Which term would you use for all those who get the manufacturers to toll coat a film for them, with exactly the same characteristics as the film sold under the manufacturer's brand name?
Which term would you use for all those who get the manufacturers to toll coat a film for them, with exactly the same characteristics as the film sold under the manufacturer's brand name?
I'm referring to the sellers who take that toll coated film and then handle all their own branding efforts, including spooling, labelling and packaging and marketing.
Explains why they said ISO 100 film a bit, though really makes me question pushing it even more. For what it’s worth, I don’t hate the shots at 400 but would rather just use HP5 at that point.For what it's worth, I have just come across a batch number decoder: entering the film's code into it suggests manufacture in June 2017. That wouldn't surprise me.
Explains why they said ISO 100 film a bit, though really makes me question pushing it even more. For what it’s worth, I don’t hate the shots at 400 but would rather just use HP5 at that point.
It’s on sale now though…slightly expired FP4 for £6.50 isn’t so bad.
The link below is to a short blog on the film. His images are of scans with contrast manipulated in Affinity 2, though; so I'm not sure what to make of this. I'm also startled by 17 minutes in HC-110 B. Still, here it is:
https://casualphotophile.com/2023/06/29/wonderpan-400-analogue-wonderlands-new-film/
AW let it be very clear that this stuff was a slow emulsion pushed. A photographer relying on this stuff for a low light situation obviously didn't even read the description. It's a gag film - shouldn't really be called 400-speed at all. If there was any speed rating on the film, it should have been 100 - and they could say "We'd like you to push this film to 400" -- but that would have been pretty dull, wouldn't it? They weren't releasing a new film - they were packaging up some stuff to sell to their fan base. And after a small run, it's done.
AKA - nothing to worry about.
No serious photographer would put any faith in such an untested and spurious product. Unless they were into fun. Clearly no one (almost no one) here is.
Yes this comment on the blog sums it up for me
"Renaming a film stock with a different ISO rating, without disclosing its true nature, can lead to unintended consequences. For instance, photographers expecting a true ISO400 film may unknowingly purchase a rebranded ISO100 film, only to find that its performance falls short in low-light situations. This lack of clarity undermines the trust and reliability that photographers seek when selecting film stocks for their creative vision."
When I look at the blog and its findings including the photos, I was struck three questions
1. Was I naive enough at the start of my film adventure to have been taken in by any of such a blog including the attempt to make a virtue what is clearly poor results? On balance I doubt it
2. Does this blogger genuinely think that AW is trying to help its customers?
3. Has AW tried to help its customers with this offering and where does education about film figure in AW's philosophy?
pentaxuser
wow, these are really some unusable pictures.
underexposed like hell and way, way, way overdeveloped! Why treat a negative like this when you can just modify the contrast in post/print?
It probably depends on your definition of unusable. Here are a couple of mine:
yours are nicer, at least there's something in the highlights and shadows. I suspect those shadows would be impossible to print with an enlarger, but still, nice job.
For reasons I find inexplicable, high contrast negatives are currently in fashion. I find that they scan and print with more difficulty than negatives with what we might call medium contrast. So unless I specifically want high contrast images, that's not what I aim for. But just because I don't understand it, doesn't make it wrong.
I often point out that I am uncomfortable with AW's claim that they stock over 200 different films....when several of these are the exact same film under various names. But....they do have educational posts on social media and videos on youtube. They do reach out to novice film users to educate. And they do it in ways that appeal to a late teen or twenty-something film user, not us old farts who might appreciate an old man with a beard telling us how to bulk load and use an enlarger.
I like how Nik & Trick fit closer with "my" way of doing things...but then they also have been banging on about Fuji's "imminent" complete exit from the film market for at least a decade now.
In this case, I fail to see that AW have done anything wrong. This was clearly a fun stunt, no harm was done, nobody in their right minds who read any of the blurb will have been misled. It didn't even cost that much. Happy 5 years in business, AW.
FWIW I do see this as a rebrand. Not all rebrands are attempts to pass off an existing product as something different. Everyone here surely knows that currently Arista Edu is Fomapan...there's no attempts to pass it off as something unique or in any way materially different to Fomapan. But it is a rebrand. As is this. CatLabs was something different because there was, to my mind, deception practised by them. But it was still rebranding. That my .02, and I don't see any point in arguing. Not all rebrands are equally deceptive.
AW's current posting on Facebook and Instagram is some sort of teaser "something's coming". Now I am old and farty enough to think of the rock group Yes when I read that tag line. But it appears to be a teaser for some sort of camera....though the camera in the images is clearly a Samsung and I am under no impression that Samsung are entering the film camera market.
I “revealed” what WonderPan is because AW deleted a negative review spelling it out and that doesn’t sit well with me.
I would have waited until they sold out or at least a bit longer than I did. AW were clear this was a 100 ISO film suggested to be pushed to 400 so I don’t think it’s a lack of them educating, just not being transparent, much like most companies rebranding. The fact someone posted on their site and it was removed bothers me because if they take this review down, what else do they delete?I would hope you would have revealed that WonderPan 400 is actually Ilford FP4+ even without AW taking down a negative review. Isn't knowing what film you are shooting a basic element of photography education?
I “revealed” what WonderPan is because AW deleted a negative review spelling it out and that doesn’t sit well with me.
Actually yes. Education is a massive part of their philosophy and I’ve always had great and prompt responses to questions. Their blogs are interesting too. Sure, it might not be high level education but it’s good for people getting into film.
Squeakygrump, These two above comments by yourself in two posts seem to cast two different kinds of lights on AW The first looks to be being critical of AW and the second reasonably in praise of them on their film education objectives
So can I ask what the negative review was about? It appears to be that you revealed the truth about Wonderpan 400 and so annoyed were they that they deleted it? Is that correct?
If my interpretation of what you said in the first quote is correct, isn't this an example of AW promoting "bad education"?
As I say, I may have completely misunderstood what your meanings in the two quotes were
Thanks
pentaxuser
I would hope you would have revealed that WonderPan 400 is actually Ilford FP4+ even without AW taking down a negative review. Isn't knowing what film you are shooting a basic element of photography education?
I suspect you see photography in a different way to me. I like to experiment with film, shoot expired stock, and would shoot an entirely mystery roll if someone gave me some. I don’t look at examples before I buy a film stock (I do now check I’m not being entirely financially screwed by rebranded Foma and Kentmere etc) because I want to see what it looks like when I use it. Everyone has their own style and, as cliche as I know it is, I haven’t settled on mine. Yes, I do like the technical aspect of film, the chemistry etc, but I’m trying to not be obsessed with what is “correct”.
The same film can be marketed under any number of names. If you try one of those rebranded films and don't like it, you may unknowingly try the same film under different names. Doesn't seem like a cost effective or efficient way to find your style. Let your experience with rebranded Foma and Kentmere be your guide.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?