Ilford Products - Read It and Weep

According to this story in the Manchester Guardian,

 

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/business/general/s/128/128120_fears_

for_700_jobs_as_ilford_faces_closure.html

 

Ilford is my favorite film and paper at this point. This is real

disturbing!

Sorry that article does not exist

Yeah, not a good day for us film folk --->

 

<a href="http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8209-1230067,00.html" >Link</a>

Damn to digital!

This has already been discussed in threads on a couple of other forums. Before sinking into despair, read the entire article, particularly this:

 

"Mark Byers, head of recovery and reorganisation services at Grant Thornton, which is handling the administration process, said that it planned to analyse the traditional photographic business with a view to selling it as a going concern."

I just ordered 100 rolls each of Freestyle Arista 125 and 400--re-branded

FP4+ and HP5+ (at least I've never been able to find any functional

difference). My wife is VERY unhappy about the space this will take in our

freezer, but at least I'll have my favorite film for a while longer before giving in

to the inevitable. FWIW the much cheaper Freestyle Arista EDU films are re-

branded Forte, good film too, but so damn curly after drying!

 

There's still a chance that Ilford will find a buyer that will keep the film

business going--lets all keep our fingers crossed!!

 

Lastly, here's an article from today's London Times (which reminds me, I didn't

see anything about Ilford in today's NY Times--I guess it's not important

enough for the "newspaper of record"):

 

"August 24, 2004

Administrators close Ilford shutters

By Jenny Davey

 

ILFORD IMAGING, one of the last surviving manufacturers of black and white

photographic products, yesterday collapsed into administration.

 

The company?s traditional photographic business, which makes black and

white films and high resolution photographic paper, is expected to be sold by

Grant Thornton, the administrators.

 

The move follows a 26 per cent plunge in sales at the UK division in the first

seven months of this year, blamed on falling demand for black and white

pictures and a surge in the popularity of digital imaging.

 

The company had kicked off the year celebrating its 125th anniversary.

 

The group started when Alfred Hugh Harman began making Gelatine Dry

Plates in the basement of his house in Cranbrook Road, Ilford, Essex and

developed into one of the world?s leading film makers, loved by professional

photographers.

 

The UK division employs 740 people at Mobberley in Cheshire, where it

principally manufactures black and white supplies.

 

Mark Byers, head of recovery and reorganisation services at Grant Thornton,

which is handling the administration process, said that it planned to analyse

the traditional photographic business with a view to selling it as a going

concern.

 

The company, which was bought by Doughty Hanson, the private equity

company, for ?85 million in 1998, also said that it planned to sell its Swiss

business, which develops and manufactures digital inkjet products.

 

The Swiss division continues to trade normally and is not in any form of

insolvency. Mr Byers said the division had a large market share and the

potential for further growth.

 

In the past four years Ilford said that it had managed to reverse a decline in

sales by refocusing the business on digital photography products, with sales

in the year to December 2003 hitting $233 million (?129 million), up from

$210 million in 2002.

 

Profit growth at the digital inkjet business has continued to accelerate, but the

decline in the black and white photographic market has continued. This,

together with the weakness of the US dollar and a decision to reduce black

and white film stock by many shops, has led to losses".

I hope the company survives. HP5 and Pan F are virtually all I shoot and MG Warmtone is my favorite paper. It's one more reason for me to continue to detest digital and all it has brought to photography.

Amen

At point the market will find a settling point. And the pendulum will swing the other way -- meaning that you'll find some who return to film.

 

The key factor is hoping that the makers of our favorite films can survive the transition.

 

In a recent issue of Amateur Photographer, one of the magazine's staffers said that some wedding photographers have returned to shooting film because digital is unable to capture detail in white wedding dresses and dark-colored tuxedos, especially when both are in the same photograph.

I can't understand you people blaming Digital for the demise of film, it has nothing to do with digital, it has a lot to do with the dis-loyalty of film users who have turned there backs on film, in the same way that many turned their backs on large format when 35mm came along.

Film should survive, maybe not in all flavours, and maybe not your favourites, but realy you are to blame for not shooting enough!

I understand that operating in a market in decline isn't easy. But when putting together a film order tonight I just happened to check out Ilford prices via UK discount suppliers relative to Kodak. They were mostly very much cheaper- in the range 15-25% cheaper on 120- than their Kodak "equivalents".

