Wonderpan 400 - whatever next?

[Don_ih]

Knowing that AW or CatLabs doesn't actually manufacture film doesn't tell you anything about the film they are selling, so I don't see how that knowledge is particularly helpful.

It's helpful in the following way: they are spinning a product that can be legitimately purchased in other ways with a full description from the actual manufacturer. So, if you want film to come with a data sheet and development times and legitimate expiration dates, buy film from known manufacturers of film. Since there are so few, it's pretty easy to spot them.

Yes there are those safeguards but this assumes that the ones you mention above are all you will ever need and that everyone has had access to a very good education and free access to information with the ability to understand in considerable depth the complete myriad of subjects needed to make a decision on all manner of things without some help from statutes and legal protection. Quite a lot of people do not have such skills and even the very few who are genuine polymaths may struggle to be fully self sufficient on all matters and at all times. Everyone needs outside help of a kind. At least this has been my experience.

I would expect people who are buying film would likely be able to check to see who makes film. Don't you?

This isn't a health or safety matter. It's not even a financial security matter. It's whether or not someone does or doesn't buy this or that film. It's not a necessity. It's film. You can let the oligarchy deal with more pressing matters.

Think about how a rebrander who tells you what the film he is selling actually is differs from a rebrander who plays hide the ball by placing a sticker with a cartoon chef on the label, and doing a video in which he tells you how cool it is, and how much fun you are going to have underexposing and overdeveloping expired film.

I can't address why people don't care what their images look like, or why they take photos of things that are unimportant to them.

Well, some people enjoy not knowing the result ahead of time. Some people enjoy stark contrast and a graphic result. A lot of people want to scan their negatives and not adjust anything (thinking that's "pure" or something).
And almost no one is using film for anything they consider important. Its current hype and charm is that it's unreliable and unexpected. Sounds like the marketing of AW fits right into that.

I don't use a film without knowing how to expose it and develop it to get the results I want. I do try to be as economic when using it as possible, though, so end up with a lot of questionable film that requires testing and particular exposure and development. But I don't take digital photos, for the most part, and I do use film for whatever I want to have a picture of.

But that doesn't mean I can't accept that other people do other things. AW wouldn't be able to successfully sell their film if there was no market. There are some people on this thread that bought the film - do you guys think they are gullible and stupid?

 

[faberryman]

There are some people on this thread that bought the film - do you guys think they are gullible and stupid?

I don't think the people here are gullible and/or stupid. That is not to say I understand the fun factor of buying a pig in a poke. Maybe if someone could tell me why they think it is fun, I would become a convert to the practice. In an earlier post I was admonished to get a life. Maybe buying a pig in a poke is key.

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, If the FP4+ label was removed/defaced from the cassettes, and the edge printing wasn't there, this wouldn't be of concern to Harman/Ilford.
Or if those were left unchanged, but the exact nature of the product was disclosed, this probably wouldn't be of concern to Harman/Ilford.
But neither of those are the case.
And the product is one that is perishable in nature, so its age matters.
While people buy film based, at least in part, on what is on the box and cassette, they tend to evaluate the film based on the results. And anyone looking at the negatives won't see Wonderpan 400, and won't see negatives with no edge printing, they will see lousy negatives with "Ilford FP4+" emblazoned on the edge.
So that is one big reason why it may be of concern to Harman/Ilford.
And it is why it might concern me and other potential purchasers.

 

[Don_ih]

And it is why it might concern me and other potential purchasers.

Those are valid concerns - but probably not for the intended market in this instance.

Maybe if someone could tell me why the think it is fun, I would become a convert to the practice.

I find it fun to figure out what to do with a particular film -- but then I want to get use out of what's left. I have no use for a single unknown film - I don't even like to buy a single roll of a documented film I haven't used before (because I don't trust it).

I think the people who enjoy the "pig in a poke" don't have such trust issues and just want to see what they get.

 

[Flighter]

I'm not really seeing where any real deception comes in here. Even back in May before the film was on sale, AW were saying (see post 10) that it was:

Based on a best-selling black-and-white emulsion - but with a change in ISO rendering different results to the original box speed - WonderPan 400 produces monochrome images with strong contrast, dark blacks, and moderate grain in the midrange tones.

