Wonderpan 400 - whatever next?

[Ballinderry-Michael]

For what it's worth, I've just had a look at Merriam-Webster.

Rebrand: change or update the brand or branding of (a product, service etc.)

or: (broadly) refer to or describe in a new way

[examples given suggest to me that rebranding is done by the owner of the brand]


repackage: to package again or anew

or (specifically): to put into a more efficient or attractive form

[I also looked at a dictionary of real as opposed to north American English but need not trouble you with the definitions there, for fear of arousing European speculation]

 

[Don_ih]

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?

Smart?
But that's neither rebranding nor repackaging. That's packaging and branding. The film is a raw material in such an operation. Just like Sifto and Aurora can get salt from the same mine, but put their own brand name on the box.

 

[faberryman]

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.

As I understand the term "toll coating", the buyer specifies the characteristics of the film, i.e., it is a custom run. Your example, where the film has exactly the same characteristics as the film sold under the manufacturer's brand name, is not toll coating, but what you refer to as "rebranding."

 

[Ballinderry-Michael]

For what it's worth, I have just come across a batch number decoder: entering the film's code into it suggests manufacture in June 2017. That wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Squeakygrump]

For what it's worth, I have just come across a batch number decoder: entering the film's code into it suggests manufacture in June 2017. That wouldn't surprise me.

Explains why they said ISO 100 film a bit, though really makes me question pushing it even more. For what it’s worth, I don’t hate the shots at 400 but would rather just use HP5 at that point.

It’s on sale now though…slightly expired FP4 for £6.50 isn’t so bad.

 

[Squeakygrump]

Explains why they said ISO 100 film a bit, though really makes me question pushing it even more. For what it’s worth, I don’t hate the shots at 400 but would rather just use HP5 at that point.

It’s on sale now though…slightly expired FP4 for £6.50 isn’t so bad.

Though they sell fresh for that…

 

[tykos]

The link below is to a short blog on the film. His images are of scans with contrast manipulated in Affinity 2, though; so I'm not sure what to make of this. I'm also startled by 17 minutes in HC-110 B. Still, here it is:

https://casualphotophile.com/2023/06/29/wonderpan-400-analogue-wonderlands-new-film/

wow, these are really some unusable pictures.
underexposed like hell and way, way, way overdeveloped! Why treat a negative like this when you can just modify the contrast in post/print?

 

[pentaxuser]

Yes this comment on the blog sums it up for me

"Renaming a film stock with a different ISO rating, without disclosing its true nature, can lead to unintended consequences. For instance, photographers expecting a true ISO400 film may unknowingly purchase a rebranded ISO100 film, only to find that its performance falls short in low-light situations. This lack of clarity undermines the trust and reliability that photographers seek when selecting film stocks for their creative vision."

When I look at the blog and its findings including the photos, I was struck three questions


1. Was I naive enough at the start of my film adventure to have been taken in by any of such a blog including the attempt to make a virtue what is clearly poor results? On balance I doubt it

2. Does this blogger genuinely think that AW is trying to help its customers?

3. Has AW tried to help its customers with this offering and where does education about film figure in AW's philosophy?

pentaxuser

 

[Don_ih]

AW let it be very clear that this stuff was a slow emulsion pushed. A photographer relying on this stuff for a low light situation obviously didn't even read the description. It's a gag film - shouldn't really be called 400-speed at all. If there was any speed rating on the film, it should have been 100 - and they could say "We'd like you to push this film to 400" -- but that would have been pretty dull, wouldn't it? They weren't releasing a new film - they were packaging up some stuff to sell to their fan base. And after a small run, it's done.

AKA - nothing to worry about.

No serious photographer would put any faith in such an untested and spurious product. Unless they were into fun. Clearly no one (almost no one) here is.

 

[Squeakygrump]

AW let it be very clear that this stuff was a slow emulsion pushed. A photographer relying on this stuff for a low light situation obviously didn't even read the description. It's a gag film - shouldn't really be called 400-speed at all. If there was any speed rating on the film, it should have been 100 - and they could say "We'd like you to push this film to 400" -- but that would have been pretty dull, wouldn't it? They weren't releasing a new film - they were packaging up some stuff to sell to their fan base. And after a small run, it's done.