 

Now outside the fact that I hate the taste of the glue on the Ilford closure strips, I can't work out why this should be so. The trade won't be taking a lower % margin on Ilford ubiquitously, so we have to assume that Ilford charges the trade less. If you're staring administration in the face, maybe this isn't the smartest way to avoid it. Certainly everything I've learned about pricing theory over years tells me that you're likely to be better off overpricing by a bit than underpricing. Lower film prices won't make people throw their digitals away, and it is pretty much inconceivable that an average 20% price advantage can pay for itself from increased share.

 

Are Ilford products worth less than Kodak, or are Ilford the architects of their own misfortune? Is it the same elsewhere and on other products?

Recently I had a very serious conversation with a high ranking

sales official at a major medium format camera factory. (Those

who now me a bit better know which company I am talking

about.) He told me something very interesting which made my

heart jump up. They are planning to bring their own B&W film to

market in order to make sure that their customers will never run

out of 120 film. The film will be produced by a renowned (but

small) film making company and packed under the camera

brand name.

 

The official gave me a roll of this new film for testing. The film is

multi ISO and can also be reversed for use as a B&W slide film

since it has a clear polyester base. Introduction is planned for

the upcoming Photokina.

...The film will be produced by a renowned (but small) film making company and packed under the camera brand name. ...

 

So why don't they just buy Ilford's film division. At least they would then be selling a superior product.

 

As far as pricing goes I am truly surprised that Ilford did not try substantially raising their prices. It is obviously preferable to pay more for good film than low budget digital. High end MF digital backs may be another matter altogether, but I suspect the majority of MF film users do not shoot enough film to be better off using high end digital, even if film prices doubled.

 

Ilford had a good rep based on their quality products. Apparently their marketing and business sense was/is not equal to their products. Hopefully someone will buy them out and continue to produce what we want.

 

just my 2c worth...

vic... :)

This has been confusing me today too. I just bought some Delta 400/120 and some XP2

Super/135. Both are cheaper than any alternative (esp. Kodak) in my local camera shop.

Do they not raise prices because they think they can't match Kodak's brand premium? I'd

buy them for MORE than I pay for Kodak B&W products....

Yes, Arista film is re-packaged HP5 and FP4. I was a die hard Delta user with 35mm but since I now only get 10 shots per roll, I use Arista's film most of the time. Where else can you buy a roll of 120 for $1.99?

I still think that the majority of photographers who shoot digital are not professionals. I know several pros and they still shoot medium and large format, they just scan the negatives. I think as more average joes are conned into thinking their 35mm cameras are no longer any good and they buy a digital camera, it will affect 35mm film the most. 120 is still used by pros and serious amatures like myself. It's a smaller market then 35mm and digital but it always has been that way.

Regards,

Marc

David, I actually like the taste of Ilford sticky tabs. Almost minty. Kodak sticky tabs make me gag. There's a thread in the archives somewhere about Fuji sticky tabs tasting like candy.

<i><b>Lee Shively</b> , aug 24, 2004; 01:28 p.m.

I hope the company survives. HP5 and Pan F are virtually all I shoot and MG Warmtone is my favorite paper. It's one more reason for me to continue to detest digital and all it has brought to photography.</i><br><br>Agree. Nice to meet someone to still have eyes to tell a photograph from a picture. (*handshake*)<br><br>

 

<i><b>Kevin Dean</b> , aug 24, 2004; 05:50 p.m.

I can't understand you people blaming Digital for the demise of film, it has nothing to do with digital, it has a lot to do with the dis-loyalty of film users who have turned there backs on film, in the same way that many turned their backs on large format when 35mm came along. Film should survive, maybe not in all flavours, and maybe not your favourites, but realy you are to blame for not shooting enough!</i><br><br>It's not so easy, I would say. The people who jumped on the "let's go digital" bandwagon are mainly of two kinds:<br><br>

 

1) folks with no clue with fine art - I mean the casual shooters - for whom the quality of film has never been an issue since they have always used crappy fixed-focus cameras, and who of course like the convenience of digital photoCRAPhy.<br><br>

 

2) professionals who had enough of spending entire gloomy days in darkrooms breathing acids and dealing with dust to print quality pictures for people who wouldn't tell a fine art photograph from a newspaper illustration.<br><br>