I seem to recall that they were also talking about trying to get people to experiment and see that film could be pushed, which would necessitate a change in the speed it was to be shot at.

npl in post 13 references a PetaPixel article in which AW are quoted as saying:

The emulsion’s original product name is confidential — a matter with the manufacturer — but this film is most commonly shot around ISO 100.

So, right from the start AW were presenting it as a best-selling B&W film with a box speed of 100 that they were encouraging buyers to shoot at 400.

I grant that the comment in the PP article that:

The film is based on a best-selling black-and-white emulsion but has been modified to have a different ISO.

suggests something more than sticking a different DX coding sticker on.

 

[Ballinderry-Michael]

FWIW, If the FP4+ label was removed/defaced from the cassettes, and the edge printing wasn't there, this wouldn't be of concern to Harman/Ilford.
Or if those were left unchanged, but the exact nature of the product was disclosed, this probably wouldn't be of concern to Harman/Ilford.
But neither of those are the case.
And the product is one that is perishable in nature, so its age matters.
While people buy film based, at least in part, on what is on the box and cassette, they tend to evaluate the film based on the results. And anyone looking at the negatives won't see Wonderpan 400, and won't see negatives with no edge printing, they will see lousy negatives with "Ilford FP4+" emblazoned on the edge.
So that is one big reason why it may be of concern to Harman/Ilford.
And it is why it might concern me and other potential purchasers.

Matt, that point is well made. I think, though that people seeing a strip of lousy FP4+ negatives are likely to suspect the processing rather than the film itself.

I sleeve all my negatives (still have all but one roll back to my 1955 Brownie 127): in the case of my one developed roll of "Wonderpan", I have noted very clearly that it's that and not FP4+. Not that any future critic is likely to be going through my negs.

 

[Agulliver]

I agree that the only potential problem here for Ilford/Harman is if people who are not familiar with FP4+ think this WonderPan 400 is how fresh FP4+ performs.

I don't see this in the same light as CatLabs, who claimed they had been working with a film manufacturer to custom manufacture an emulsion for CatLabs that was made to their specification...and which took four years to perfect. They were advertising it as something new, different to existing products on the market. When it turned out to be a product already available at considerably lower cost elsewhere.

AW have made it clear all along this is a bit of fun for their 5th anniversary. I am not going to poo on people who enjoy shooting film with a cartoon chef on the canister. We all do our photography in various ways, and I bet there are people who don't look upon the way I do things as fun. The back story AW came up with was so obviously a work of amusing fiction, that it could never be taken seriously. They weren't hoodwinking anyone into thinking that WonderPan 400 was something unavailable elsewhere. They were aiming at people who wanted to have some light-hearted fun. And I guess part of the fun was seeing what the film was when the edge marking was revealed after developing, and peeling that cartoon chef sticker off.

Quite how they got hold of 1000 expired rolls of FP4+ and what Harman think of it all may never be divulged. But if Harman were seriously angry, they could always refuse to sell to AW.....though with AW being a popular and reputable film retailer that might not be wise even if they are angry....which they're probably not. I don't know why Harman would have had 1000+ rolls of expired FP4+ around...but maybe they did. Either way, AW is sufficiently clever not to be underhand with Harman.

I fully get why, in the Simon Galley era, Harman didn't allow rebranding if Ilford products as it cut into their own sales. I sometimes wonder how it works for Foma when films that are known to be Fomapan are significantly cheaper under another name. I don't see how a short run of a "limited edition" and rather niche product could possibly harm sales of genuine Ilford FP4+ or any other Ilford product - unless people are going to think that this is how regular, fresh FP4+ looks. That's the only concern.

I've had some issues with the way AW claim to have 200+ different films in stock, but they do really well with the younger crowd who are driving the increase in film sales....so they're doing something right even if it grates with me. And on the rare occasions I've ordered from them. their service has been superb. They often have oddities in stock such as 110 film, glass plates, cine film....So it's not like they are in any way unprofessional.

Yes, Nik & Trick is a different ethos, a totally serious company who doesn't really go in for "fun" or "whacky" activities. They also offer great service. And I keep meaning to visit their shop when I visit relatives in the area. But I'm really not going to poo on this effort from AW. It was so obviously a bit of fun all along.