AKA - nothing to worry about.

No serious photographer would put any faith in such an untested and spurious product. Unless they were into fun. Clearly no one (almost no one) here is.

This. It’s obviously intended as a bit of a laugh. It’s clearly not flying off the shelves as it’s reduced in price. And for this relative newbie, it has made me curious about pushing film a little more (along with other, slightly less “unusable” examples)

 

[Squeakygrump]

Yes this comment on the blog sums it up for me

"Renaming a film stock with a different ISO rating, without disclosing its true nature, can lead to unintended consequences. For instance, photographers expecting a true ISO400 film may unknowingly purchase a rebranded ISO100 film, only to find that its performance falls short in low-light situations. This lack of clarity undermines the trust and reliability that photographers seek when selecting film stocks for their creative vision."

When I look at the blog and its findings including the photos, I was struck three questions


1. Was I naive enough at the start of my film adventure to have been taken in by any of such a blog including the attempt to make a virtue what is clearly poor results? On balance I doubt it

2. Does this blogger genuinely think that AW is trying to help its customers?

3. Has AW tried to help its customers with this offering and where does education about film figure in AW's philosophy?

pentaxuser

1. As someone very new to my film adventure, I’m more bothered about paying high prices for rebranded Kentmere

2. Ask them

3. Actually yes. Education is a massive part of their philosophy and I’ve always had great and prompt responses to questions. Their blogs are interesting too. Sure, it might not be high level education but it’s good for people getting into film.

 

[Squeakygrump]

wow, these are really some unusable pictures.
underexposed like hell and way, way, way overdeveloped! Why treat a negative like this when you can just modify the contrast in post/print?

It probably depends on your definition of unusable. Here are a couple of mine:

 

[tykos]

It probably depends on your definition of unusable. Here are a couple of mine:

yours are nicer, at least there's something in the highlights and shadows. I suspect those shadows would be impossible to print with an enlarger, but still, nice job.

 

[Squeakygrump]

yours are nicer, at least there's something in the highlights and shadows. I suspect those shadows would be impossible to print with an enlarger, but still, nice job.

Thank you.

I think this highlights the point though. They might be unusual negatives for darkroom prints but a hell of a lot of people aren’t using traditional prints. Access to darkrooms is pretty limited without setting up your own and much as I’d love to, I have nowhere suitable at all. There are a lot of people in this situation.

 

[tykos]

when i see all these "this negative is sooo good because it's contrasty like hell", that is basically every "film review" nowadays, my problem is that: 1- every negative will be very contrasty if underexposed and overdeveloped 2- negative is the middle medium: you can increase your contrast in the darkroom or, even more and even easier, in photoshop. No point in having very very contrasty negatives other than a supposed internet flex.

 

[Agulliver]

For reasons I find inexplicable, high contrast negatives are currently in fashion. I find that they scan and print with more difficulty than negatives with what we might call medium contrast. So unless I specifically want high contrast images, that's not what I aim for. But just because I don't understand it, doesn't make it wrong.

I often point out that I am uncomfortable with AW's claim that they stock over 200 different films....when several of these are the exact same film under various names. But....they do have educational posts on social media and videos on youtube. They do reach out to novice film users to educate. And they do it in ways that appeal to a late teen or twenty-something film user, not us old farts who might appreciate an old man with a beard telling us how to bulk load and use an enlarger.

I like how Nik & Trick fit closer with "my" way of doing things...but then they also have been banging on about Fuji's "imminent" complete exit from the film market for at least a decade now.

In this case, I fail to see that AW have done anything wrong. This was clearly a fun stunt, no harm was done, nobody in their right minds who read any of the blurb will have been misled. It didn't even cost that much. Happy 5 years in business, AW.