 

Well, if I really pity the 1s, I don't approve but still understand the point of the 2s (and would probably do the same if I had the misfortune of having photography as a work). I have always been loyal to film and will always be, but the BIG market - sorry to say - was in the hands of 1 and 2. No way I will use as much film in my entire life as a wedding (*groan*) shooter professional would in one single year of work.<br><br>

 

Film will survive for sure, there's no doubt, and I figure that it will have a BIG bounce back within 5-10 years when people will have had enough of D and will have a total recall for black and white. Just consider that - NOW - Super8 film is having a moment of great popularity. Me, I never quit shooting Double8mm, which is still available. Please note that both these formats should be died and buried by YEARS, overwhelmed by the videotape. Today's tendency, instead, is to think that the way in which videotape looks sucks.<br><br>

 

Thus, the question is not "if" it will survive. The question is "which brand"? There are few dark years to pass ahead, then - whichever will be the brand to survive - it will automatically find itself to be the leader of the market. Kodak will sure give up - those guys never had any love for their products. Ilford always seemed to be on pole position, and I think it still is. This is probably just a capitalist strategy: they're renaming a company, making compartments, I'm sure they will avoid a lot of taxes by doing so, and they will be back on the market as usual. I'm quite positive about them.

Fuji has non-lick tabs nowadays (how dare they! if we wanted innovation... :). Agfa's taste good. Afga's also pricing their films a lot lower than Kodak & Fuji ), and not many are betting on their survival. (Gotta admit though that they're no longer as competitive as they once were, esp. not as scanner friendly, but I didn't have to know that.)

 

As to 35mm film vs MF: I think that the posters here are kidding themselves if they think that MF film has anywhere near the market of 35mm film, or that it will survive independently of 35mm film, or if they think that 35mm film is unworthy of survival (because it's half as much goodness as MF..). Boutique vendors notwithstanding, but we've yet to see them for real & in colour.

 

Confession: I bought a P&S digicam and have used it more than my far superior vintage and current 35mm. Been there, done that, maybe now I can get back on the right path..

 

Unfortunately, I never saw black & white as the right path. I can imagine the next generation having the same opinion of film. So what though, as long as it holds up for a lifetime. The generation before me is not unused to seeing TLR's, etc., and they seemed to give them up as easily as we or the next generation might give up film.

 

But I think that TLR's were given up for convenience, portability, and flexibility. Are P&S digicams really significantly more convenient than P&S film cameras? I'm not sure. Maybe my wife's next camera should be a P&S 35mm.

 

We are also the public, and though the "infinite" resolution of film is a myth, the greater resolution of 35mm film as compared to consumer digital is not, and perhaps it bears repeating if we're interested in film's survival.

Kevin Dean wrote: "I can't understand you people blaming Digital for the demise of film, it has nothing to do with digital, it has a lot to do with the dis-loyalty of film users who have turned there backs on film, in the same way that many turned their backs on large format when 35mm came along."

 

When I first got into photography in 1971, I aimed for a 4x5 press camera, as a local pro and neighbor in Long Island (my address at the time) told me that I would really learn photography from scratch if I stated with large format. I ended up purchasing a used Crown Graphic at the age of 14. 35mm was so hot at the time! I remember other photo nuts in school wanting to compare their 8x10s enlarged from a modern 35mm camera, stating that the superior optics would make up for it (yes this was amoungst 14 - 16 year olds!). I was constantly questioned why I would want to pursue large format since it is so dated. Even the pro who recommended that a 4x5 press stated that press cameras are obsolete. I did end up getting a Nikon F2 from my father (nice dad) a year later, but still preferred the large format. I really wondered at the time if there was a future for sheet film! After a long break from photography, I got back into large format (as a hobby) in the late 1990's. To me, large format is hotter now than it was in the early 1970s. I can't help but think the dust will settle with digital versus film. Although I think the cuts are far from over, I do think there is a future for film....and it is bright.

J. Mose, that makes a lot of sense.

 

Things will settle down, although it is not nice for people to lose jobs or, secondarily, for emulsions that we may have become attached to to become unavailable. By the way, I have produced high quality prints using a DSLR. I am no technophobe, but I just happen to like using film and film cameras for personal use.