 

[bluechromis]

'We can't tell you who manufactures it but it's normally shot at 100 but we're calling it 400ISO because the company prefers the way it looks shot that way' is the gist.

So I'm getting Aviphot vibes. Which is good film, but if that's what it is.....I can get it under other brand names cheaper.

I understand that AW want to celebrate their 5th birthday with an own brand film, and that the options for such a film are limited. But the silly back story does put me off. Having been burned with the CatLabs film my usual good nature on these things has turned a little sceptical.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the sample images over at PetaPixel.....but they do look suspiciously like Aviphot shot at 400 and pushed. Fine stuff, if a little contrasty but that's sometimes what one wants. But.....

Reminds me JCH Street Pan 400. They say, "If you shoot it at 400 it will give you that contrasty, gritty street photography look", which really means it will be horribly underexposed.

 

[Don_ih]

Blame William Klein for that "contrasty, gritty street photography look" -- all because he underexposed the film he shot when he went to New York.

 

[Don_ih]

Imho whenever I buy from companies that rebrand I'm diverting my money from getting to Ilford, or Kodak, Foma or Ferrania. With the exception of Agfa Belgium (AviphotS) it's way better to buy the real thing that wasting money on rebranded whatnot, to keep the big four alive...

True, but, in the case of Kodak, they don't sell the motion picture films in cassettes or even in reasonable bulk rolls, nor do they sell their aero film that way. Sale of that film from other companies does get money to Kodak, since those companies have to buy the stuff from Kodak (and then cut it, pack it, distribute it - you know, a major expense). Eastman Kodak doesn't suffer for it at all.

If Foma didn't make enough money selling film to be rebranded as Arista, for example, I doubt they'd do it.

At this point in history, having people buy film from anybody is probably very welcomed by every manufacturer.

 

[MattKing]

While Harman/Ilford certainly cares a lot about the wishes of individual end users, they also care a lot about the interests of the distributors and retailers too.
The ones who expend resources to buy and then try to sell Ilford branded products.
IMHO, those are the entities that are most disadvantaged by sloppy re-branding.
The hierarchy that used to be in place at Kodak was, in decreasing order of valuation:
1) customers;
2) dealers;
3) employees;
4) shareholders,

 

[foc]

To be honest, I have no problem with film being repackaged. Personally, it doesn't tempt me to buy it.
I have a little understanding of who the film manufacturers are and who makes what.

BUT if any of these rebranded/repackaged films make people use more film, then I am all for that.

If my memory is correct, there were similar arguments about Lomography, years ago. Yet they managed to sell a huge amount of film.

So when someone wants to buy film, online, instead of seeing just 5 or 6 brands/packages, they see 10 or 12 or more.
They see variety and they think they have a choice.

Suddenly film seems very much alive and exciting (and isn't that what we all want???)

 

[faberryman]

Here is the message I sent Ilford about WonderPan 400:

Analogue Wonderland said that it produced its WonderPan 400 film "in partnership with one of our leading film suppliers". In turns out than WonderPan 400 is Ilford FP4+ with a sticker on the canister to cover the Ilford FP4+ branding. Ilford's policy used to be that it did not allow rebranding of Ilford's products. Is that no longer the case? Did Ilford partner with Analogue Wonderland to produce WonderPan 400?

Here is the response I got back from Alex Hancock at Ilford:

Many thanks for your email and interest in our products. We are unfortunately unable to divulge specific customer information, so I am therefore unable to provide more information regarding your enquiry.

Thank you again for your contact and we wish you all the best.

So basically "No comment." It may signal who they deem to be their "customer".

 

[Ballinderry-Michael]

Here is the message I sent Ilford about WonderPan 400:



Here is the response I got back from Alex Hancock at Ilford:



So basically "No comment." It may signal who they deem to be their "customer".

As that pretty much matches the experience I reported in posts 90, 94 and 97, I'm not at all surprised.

 

[faberryman]

I don't like Ilford answer at all

I watch a lot of British detective shows, and when the detective is interrogating a suspect down at the station, and the suspect says "no comment", it is usually because the suspect is guilty and doesn't want to incriminate himself.

 

[pentaxuser]

Here is the message I sent Ilford about WonderPan 400:



Here is the response I got back from Alex Hancock at Ilford:



So basically "No comment." It may signal who they deem to be their "customer".