FWIW I do see this as a rebrand. Not all rebrands are attempts to pass off an existing product as something different. Everyone here surely knows that currently Arista Edu is Fomapan...there's no attempts to pass it off as something unique or in any way materially different to Fomapan. But it is a rebrand. As is this. CatLabs was something different because there was, to my mind, deception practised by them. But it was still rebranding. That my .02, and I don't see any point in arguing. Not all rebrands are equally deceptive.

AW's current posting on Facebook and Instagram is some sort of teaser "something's coming". Now I am old and farty enough to think of the rock group Yes when I read that tag line. But it appears to be a teaser for some sort of camera....though the camera in the images is clearly a Samsung and I am under no impression that Samsung are entering the film camera market.

 

[Squeakygrump]

For reasons I find inexplicable, high contrast negatives are currently in fashion. I find that they scan and print with more difficulty than negatives with what we might call medium contrast. So unless I specifically want high contrast images, that's not what I aim for. But just because I don't understand it, doesn't make it wrong.

I often point out that I am uncomfortable with AW's claim that they stock over 200 different films....when several of these are the exact same film under various names. But....they do have educational posts on social media and videos on youtube. They do reach out to novice film users to educate. And they do it in ways that appeal to a late teen or twenty-something film user, not us old farts who might appreciate an old man with a beard telling us how to bulk load and use an enlarger.

I like how Nik & Trick fit closer with "my" way of doing things...but then they also have been banging on about Fuji's "imminent" complete exit from the film market for at least a decade now.

In this case, I fail to see that AW have done anything wrong. This was clearly a fun stunt, no harm was done, nobody in their right minds who read any of the blurb will have been misled. It didn't even cost that much. Happy 5 years in business, AW.

FWIW I do see this as a rebrand. Not all rebrands are attempts to pass off an existing product as something different. Everyone here surely knows that currently Arista Edu is Fomapan...there's no attempts to pass it off as something unique or in any way materially different to Fomapan. But it is a rebrand. As is this. CatLabs was something different because there was, to my mind, deception practised by them. But it was still rebranding. That my .02, and I don't see any point in arguing. Not all rebrands are equally deceptive.

AW's current posting on Facebook and Instagram is some sort of teaser "something's coming". Now I am old and farty enough to think of the rock group Yes when I read that tag line. But it appears to be a teaser for some sort of camera....though the camera in the images is clearly a Samsung and I am under no impression that Samsung are entering the film camera market.

This is how I see it. Though you can argue about the technical aspects of photography, it is still art and thus what people like and want to do is not wrong, just not your choice.

I’ve heard problematic things about Nik and Trick so will likely avoid them as much as possible but that’s not to say there aren’t problems with other companies. I “revealed” what WonderPan is because AW deleted a negative review spelling it out and that doesn’t sit well with me.

And the Fujifilm thing: who knows what’s going on with them. Until they announce that they are discontinuing everything, I’m hoping they will be back selling globally.

 

[pentaxuser]

I “revealed” what WonderPan is because AW deleted a negative review spelling it out and that doesn’t sit well with me.

Actually yes. Education is a massive part of their philosophy and I’ve always had great and prompt responses to questions. Their blogs are interesting too. Sure, it might not be high level education but it’s good for people getting into film.

Squeakygrump, These two above comments by yourself in two posts seem to cast two different kinds of lights on AW The first looks to be being critical of AW and the second reasonably in praise of them on their film education objectives

So can I ask what the negative review was about? It appears to be that you revealed the truth about Wonderpan 400 and so annoyed were they that they deleted it? Is that correct?

If my interpretation of what you said in the first quote is correct, isn't this an example of AW promoting "bad education"?

As I say, I may have completely misunderstood what your meanings in the two quotes were

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[faberryman]

I “revealed” what WonderPan is because AW deleted a negative review spelling it out and that doesn’t sit well with me.

I would hope you would have revealed that WonderPan 400 is actually Ilford FP4+ even without AW taking down a negative review. Isn't knowing what film you are shooting a basic element of photography education?

 

[Squeakygrump]

I would hope you would have revealed that WonderPan 400 is actually Ilford FP4+ even without AW taking down a negative review. Isn't knowing what film you are shooting a basic element of photography education?

