Wonderpan 400 - whatever next?

[brbo]

...Ektar 100, Portra 160, Portra 400, Portra 3200, Ektachrome 100...

Yes, please.

 

[michaelelliottphotog]

Not sure what the fad is with this rebranded film?

It's an ego trip for Stephen Dowling, Bellamy Hunt, Paul McKay and the likes.

Nick & Trick are good in stating exactly what the film stock is, so if one likes it, one knows what to buy again.
They are my go-to for film stuff. Very helpful and no hipster fairy tales about their film.

I'm not a massive fan of theirs but I respect their position more now than I did at the beginning of my journey and I think I do owe Richard and Nikki an apology as I was being fed a bunch of tosh by certain elements.

Why not stick to a known brand, which has all the specs and plenty of examples of pulling & pushing. Just doing this is complex enough, without throwing in an unbranded film, which may have already been labled with a different iso from intended.

I'm pretty much a staunch advocate of this except they keep taking films off the market. My current favourites are Pan-X and Tech Pan, as I have a large amount of stock in my freezer.

There are only a few actual film manufactures left,
Would be good if there was an updated list of these. I know Ilford & Shanghai, but what about Rolli, Adox & the like, are thae actual film manufacturers?

Eastman Kodak produce the motion picture films under the Vision3 brand. These are then repackaged to buggery by other brands, either as-is or doctored. I believe they are also responsible for Aerocolor IV which again is repackaged to buggery. Neither of these are generally available to the public, so the repackaging is legit.

Kodak Alaris (separate from Eastman) market the rest of the Kodak line of films: Gold, Ultramax, Portra, Ektar and Ektachrome, Tri-X, and T-Max.

Fujifilm seem to have flipflopped back and forth, but seem to be returning to producing their own films. Certainly C200 was Fuji, but Fuji 200 is Kodak. Superia 400 was discontinued, re-introduced as Fuji 400 which was suspiciously like Ultramax, but may reappear as Superia. Velvia/Provia may or may not return. Instax is still a focus area for them from what I can tell. Neopan Acros II is a Fuji formula produced by Ilford.

Ilford produce Delta 100 through 3200, HP5, FP4, PanF+, Ortho+, SFX, and XP2, Kentmere/Ilford Pan 100/400, Fuji Neopan Acros II. Kentmere/Ilford Pan are heavily repackaged.

Foma Bohemia produce 100-400 ISO films that are heavily repackaged.

Agfa Gevaert produce Aviphot 200 (plus maybe another Aviphot) that is heavily repackaged.

Adox produce(d) Silvermax, CHS, CMS, CHM, Scala, Colour Mission. What remains of their production I'm not sure but they seemed to be trying to produce more.

Inoviscoat produce most of Lomography's more wacky colour stuff (including Purple, Turquoise and Metropolis). They may or may not also be responsible for Lomography Color 92, I've not had a chance to look at that. The wacky Lomo stuff I believe are experiments towards actually producing a new colour emulsion that actually reproduces colour accurately.

Polaroid produce their instant films, though no peel apart unfortunately.

That's the extent of my knowledge of who produces what off the top of my head. Others may have additions to that list. What I know is the list is not much longer if it is indeed longer.

What happened to Kodak, it got split into separates parts. Do they still have a working film plant & what films are they actually producing?

Eastman is the producer, Kodak Alaris is the marketer. Kodak Alaris is in trouble and perennially up for sale, it would be good if Eastman would just bite the bullet and buy them back.

I have always stuck to Ilford film & chemicals (and Bonus Print colour negative )
Most recently did buy the powdered Adox chemicals from N&T (cheaper postage cost than liquid) and found them really good.

I'm a film whore as I have a freezer full of Kodak/Fuji colour neg/slide films and Kodak B&W. Never really got into the Ilford stuff though I may in the future.

I pretty much exclusively use HC-110 unless I'm feeling particularly Einsteiny in which case I mix up various Kodak formulae like D23/D19 depending on the use case.

 

[michaelelliottphotog]

Thy are making the following films: T-Max 100, T-Max 400, Tri-X, various flavours of amateur market colour negative film, Ektar 100, Portra 160, Portra 400, Portra 3200, Ektachrome 100 - all in various formats.

