhaps I should better inform about the whole program of FPP .... I just remember expired color films long long discontinued from them.
Perhaps the guys from this company are not sooo. ...bad?
But I am able to change my mind.
At last it is a little expensive (just spooling the film) but from your experience it is a service you will pay for.
.....we all can learn from failures in behavior. Hope we can...
with regards


PS : Sorry about statement : "bad guys"

No offense taken Trendland. I am also prone to flying off the handle from time to time and I do apologize if I have offended you or any others.

I hope Imago is successful with this film and I may have to investigate it more myself.

 

[Arctic amateur]

If I understand correctly, the only reason to think this film is relabeled Retropan is the 320 ISO designation?

From the datasheets of both, I find this info:
Imago 320: Offered in 135 format on 120 micron acetate base, and 120 format on 100 microns base. Suggested development: HC-110(B) 5 mins 30 sec or Microphen stock 6 mins 30 sec, red-cutoff 680 nm
Foma Retropan 320: Offered in 135 format on 125 micron acetate base, and sheet film on 175 micron. Suggested development: HC-110(B) 7-8 minutes or Microphen stock 10-11 mins, red-cutoff around 670 nm

Other developers are suggested on the datasheet, but those two are the only ones in common.

Regarding 5222: FPP's markup is 40% from EK list price, not 100% as Trendland claims. The current Eastman Kodak list price is $645 for 1000 feet (https://www.kodak.com/uploadedFiles...ucts-Price-Catalog-US-Prices_Sept_2017_V7.pdf, page 18).

 

[pentaxuser]

I read Ko.Fe.'s post with interest but one question arose in my mind. If you buy master rolls and assuming that when you do the "master" asks no questions of you, isn't the maker's name on the film? This would certainly seem to be the case with Ilford and Kodak but other film makers may not put their names on the edges. If they don't and don't mind someone buying say a 10,000 feet roll then rebadging is certainly possible but what are the facts about this.

Secondly it appears that this film is yet to be processed by anyone in this thread so presumably we don't know what will appear on the edges. If for instance Foma doesn't bother to mark its film and is happy to sell master rolls to Mr X then it would appear to run the real danger of Mr X selling the same film re-badged at possibly a lower price.

This behaviour on the part of a recognised film maker resembles the missionary's action in the joke: The missionary, knowing the tribe who has captured him will deliver one swift blow to instantly kill him because they want his skin to make their canoes, produces a knife and proceeds to stab himself repeatedly unto death, crying " you not going to make me into a canoe"

pentaxuser

 

[trendland]

I read Ko.Fe.'s post with interest but one question arose in my mind. If you buy master rolls and assuming that when you do the "master" asks no questions of you, isn't the maker's name on the film? This would certainly seem to be the case with Ilford and Kodak but other film makers may not put their names on the edges. If they don't and don't mind someone buying say a 10,000 feet roll then rebadging is certainly possible but what are the facts about this.

Secondly it appears that this film is yet to be processed by anyone in this thread so presumably we don't know what will appear on the edges. If for instance Foma doesn't bother to mark its film and is happy to sell master rolls to Mr X then it would appear to run the real danger of Mr X selling the same film re-badged at possibly a lower price.

This behaviour on the part of a recognised film maker resembles the missionary's action in the joke: The missionary, knowing the tribe who has captured him will deliver one swift blow to instantly kill him because they want his skin to make their canoes, produces a knife and proceeds to stab himself repeatedly unto death, crying " you not going to make me into a canoe"

pentaxuser

Pentaxuser you are a real poet - I have an idea of it - nevertheless I am unable to translate all of your words because my dictionary is not as competent as my will to understand the full meaning of your words - so it is just an idea !...
with regards

 

[pentaxuser]

Trendland, thanks for the compliment. My joke is a variation of the phrase: You have cut off your nose to spite( take revenge) on your face. It means that your action is the reason for your problem

pentaxuser

 

[trendland]

So we may upload your text to use it as translating examination at cambridge institute ?
To all people who want to certificate cambridge CPE ?

with regards........