Wonderpan 400 - whatever next?

[Don_ih]

Perhaps the lesson for processing is, before loading the film, put a few inches in some paper dev for a few minutes (in the dark, of course) to see what the edge might say - especially if you have more than one roll.

 

[Ballinderry-Michael]

Perhaps the lesson for processing is, before loading the film, put a few inches in some paper dev for a few minutes (in the dark, of course) to see what the edge might say - especially if you have more than one roll.

For something that mattered, I'd agree with that precaution. At least potential remjet wasn't a consideration.

 

[pentaxuser]

No. It signals that Ilford is not going to talk about one of its customers (AW - who also sells Ilford branded products) to someone who is completely unrelated to either Ilford or that customer.

It might be the signal that Pemberstone/IlfordPhoto has a different policy from that of the previous company but wishes to protect its new large private customers and itself from further unwelcome inquiries. It sounds as if the gist of what you are saying is that faberryman is just not important enough and I'd agree as I said. All of Photrio combined assuming we were of one mind on this subject would not be important enough to make any difference

In this context of change as it affects the new company of Pemberstone/IlfordPhoto, let's call that old company of whom Simon Galley was an executive, Harman so we can differentiate between them. These two companies are clearly different from one another as can happen and often does. I often wonder if we should refer to the current or past company as Ilford, convenient as it is is on most occasions, as this tends to make us believe it is the same old company called Ilford which it is not

As an example of the danger of not quite accepting that a company may have changed beyond all recognition of what it was in " days gone by" Kodak is still called Kodak but it is not the Kodak of old nor is there any reason per se that anything about it including its old ethos survives.

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Harman Technology Ltd. is the same company that it has always been - since Ilford Imaging went bankrupt in 2005, and Harman Technology bought up some of its assets, including partial use of the "Ilford" name.
There are new shareholders.
Nothing posted in this thread gives any indication about what Harman Technology's policy is with respect to someone slapping new labels on a small number of old FP4+ cassettes and marketing those as a thing of "Wonder".

 

[Don_ih]

It might be the signal that Pemberstone/IlfordPhoto has a different policy from that of the previous company

It indicates nothing except an unwillingness on the part of a company to discuss a paying customer with a random person from the internet. In other words, it indicates nothing at all.

 

[pentaxuser]

It indicates nothing except an unwillingness on the part of a company to discuss a paying customer with a random person from the internet. In other words, it indicates nothing at all.

Ah, I think we may have agreement here in the sense that if your phrase "indicates nothing at all" means it leaves us with a lot more questions about Pemberstone/ Ilford Photo than we have answers that cover those questions

We will not get answers on this particular subject from the latest "Ilford" now owned by Pemberstone which bears little resemblance in my opinion to the company that restarted in 2005 from the aftemath of the bankruptcy

pentaxuser

 

[faberryman]

We will not get answers on this particular subject from the latest "Ilford" now owned by Pemberstone which bears little resemblance in my opinion to the company that restarted in 2005 from the aftemath of the bankruptcy

Ilford may or may not be the same company they were, but they are providing the same products at prices which are not exhorbitant.

 

[MattKing]

We will not get answers on this particular subject from the latest "Ilford" now owned by Pemberstone which bears little resemblance in my opinion to the company that restarted in 2005 from the aftemath of the bankruptcy

Harman seems remarkably similar to the 2005 version, save and except for its presence on APUG/Photrio.
Almost same/slightly increased product line in particular.

 

[Don_ih]

if your phrase "indicates nothing at all" means it leaves us with a lot more questions about Pemberstone/ Ilford Photo than we have answers that cover those questions

No. I mean they are not answering the question asked by someone who has no right to know the answer. AW if a seller of Ilford products - which means, from Ilford's point of view, that AW is a customer. FABerryman doesn't sell Ilford products and doesn't have any association with AW, so he has no legitimate right to know about Ilford's relationship with AW.

The email neither answers questions not creates more. All it does is show Ilford is not engaging in bad business by divulging information to unrelated parties.

AW may have purchased the film from a third party, anyway - it may be expired stock that was sitting in a warehouse somewhere. In that case, Ilford has nothing to do with it.

 

[Agulliver]

Harman don't personally answer my questions so they're not the same company that arose from the bonfire of 2006....riiiight....

Actually, if you email them...they will answer you personally. Happened to me several times. They do retain a smaller presence here too. But Photrio is a tiny microdot in the world of B&W film photography. We're not a blip on the radar of Ilford/Harman, Kodak, Foma or the other reasonably big players. They're into their Instagram and other social media.

I honestly don't think we have any more or less questions than we did originally. This isn't really comparable to an ongoing sale of FP4+ or some other Ilford product as a rebrand. It's 1000 cassettes of old FP4+ which AW and some customers hopefully had a bit of fun with.

