Wonderpan 400 - whatever next?

[koraks]

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.

 

[faberryman]

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.

If Analogue Wonderland buys directly from Ilford, Ilford could refuse to sell to them. If Analogue Wonderland buys from a distributor, Ilford could instruct its distributor not to sell to them. I doubt Analogue Wonderland is buying from other retailers. Ilford might want to do this before everyone starts doing it, and the customers start peeling off the stickers, and thinking how crappy FP4+ looks when it is two stops underexposed.

I agree that if I buy a brick (10 rolls) of Ilford film and resticker them, then there is not much Ilford can do about it. Great idea! Then I could say I was partnering with a major film supplier (even though I am not) and maybe even say the film was four years in the making (which it was not). I could then assign the film a random ISO, and wax poetic about its special qualities (of which there are none). That ought to drive the cool kids to my door. What makes the cool kids cool is that they use rebranded film. It shows everyone that they have specialized knowledge and don't use run of the mill film, which of course makes them real photographers. I am not a cool photographer because I bulk roll standard film into unmarked cassettes and don't really get into too many conversations about what film I use.

 

[Film-Niko]

I think with a lot of “rebranding”, it’s actually at least more subtle eg AgfaPhoto APX actually at least has Agfa rebate.

There is no "Agfa rebate" as Agfa is not involved at all in this!
AgfaPhoto films are sold by the German distribution company "Lupus Imaging". And Lupus Imaging has bought the right to sell films under name "AgfaPhoto" from a company named AgfaPhoto. That company AgfaPhoto just makes a living by selling licences to different companies for using the name "AgfaPhoto".
Agfa in Belgium has nothing to do at all with this!

 

[Film-Niko]

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 would not do anything for you if you only order 1000 rolls. That is nothing for them. Even small distributors order much much more from them in a short(er) time span.

 

[Film-Niko]

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?

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.

 

[Film-Niko]

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...

Not only Agfa Aviphot film gets rebranded, but also Kentmere (e.g. rebranded as AgfaPhoto APX 100/400, Rollei RPX 100 and 400, Oriental 100 / 400; and in former times as Fotoimpex CHM 100 / 400, which was honestly confirmed by Fotoimpex).
And Foma films are rebranded e.g. as Lomography Earl Grey and Lady Grey, Kosmo Foto Mono.

Ilford Photo / Harman technology is offering Kentmere for rebranding, but definitely not their Ilford films.

 

[faberryman]

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.

 

[Film-Niko]

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.

Is that the case that original canisters are used? If I have understood the member here right who used the film, he saw the FP4+ marking at the film perforation after film developing.......
But if only a label / sticker is glued on the original film canister.......then we have the same case as with introduction of Kosmo Mono film: Only a new label put on the original Fomapan 100 film canister.........

 

[MattKing]

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+

Please do share a photo that shows the edge printing and the sprockets. Sometimes there are clues in there.
Are there frame numbers, and do they start at 00 and go up past 36??

 

[MattKing]

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'm not sure about that, if the Ilford brand is visible on the edge print.
It is a weird sort of "passing off", but it does seem to be that sort of thing.

 

[Ballinderry-Michael]

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.

 

[faberryman]

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 saw some infomation on the website, but I was interested in whether they included a datasheet in the box. By the way, push processing FP4+ doesn't magically convert it into an ISO 400 film.

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. Talk about fun.

 

[faberryman]

Alice had fun and I had fun. Get a life.

Fun is shooting film with a cartoon chef on the cassette? And you think I need to get a life?

 

[Squeakygrump]

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.

Thank you. Just thank you. I chose to post what it was because, tbh, I found out AW deleted a review pointing out what it was and it rubbed me up the wrong way. But I don’t have any problem with what I ended up with. I’m honestly more bothered about Kosmo Agent Shadow!

 

[Squeakygrump]

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.

Yes, there’s development instructions on the website, with times that match up pretty well with what is on the Massive Dev chart for FP4+ at 400.

 

[Squeakygrump]

Fun is shooting film with a cartoon chef on the cassette? And you think I need to get a life?

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).

 

[MattKing]

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".

 

[Film-Niko]

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.

Thank you very much for reporting, much appreciated!

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?

I have to disagree here, for several reasons: As Simon Galley himself reported here in the past, one of the reasons former Ilford got into struggle and insolvency in 2004 was that they undermined their business by selling film to others for rebranding. By that Ilford film was offered at lower prices than as Ilford branded film. They also hadn't control over the behaviour of resellers / rebranders.
Lection learned by Ilford: No selling of Ilford film anymore to anyone for rebranding. And I am sure that policy have not changed at all recently.
And we have had a lot of disappointment (to say it diplomatically) in the market in the last years caused by shop owners who cheated their customers, and told lies about their rebranded film products, like Bellamy Hunt and Catlabs did, just two examples.
Films users are just totally tired of these marketing lies about "new, unique" films, which are just long established films available on the market for years, but then sold with rip-off prices (like JCH Street Pan).

I cannot imagine that Ilford is so stupid to actively participate in just another dishonest attempt to fool film users. An active participation can only damage their reputation. Would they do risk that for just a tiny number of 1000 films? I don't think so.

 

[faberryman]

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).

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.

 

[Mike Crawford]

Blimey! So much I could say about this business of sticking a label on a canister, but better keep my thoughts to myself! However, I'm thinking if it's so easy to sell conventional film without any great effort, then who is to stop anyone selling whatever brand they have come up with? I'm now intrigued to think up suitable and regional names for 'new' film brand. Could have some fun on InDesign with this.

So, should you ever buy a roll on Ebay of Fomapan 400 disguised as Kafkapan 800 or Ilford FP4 masquerading as Brontepan 400 Plus, well...... nothing to do with me.....Promise!!

 

[Ballinderry-Michael]

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.

 

[Squeakygrump]

Sorry, Squeakygrump, I hadn't realised that there were three of us! You've just spoken for me in that post. Thank you.

Nope, I just changed my username! Sorry! Think it’s just the two of us who bought it on here. It’s made me try FP4 at box speed as I hadn’t bought a roll before, which was an obvious oversight on my part.

 

[Squeakygrump]

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.

Yes, the website I’m not building.

Oh, and it would be grandmother’s Brownie 620…

 

[Ballinderry-Michael]

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".

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.

On the other hand, I'm entirely of your opinion (and the same opinion expressed by others here) on the wisdom of pushing FP4+ to 400.

On the question of film availability, I've re-filled two loaders this year without any problems and also bought rolls of Delta and CMS20 II - and someone has located for me a bulk roll of Rollei Retro 80S with a bit of searching. There are of course straws in the wind; and I don't use colour film.

 

[faberryman]

Yes, the website I’m not building.

Oh, and it would be grandmother’s Brownie 620…

If you don't have an artist statement or a website, you could put the information on a tee-shirt. That would be fun too. There, I have just suggested a business opportunity for you. Another tip: instead of printing the date the tee-shirt wearer started using his mother's Brownie Hawkeye, you could leave a blank space and then apply a sticker with the appropriate date on it. That way you could service a variety of customers with minimal inventory.