Agfa is selling its film division.

http://www.iht.com/articles/534773.html

"It's not so easy, I would say. The people who jumped on the "let's go digital" bandwagon are mainly of two kinds:

 

1) folks with no clue with fine art - I mean the casual shooters - for whom the quality of film has never been an issue since they have always used crappy fixed-focus cameras, and who of course like the convenience of digital photoCRAPhy.

 

2) professionals who had enough of spending entire gloomy days in darkrooms breathing acids and dealing with dust to print quality pictures for people who wouldn't tell a fine art photograph from a newspaper illustration."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All statements like these do is essentially tell us that the person who uttered this statment really has no clue about what makes a photo good or bad. Should we go back to the days of wet-plate photography? Have you even used a digital before? You should look at more pics on this and other sites, some of the best photos were taken with digicams. The photographer is what makes a photo good, not what medium was used.

You can calm down, Jason, you just misunderstood the point, went totally off topic and cut out a pretty poor figure.

 

Now if you can re-read my sentence in peace and find out that I was only pointing to which was the biggest portion of the market, not which pictures were better of which road was to be followed (those being just my subjective thoughts), you'd make me some justice. You may like it or not, but fine art photographers made and make a negligible percentage in producer's profits, so they are almost not even taken in account, whichever their choice was, is or will be: digital or analog.

 

Then yes, I think that wet photography was much more expressive than today's, and the more I see these over-edited colour-manipulated highlights-burned awfully-midtoned "images" of the "new technology", the less I like them. But that was not the point being discussed here. The point was another - it was the ILFORD brand.

 

That said, still anyone's free to say what it's more beautiful for him, since that's personal taste. Did you see an albumine-printing exhibition of the 10's-20's lately, for example? So you took a look at the midtones compression... What about the low lights - did you see those details? Yes, astonishing, you're right. One even forgets that those could be achieved, once upon a time. Ah yeah, and don't even tell me about the highlights - I know, I know :-)

 

That's my PERSONAL taste, that I'm not imposing over anyone. I'm just happy when I meet someone who share my thoughts.

 

After all you're in the winner technology bandwagon which IS being imposed to those who still would like to have photographic papers available - you should be happy and smiling, and pitying the old stuff's fanatics with simpathy and a sense of compassion. I wonder why - instead - you're as harsh as if you had a guilty conscience... May be that you liked your black and white photographs much more than your digital images?

 

With friendship - Marck.

Looking at well made prints recently in the National Portrait Gallery and in the Photography Gallery, and at work more broadly, it seems to me that there is an obvious difference, as yet, between the best of wet printing and the best of digital printing.

 

The point about mid-tone separation is well made, as is that about the subtle highlight definition; these seem to me to be the strengths of traditional printing methods. It may be that given time, digital printing can acheive this level of refinement in B&W, but all I've seen so far indicates that it can't at the moment.

 

This is the sad thing about the rise of digital and the rush of the biggest consumer groups to embrace it - little money is left for the sustenance of film for the minority groups who see and love the subtelty and beauty of fine B&W printing.

 

Of course, if all you care about is viewing images on a computer screen then none of these points will touch you at all.

No Marck, I completely understood what you were saying. You essentially swept all people who shoot digital under one rug, and made generalizations about people in certain photographic professions.

 

"May be that you liked your black and white photographs much more than your digital images"

 

Hmmmm... hehe... I've spent lots of time in the darkroom dev'ing and making prints in both 35mm and 6x6/6x7, and now I spend my time working with digital images from my digicam, and scanned 6x7 negs on Photoshop. The quality I get with my digicam is good enough to match 35mm IMHO in color and B&W. 6x7 is a different story though..

 

Look, I love Ilford products, FP4+, HP5+, and Delta 3200 were among my fav B&W emulsions (along with APX 100 and Tri-x), and I think it would be a shame if these products would dissapear. You make it sound like I have schadenfreude that Ilford might go under..total nonsense. It was you that dissed the use of digital photography not me knocking film users. I merely stated that it's a ridiculous notion that digital photography is not "worthy". I don't care how someone made a print, just how the print looks. BTW, I've seen many gallery prints derived from digital media that easily hold their own with optical prints. Of course, when I'm looking at a print, I'm more interested in the subject and context of the photo than getting my face right up to the print to examine miniscule little details