The business model under Pemberstone seems 99% the same as in the Simon Galley era. They're 100% focused on producing the existing Ilford line of B&W films, papers and chemicals. They've increased both the Ilford and Kentmere lines, introduced interesting things like the dark tent...all 100% relevant to analogue photographers and darkroom users. The only "change" has been better engagement with social media, and a move to less contact with us stick-in-the-muds here.

 

[faberryman]

The email neither answers questions not creates more.

I agree that that the email doesn't answer any questions or create any new questions. It just leaves the existing questions hanging. Which is fine. Nobody said they have to be transparent. Of course, if you feel so inclined, you can draw conclusions from their decision not to be forthcoming about one of their "paying customers"* claiming on its website that they are in partnership with them. Maybe you will draw the right conclusion; maybe you will draw the wrong conclusion. So it goes.

Perhaps I missed it before, but AW is offering a cartoon chef sticker for £2.00. It doesn't look like it fits on the film canister. It may fit the film reminder holder on the back of your camera. Or perhaps the rear window of your car. Fun, fun, fun.

*I would note that I have been a "paying customer" for at least three decades. AW is just an upstart.

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, back in 2005 I think APUG was actually an important ally to the new entity, Harman Technology.
Certainly both benefited from the connection.
But Harman needs/needed to make inroads into a market that is younger and less interested in this type of web entity - forums not being the resource of choice for everyone.

 

[pentaxuser]

Well maybe the same Simon Galley who gave a very straight answer on the then Harman policy of not being prepared to participate in re-branding would give a similar "No comment" answer today

We'll never know. I suspect that the importance of APUG, as we were then, to Harman in terms of sales or the latter's future was probably no more then than it is now but maybe Harman thought it was.

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Wonderpan 400 isn't "rebranding".
If it was, it wouldn't have the edge printing it has.

 

[Don_ih]

Wonderpan 400 isn't "rebranding".

Um, it's about as rebranding as possible. They put a sticker with their own brand over the original branding.

 

[JParker]

I have made several very bad experiences in the past with rebranded films and the behaviour of the film shops or camera shops which are offering them. They treated me as a customer with no respect and told me lies.
And all what I am reading here (and in all the other threads about rebranded films) supports my opinion to avoid films from these suppliers who too much often keep important information away from their customers and often even try to fool them by telling total marketing lies, or exploit them with overpriced products.
Companies who think I am an idiot will not get my money.

 

[MattKing]

Um, it's about as rebranding as possible. They put a sticker with their own brand over the original branding.

Perhaps in most of the (real) world. But then again maybe not - how often do people open up a package of something labelled with one name, and then discover another name on the contents? Of course, with film, you don't make that discovery until after development.
In the film marketplace, "rebranding" has come to mean something a bit different - taking all steps necessary to change as many of the identifiers as is possible to hide the original identity of the product. With the edge printing saying FP4+, this isn't that.
It is re-packaging, if anything.

 

[faberryman]

In the film marketplace, "rebranding" has come to mean something a bit different - taking all steps necessary to change as many of the identifiers as is possible to hide the original identity of the product. With the edge printing saying FP4+, this isn't that.
It is re-packaging, if anything.

Who in the "film marketplace" defines these terms? Where can these definitions be found?

 

[MattKing]

"Come to mean" means an informal evolution of generalized understanding.
No definition authority exists.

 

[faberryman]

"Come to mean" means an informal evolution of generalized understanding.
No definition authority exists.

"General understanding" among whom?

 

[foc]

Who in the "film marketplace" defines these terms? Where can these definitions be found?

The Film Definition Authority (Fda) office can be found, down the road from your man's house and first on the left.

 

[MattKing]

"General understanding" among whom?

All the discussion I see here and other website sources, communications in the past from Harman/Ilford, and amongst those I know who have at least a passing interest in these things.
"Rebranding" in the form I reference has a long history in the photographic marketplace - think of all the GAF/3M/Ferrania films sold under different store brand names and with customized edge printing and cassettes.

 

[faberryman]

All the discussion I see here and other website sources, communications in the past from Harman/Ilford, and amongst those I know who have at least a passing interest in these things.

I have not done an exhaustive analysis of the use of the terms "rebranded" and "repackaged" on Photrio, but I have looked at a couple of hundred occurrences and the terms appear to be used in the main interchangeably, so I think, at least among our membership, which I'd like to think is generally more knowledgeable than the average film user out in the wild, the term "rebranded" is not limited to film which has been stripped of all manufacturer identifying information. Maybe my data set is too small, but it strikes me that the term "rebranded" is used more broadly than the technical sense you suggest.

 

[Don_ih]

Regarding rebranding vs. repackaging: There's no knife sharp enough for that splitting of hairs. Let's enter this into the list of distinctions that cannot possibly matter.

 

[MattKing]

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.