Yes, please.

 

[Agulliver]

In fairness to AW? What about in fairness to the customer? In their marketing they say it was made by someone else and they just changed the ISO designation, so it's not a secret they didn't make it.

Which is at least better than CatLabs claiming they'd come up with a new film after several years R&D. Only to find I'd probably been burned with more Aviphot. Not that I dislike Aviphot at all, I just could have got it cheaper under another name. As a cat dad, I am partial to a film box with cats on it....but not at considerably greater cost than one without.

I can understand AW wanting to celebrate their 5th anniversary with their first "own brand" product. And the back story they cooked up (pun intended) was never to be taken seriously. They weren't dishonest. There may well be some NDA involved. I've tried to find out what the "Exeter Pan" film being sold on eBay is and the vendor says the manufacturer won't permit him to say.

In the end, if you are at all concerned....don't buy. If you think it might be fun, then buy. I didn't buy on this occasion. I did try CatLabs 320, I did try Lomography Babylon and I have some Fuji low ISO stock from Nik & Trick which was fully identified at the point of sale. N&T may not be the cheapest out there but they're 100% honest. Richard hosts a Facebook group for UK film photography too where he's careful not to push his own business - though he does mention products they sell from time to time he's happy to recommend others too.

 

[faberryman]

Which is at least better than CatLabs claiming they'd come up with a new film after several years R&D. Only to find I'd probably been burned with more Aviphot. Not that I dislike Aviphot at all, I just could have got it cheaper under another name. As a cat dad, I am partial to a film box with cats on it....but not at considerably greater cost than one without.

I can understand AW wanting to celebrate their 5th anniversary with their first "own brand" product. And the back story they cooked up (pun intended) was never to be taken seriously. They weren't dishonest. There may well be some NDA involved. I've tried to find out what the "Exeter Pan" film being sold on eBay is and the vendor says the manufacturer won't permit him to say.

In the end, if you are at all concerned....don't buy. If you think it might be fun, then buy. I didn't buy on this occasion. I did try CatLabs 320, I did try Lomography Babylon and I have some Fuji low ISO stock from Nik & Trick which was fully identified at the point of sale. N&T may not be the cheapest out there but they're 100% honest. Richard hosts a Facebook group for UK film photography too where he's careful not to push his own business - though he does mention products they sell from time to time he's happy to recommend others too.

What does any of that have to do with a forum member who bought the film, developed the film, and knows what the film is by reading the printing near the sprocket holes, not sharing the information with other forum members because it wouldn't be "fair" to Analogue Wonderland? Analogue Wonderland has said it didn't make the film (what a surprise), so the only question is what the film actually is. Customers are not subject to NDAs.

Don't get me started on CatLabs. I was highly critical of CatLabs and caught a lot of flak for it. Lomography is a marketing machine proselytizing film as a lifestyle. Other companies proselytize avocados as a lifestyle, so I won't ding Lomography too bad. The only thing I know about Nik & Trick is they actually tell you what film they are selling, which I applaud.

 

[Niglyn]

Blimey, a lot of responses. My fear is, many peeps not in the know, will get hoodwinked by some of this repackaged stuff.
Unless it was cheap, why would anybody buy some unknown film which could either be a dodgy batch if retailer says 'nda from manufacturer' (again, unless it was cheap), or a standard film rated at a different iso?

Thanks for the listings of who makes what. Good to see kodak films up & running. Hopefully they can fulfil demand and prices may drop.
Would be great if we had a sensibly priced colour reversal film.

I normally stick to Ilford film. You know where you are with FP4 ) but having used Adox chemicals, would like to give their films a go.

I have found Nick & Trick to be very helpful and have honest labelling of their films. Prices seem competitive overall, so are my first choice shop.

 

[Squeakygrump]

It’s FP4+ with DX coding stickers for 400 stuck on the canister. Not respooled or anything. I suspect possibly expired film, just due to Ilford being quiet about that when asked, plus all the talk of 100 ISO film.