I would have waited until they sold out or at least a bit longer than I did. AW were clear this was a 100 ISO film suggested to be pushed to 400 so I don’t think it’s a lack of them educating, just not being transparent, much like most companies rebranding. The fact someone posted on their site and it was removed bothers me because if they take this review down, what else do they delete?

 

[Squeakygrump]

I “revealed” what WonderPan is because AW deleted a negative review spelling it out and that doesn’t sit well with me.

Actually yes. Education is a massive part of their philosophy and I’ve always had great and prompt responses to questions. Their blogs are interesting too. Sure, it might not be high level education but it’s good for people getting into film.

Squeakygrump, These two above comments by yourself in two posts seem to cast two different kinds of lights on AW The first looks to be being critical of AW and the second reasonably in praise of them on their film education objectives

So can I ask what the negative review was about? It appears to be that you revealed the truth about Wonderpan 400 and so annoyed were they that they deleted it? Is that correct?

If my interpretation of what you said in the first quote is correct, isn't this an example of AW promoting "bad education"?

As I say, I may have completely misunderstood what your meanings in the two quotes were

Thanks

pentaxuser

I can be both critical of some aspects of a company and praise other things. I also don’t necessarily agree that removing a review promotes bad education, just isn’t transparent. Maybe they plan to “reveal” the film themselves? Who knows.

No, it was not me who posted a review. My issue with them deleting it is more about what other possibly genuine reviews they are deleting. I found out they deleted it because I did a Google search to see if anyone else had posted about the film stock. It showed up on the results but then wasn’t on the website. I posted a link to the archived site.

I believe AW do help educate and do plenty for analogue photography. They might not be perfect and this has soured my opinion of them a little but there are far worse photography companies out there.

 

[Squeakygrump]

I would hope you would have revealed that WonderPan 400 is actually Ilford FP4+ even without AW taking down a negative review. Isn't knowing what film you are shooting a basic element of photography education?

I suspect you see photography in a different way to me. I like to experiment with film, shoot expired stock, and would shoot an entirely mystery roll if someone gave me some. I don’t look at examples before I buy a film stock (I do now check I’m not being entirely financially screwed by rebranded Foma and Kentmere etc) because I want to see what it looks like when I use it. Everyone has their own style and, as cliche as I know it is, I haven’t settled on mine. Yes, I do like the technical aspect of film, the chemistry etc, but I’m trying to not be obsessed with what is “correct”.

 

[faberryman]

I suspect you see photography in a different way to me. I like to experiment with film, shoot expired stock, and would shoot an entirely mystery roll if someone gave me some. I don’t look at examples before I buy a film stock (I do now check I’m not being entirely financially screwed by rebranded Foma and Kentmere etc) because I want to see what it looks like when I use it. Everyone has their own style and, as cliche as I know it is, I haven’t settled on mine. Yes, I do like the technical aspect of film, the chemistry etc, but I’m trying to not be obsessed with what is “correct”.

The same film can be marketed under any number of names. If you try one of those rebranded films and don't like it, you may unknowingly try the same film over and over again under different names. Doesn't seem like a cost effective or efficient way to find your style. Let your experience with rebranded Foma and Kentmere be your guide.

 

[Squeakygrump]

The same film can be marketed under any number of names. If you try one of those rebranded films and don't like it, you may unknowingly try the same film under different names. Doesn't seem like a cost effective or efficient way to find your style. Let your experience with rebranded Foma and Kentmere be your guide.

I think you missed my etc

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the reply Can I ask what companies you believe still make B&W films? Faberryman mentioned the two mains ones Foma and Ilford who make Kentmere but yes there is now Adox and still Kodak However of the latter two I have seen no evidence that they permit rebranding of their "still" films in Kodak's case but a lot of movie film is rebranded by companies such as AW

So yes nearly all "new" films that come on the the market under different and often exotic names such as Babylon 13 are made by a few mainstream manufacturers so trying a new film in the ture sense of the word "new" is not possible. One of the few big manufacturers have made it and the mystery film you try is one of the mainstream ones under another name



pentaxuser