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?
I doubt there's much they could practically do about it. Anyone can buy a brick of Ilford, paste some labels into it and sell it off as "Catch of the Day 3200ISO". I don't think there's any legislation that forbids it. The only thing they could do is refuse to sell to this party directly, but my bet is that they're already buying it from the regular distribution or even retail outlets anyway.
I think with a lot of “rebranding”, it’s actually at least more subtle eg AgfaPhoto APX actually at least has Agfa rebate.
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?
I meant that there's only Agfas Aviphot 80 and 200 beyond all the other known films by the know manufacturers (kodak, ilford, foma).
The only Aviphot 80 is rebrandes as Rpx 25, Rollei 80s and others...
Most probably not.
I think Analogue Wonderland has just bought a bit bigger batch of bulk film anywhere (certainly not at Ilford) at a discount (maybe expired film), and had converted that.
From Analogue Wonderland's perspective, the beauty of putting a chef sticker over a FP4+ cannister is that they don't have to find anyone to do the confecting. They can just apply the chef stickers whenever they have a few free minutes.
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+
I doubt there's much they could practically do about it. Anyone can buy a brick of Ilford, paste some labels into it and sell it off as "Catch of the Day 3200ISO". I don't think there's any legislation that forbids it. The only thing they could do is refuse to sell to this party directly, but my bet is that they're already buying it from the regular distribution or even retail outlets anyway.
Fun is shooting film with a cartoon chef on the cassette? And you think I need to get a life?Alice had fun and I had fun. Get a life.
This thread's away with the fairies. Analogue Wonderland made it blindingly obvious from the start that the whole thing is a bit of fun. I bought my three rolls on that basis. As far as I can see, only two contributors to the thread have actually bought the film; and neither of us feels hard done by.
I wasn't going to contribute again; but this may cut the crap a bit. I have just removed enough of the sticker from the used cassette to see that yes, surprise surprise, it's an Ilford 24 exposure cassette of FP4+. Matt sensibly asks about numbering: yes, it's a 24 exposure roll starting at 0 as you'ld expect. Also, it matches FP4+ that I was using four or five years ago and is therefore probably outdated.
Anyone who's actually read the thread will see that I e-mailed Ilford about all this and got effectively a "no comment". Now isn't it obvious that, given that AW want to continue to sell Ilford film, there is no way they would run a wee stunt like this without Ilford's knowing about it? And isn't it also obvious that no-one with any sense would give a toss about that?
Alice had fun and I had fun. Get a life.
For those of you who have bought some of this fantastic new WonderPan 400, do they provide push processing development instructions, or for that matter any development instructions?
I noticed that AW has a special offer for processing WonderPan 400. Do a lot of people have their black and white film processed at a film processor? It seems to me that if you are cool enough to use rebranded film, you really ought to be processing your black and white, if not color, film in your kitchen sink.
Fun is shooting film with a cartoon chef on the cassette? And you think I need to get a life?
I wasn't going to contribute again; but this may cut the crap a bit. I have just removed enough of the sticker from the used cassette to see that yes, surprise surprise, it's an Ilford 24 exposure cassette of FP4+. Matt sensibly asks about numbering: yes, it's a 24 exposure roll starting at 0 as you'ld expect. Also, it matches FP4+ that I was using four or five years ago and is therefore probably outdated.
Anyone who's actually read the thread will see that I e-mailed Ilford about all this and got effectively a "no comment". Now isn't it obvious that, given that AW want to continue to sell Ilford film, there is no way they would run a wee stunt like this without Ilford's knowing about it? And isn't it also obvious that no-one with any sense would give a toss about that?
The fact you seem so bothered about what I and other people find fun or do with our time is bizarre. But then, there’s a lot of bizarre attitudes on this forum which, if I wasn’t nearly 40 and used to it, I might be put off as someone relatively new to shooting film (I say relatively new because I don’t count the holiday snaps I took as a kid).
Sorry, Squeakygrump, I hadn't realised that there were three of us! You've just spoken for me in that post. Thank you.Fun is shooting film and, to some degree, I actually enjoyed working out what it was so I could choose an appropriate development time with the developer I have at the moment.
The fact you seem so bothered about what I and other people find fun or do with our time is bizarre. But then, there’s a lot of bizarre attitudes on this forum which, if I wasn’t nearly 40 and used to it, I might be put off as someone relatively new to shooting film (I say relatively new because I don’t count the holiday snaps I took as a kid).
Sorry, Squeakygrump, I hadn't realised that there were three of us! You've just spoken for me in that post. Thank you.
You really need to count the time you took holiday snaps as a kid. It is almost de rigeur to say in an artist statement when you began making photographs with your mother's Brownie Hawkeye. If you don't have an artists statement, and you probably won't unless you have taken a photography class or had a show, you should include that information in the About Me section of your website. It is just a bit of fun.
Matt, I disagree a bit and agree a bit. I see the whole episode as a wee stunt (my words) on AW's part that was obviously such from the start. The only unknowns to me all along were what film Wonderpan actually was and when it would become available. So I don't agree with your "subtle mis-direction": no subtlety there.I think people are bothered by the substitution and subtle mis-direction.
And that "bother" is at least partially fueled by the general concern about the availability of film - both current and projected for the future.
I doubt anyone other than Harman would have minded if Analogue Wonderland had described the nature of film accurately.
IMHO, the examples we have seen sure look lousy compared to fresh FP4+, exposed and developed "normally".
Yes, the website I’m not building.
Oh, and it would be grandmother’s Brownie 620…
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?