 

[Niglyn]

It’s FP4+ with DX coding stickers for 400 stuck on the canister. Not respooled or anything. I suspect possibly expired film, just due to Ilford being quiet about that when asked, plus all the talk of 100 ISO film.

Rather cheeky (misleading) to mis-represent it then.

Why not sell it as expired FP4+ ???

Is it price the same as FP4+ (or reduced as it is stale) or is it a rip-off ???

Can you post a scan of the negative?
TIA

 

[Squeakygrump]

Rather cheeky (misleading) to mis-represent it then.

Why not sell it as expired FP4+ ???

Is it price the same as FP4+ (or reduced as it is stale) or is it a rip-off ???

Can you post a scan of the negative?
TIA

I’m not going to guess at why they chose to do it and how much it’s to do with Ilford either, given the fact they won’t give out information about the batch.

I got my roll for £6. A 24 exp roll of FP4+ from AW is £6.50 so I got a good deal. At £8, it’s a bit expensive but it’s not as bad as some repackaged films.

I don’t have any scans of the rebates right now. Up to you whether you believe me or not but given I have nothing in this and actually don’t hate what AW do, just feel it’s been long enough for me to post this (plus I remembered the thread).

 

[Squeakygrump]

I also want to say, I have no idea if it actually is expired film, I’m just guessing based on the ISO 100 comments. The developer times quoted by AW are pretty spot on for what people use for FP4+ pushed to 400.

 

[npl]

It’s FP4+ with DX coding stickers for 400 stuck on the canister. Not respooled or anything. I suspect possibly expired film, just due to Ilford being quiet about that when asked, plus all the talk of 100 ISO film.

Would you want to share what makes you conlude that this is FP4+ ? I'm not saying that it's impossible, but that's a big surprise. Kentmere films have been sold under different names for some time now (Agfaphoto APX , Rollei RPX) so this wonderpan 400 was most likely that (wonderpan datasheet is an almost copy and paste) , but an Ilford film like fp4 sold rebranded, has it ever happened ?

 

[Squeakygrump]

Would you want to share what makes you conlude that this is FP4+ ? I'm not saying that it's impossible, but that's a big surprise. Kentmere films have been sold under different names for some time now (Agfaphoto APX , Rollei RPX) so this wonderpan 400 was most likely that (wonderpan datasheet is an almost copy and paste) , but an Ilford film like fp4 sold rebranded, has it ever happened ?

The rebate is literally FP4+. I could show you a photo/scan, though it wouldn’t prove anything as you could say it was just any old roll of FP4+. My only other suggestion is compare the development times for WonderPan and pushed FP4+

 

[Squeakygrump]

This isn’t Ilford making them an FP4+ based film but literally FP4+ with stickers on the canister.

 

[Squeakygrump]

Google Search

webcache.googleusercontent.com

Read through the reviews. The review has also disappeared on the site now.

 

[Niglyn]

I’m not going to guess at why they chose to do it and how much it’s to do with Ilford either, given the fact they won’t give out information about the batch.

I got my roll for £6. A 24 exp roll of FP4+ from AW is £6.50 so I got a good deal. At £8, it’s a bit expensive but it’s not as bad as some repackaged films.

I don’t have any scans of the rebates right now. Up to you whether you believe me or not but given I have nothing in this and actually don’t hate what AW do, just feel it’s been long enough for me to post this (plus I remembered the thread).

Hi Alice,

Thanks for the information, it is most enlightning.

There is another thread which shows which Agfa films are re-branded.

I totally believe you, I was just curious as to what the film strip would say.
It is not really a big secret if ones wonderpan at +£1.50 more expensive than FP4+, has 'FP4+' written all the way along it.
Not sure why a company would stick a new label on it & re-brand the film.

Why not just say, 'wonderpan is what we call FP4+ pushed to iso 400. If you order Wonderpan, we will send you a roll of FP4+ and a DX coding sticker for an extra £1.50'.

 

[npl]

This isn’t Ilford making them an FP4+ based film but literally FP4+ with stickers on the canister.