Thanks for that faberryman. That would seem to signal that the former policy of not allowing its film to be rebranded has changed. What surprises me is that Pemberstone/ IlfordPhoto seems to have no concern about how this is marketed in terms of how it reflects on it as a company. So presumably if I am rich enough I can order large rolls of HP5+ and sell it as "Miracle 3200" saying it can be shot at 3200( true) but say nothing about it actually being an ISO 400 film called HP5+

Seemingly Pemberstone because that's who "Ilford" are now are not worried about any adverse reflection of its products by this

What does surprise me is that Analogue Wonderland did not want Pemberstone/IlfordPhoto to eliminate all reference on the film to FP4. Maybe accepting it with edge markings made it cheaper to buy for AW or maybe Pemberstone/IlfordPhoto insisted that the edge markings remained so it was clear whose film it was and what film it was? Well at least the consumer finds out after he has bought it

A few of us have expressed concern about what AW and Pemberstone/Ílford Photo have been parties to but it is only a few of us and even if it were many of us on Photrio would that matter as a % of the film buying public? Probably not, in fact almost certainly not. In fact AW and Pemberstone/Ilford Photo are counting on the fact that it is of no concern at all to the "bottom line" of sales

pentaxuser

 

[Don_ih]

That would seem to signal that the former policy of not allowing its film to be rebranded has changed.

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.

 

[Flighter]

So presumably if I am rich enough I can order large rolls of HP5+ and sell it as "Miracle 3200" saying it can be shot at 3200( true) but say nothing about it actually being an ISO 400 film called HP5+

To be completely analogous instead of saying nothing about it actually being an ISO 400 film called HP5+ you would need to say that Miracle 3200 was based on a best-selling black-and-white emulsion that was commonly shot around ISO 400.

 

[faberryman]

The thing about all the fun you can have underexposing and overdeveloping film is that you can do that with any film, not just film which has a cartoon chef sticker on it. Which leads me back to my original conclusion that it is having a cartoon chef sticker on your film that makes it fun. Anybody know how many cartoon characters there are in Nintendo world. This could be an ongoing theme for Analogue Wonderland. Maybe they could just sell you a whole sheet of stickers with different cartoon characters on it, so you could use your favorite film and still have fun. Sort of mix and match. With a minimum film purchase, of course.

When my son was about four or five years old, I gave him a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 110 camera. He had fun taking photos with me, you know, a father and son activity. The film we used was Kodak. I can only imagine how much more fun it would have been for him if the Kodak film had a Donatello sticker on it. Kawabunga!

 

[Don_ih]

When my son was about four or five years old, I gave him a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 110 camera.

I gave one of mine a Thomas the Tank Engine 110 camera - it imprinted every photo with Thomas in one corner.

It really would have been so much better with iso40 film in an iso200-labeled cartridge...

 

[faberryman]

I gave one of mine a Thomas the Tank Engine 110 camera - it imprinted every photo with Thomas in one corner.

It really would have been so much better with iso40 film in an iso200-labeled cartridge...

Those toy 110 cameras didn't really produce very good images, probably even worse than FP4+ pushed two stops. Of course, some people like to shoot 110 these days. Probably reliving their youth (or their son's youth). I haven't completely given up the idea of borrowing my son's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 110 camera and doing a portfolio of fine art prints. If Michael Kenna can do it with a Holga, I can one up him with a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 110 camera.

 

[Don_ih]

Those toy 110 cameras didn't really produce very good images, probably even worse than FP4+ pushed two stops.

Yes, the pictures were blurry and there was no exposure control, but a bit of fun for a 5-year-old.

 

[faberryman]

Yes, the pictures were blurry and there was no exposure control, but a bit of fun for a 5-year-old.

My point exactly.

 

[Don_ih]

Well, you can get good photos by pushing film. You do need to know what you're doing. Just like getting good photos using a Holga. It won't happen on its own.

 

[Ballinderry-Michael]

In my case, the fun had nothing at all to do with the fancy packaging or the joky story. It was simply the amusing business (not to be repeated) of considering how to process an unknown film and then getting vaguely decent results. I admit to being slightly offended by faberryman's sarcasm; but that's something I've got over.