Oh OK, simple as that thanks. I was just checking that the conclusion was on something solid, and not only circumstantial elements that could have worked with other film stocks, and have no reason to doubt what you're saying.

Good to finally know what is it, I certainely don't agree that we should accomodate the opaque business of film rebranding/reselling by withholding this kind of information when we got it. A company has every rights to try to make a quick buck selling a batch they probably got for cheap with a little marketing magic, but as member of a film community we don't owe them anything and should help each other to make informed decisions on buying a film stock.

 

[Squeakygrump]

Hi Alice,

Thanks for the information, it is most enlightning.

There is another thread which shows which Agfa films are re-branded.

I totally believe you, I was just curious as to what the film strip would say.
It is not really a big secret if ones wonderpan at +£1.50 more expensive than FP4+, has 'FP4+' written all the way along it.
Not sure why a company would stick a new label on it & re-brand the film.

Why not just say, 'wonderpan is what we call FP4+ pushed to iso 400. If you order Wonderpan, we will send you a roll of FP4+ and a DX coding sticker for an extra £1.50'.

I think with a lot of “rebranding”, it’s actually at least more subtle eg AgfaPhoto APX actually at least has Agfa rebate. Which is almost more dishonest, given we end up guessing at what something probably is, based on photos and development times, knowing only a few companies still make film themselves. But this is a different beast in that, once developed, the cat is out of the bag with what the film is and there’s no way to hide it.

 

[Squeakygrump]

Oh OK, simple as that thanks. I was just checking that the conclusion was on something solid, and not only circumstantial elements that could have worked with other film stocks, and have no reason to doubt what you're saying.

Good to finally know what is it, I certainely don't agree that we should accomodate the opaque business of film rebranding/reselling by withholding this kind of information when we got it. A company has every rights to try to make a quick buck selling a batch they probably got for cheap with a little marketing magic, but as member of a film community we don't owe them anything and should help each other to make informed decisions on buying a film stock.

Sorry for being a bit defensive, I just know what I’m like wanting proof!

 

[Don_ih]

This isn’t Ilford making them an FP4+ based film but literally FP4+ with stickers on the canister.

I think that's hilarious, actually.

 

[faberryman]

Is this sort of blatent deception something that attracts young film enthusiasts? Does anyone believe that this stunt was done "in partnership" with Ilford?

 

[Don_ih]

Does anyone believe that this stunt was done "in partnership" with Ilford?

I'm sure Ilford wouldn't turn down a "partnership" with you, too, if you offered to purchase of 1000 rolls of film from them. They are interested in selling film, after all.

 

[Don_ih]

All these up-and-coming emulsions imho are wasted money. All they are is Aviphot Pan 80 and 200. Nothing else. Maybe some Kodak motion films rebranded (double-xx). At an inflated price.

Except this one, which is fp4+....

Oh, and the other ones that Foma or Kentmere....

 

[faberryman]

I'm sure Ilford wouldn't turn down a "partnership" with you, too, if you offered to purchase of 1000 rolls of film from them. They are interested in selling film, after all.

Ilford used to have a "we don't allow rebranding of Ilford products" policy (which didn't apply to Kentmere products). Have they abandoned that?

 

[pentaxuser]

Ilford used to have a "we don't allow rebranding of Ilford products" policy (which didn't apply to Kentmere products). Have they abandoned that?

A good question and one which none of us knows the answer. What it does show and this would worry me if I were Ilford, is that whereas in the days following the Ilford re-birth in 2005/6, know as Harman, we generally believed what Harman in the form of Simon Galley told us. Since the new company, Pemberstone, took over that kind of link with Harman was never replaced and in the "vacuum" formed as a result something has had to fill it and that something is a belief that it may have abandoned its previous position and will sell its stock to anyone with the money and "no questions asked"

Time someone asked IlfordPhoto what it's policy now is. I'll volunteer Just so everyone knows I will include that the film X in question does have FP4+ on its edge markings

pentaxuser

 

[faberryman]

Time someone asked IlfordPhoto what it's policy now is. I'll volunteer Just so everyone knows I will include that the film X in question does have FP4+ on its edge markings.

I emailed Ilford and will report back if and when I hear from them.