OT: Ilford to sell film busines?

[roger a.]

Ilford appeaar to be getting out of film.

 

In case the link doesn't work:

 

"Photographic materials supplier Ilford Imaging was facing a major

overhaul today after administrators were appointed to the company.

 

Grant Thornton said it would look at the potential of selling

Ilford?s traditional photographic business as a going concern and

allow the company to focus on its more profitable inkjet digital arm

in Switzerland."

 

Not good news!

 

 

http://www.breakingnews.ie/text/story.asp?

j=39799572&p=397998y6&n=39799870&x=

[claudia__]

can we not assume that whoever buys it will continue to make traditional photographic items? seems likely to me so unless one is very attached to the "Ilford" label, what is the problem?

[h._p.]

Ilford's had a spotty financial history for years now, ever since it was bought out by CIBA in the 'seventies. I knew a chap who worked there before the take-over and he says it was a typical old British company where everyone knew everyone else and it was more like an extended family than a business. Unfortunately, it was probably that which made it ripe for take-over in the first place.

[jrl]

It could be the end for Ilford. I wonder if anyone here will do a Chuck ('Peanuts') Shultz and buy up the entire stock, as Shultz did when his favourite pen maker ceased trading.

Perhaps Leica Camera AG will buy Ilford as they do go together, and it might make good business sense for the company to have a hand in everything, Hermés are very into that. Although probably it'll be brought by someone like Kodak, who'll use the Ilford name mere to denote B@W stock.

 

I think I'll start ordering packs of ten instead of five...

[jrl]

<i>"can we not assume that whoever buys it will continue to make traditional photographic items? seems likely to me so unless one is very attached to the "Ilford" label, what is the problem?"</i>

<p>

That is a good point, Ilford is a classic prestige brand in the photography industry. There is a recent precedent for brands like this to be brought up by venture capitalist's who then make sure the quality and prestige is brought to the fore. A good example of this is what Ferrari under the wings of the Fiat group have done with the Mazerarti Marque, keeping it a separate self sufficient business but in the family so to speak. The same as Hermés has done with Leica. This doesn't always work. Burberry is a good example, although profitable the marque has been down graded to the chav uniform (even to the point that Burberry is now banned in a lot of London bars).

Sadly I think that any sell off of Ilford films would be the end of the company. There just isn't the demand for film that there was. Most people go for digital. Kodak would be the most likely to buy Ilford, but just use the name to re brand it's own B&W.

[bob haight]

I read lately film will be available for about 20 more years to some degree. But, I now think thats generous. It seems all the large producers will be entirely out of it in just a few years. I think the only venue to buy film will be specialty companies at much higher cost. It seems we should, as Jay suggested, band together and uniformly support a manufacturer committed to film based imaging or else we will lose it quicker than we think.

[jrl]

I'm not sure about that. I think that film will stay although maybe with a higher price tag. That said people said B@W wouldn't out last the `70's but it has. I think that film will stay but more and more be the domain of the artist.

[roger_michel]

boy, that's really a shame. i always imagined that kodak would quit the film market, leaving ilford in a great position to cater to the specialist market for years to come. have to really rethink that scenario!!

 

really too bad!!

[gerald_widen]

That link didn't find the story. I checked around some other forums on the internet and didn't hear anything about this story. Does someone have a link.

[scott_mcloughlin]

Just search Google News for "Ilford."

 

Scott

[scott_mcloughlin]

BTW, I just bought 20 rolls for FP4+. Maybe I should go buy some more :-)

[arthuryeo]

Here's <a href="http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/business/general/s/128/128120_fears_for_700_jobs_as_ilford_faces_closure.html">another link</a>

[lee_shively]

Neither link works for me.

 

Ilford has been owned by several companies over the years. I doubt it will disappear, just be sold to someone else who will restructure and continue the operation.

[lee_shively]

Nothing on the Ilford site.

[bas1]

I read lately film will be available for about 20 more years to some degree. But, I now think

thats generous. It seems all the large producers will be entirely out of it in just a few years.

 

That is total bull. Efke film have been around for donkeys years and are one of the

cheapest on the block for ages. Ilford is not folding yet nor anyone else. If you truelly

believe film is going to die then

 

1) you don't understand business since there are still a lot of b/w and slide shooters who

don't want to go near digital

2) you don't understand markets. Every reaction creates a counter reaction. If the masses

are going to digital then then some digital shooters will go elsewhere

3) you don't understand your history. (8mm and 16mm film are still around, vinyl records

are still around, tube ampifiers are still around)

 

 

It is totally dumba$$ remarks like that that really get me going.

 

Film is not in a good place right now. Primarly cause their bread and butter business,

colour film) is decreasing heavily. Markets will shrink and will find a new level at which to

operate and new demand and price levels to go with it. We are not there yet, but we'll get

there. I hope soon so that these sort of unfounded and dumb remarks will stop.

[joshroot]

Until it is official, that isn't the kind of thing one would expect to see posted on a

company's website.

 

"Hey! We're in a bad spot and may stop selling the films that our customers like!"

 

Not good for business.

[blakley]

If the directors are looking at selling the film division, clearly they think it has value as an asset (or else no one would buy it).

[dougmiles]

Good point, Bob. And as was also said, color film is taking a hit in the market from digital... but this may not be as true for B&W film (where Ilford shines) which is used by enthusiasts and may have steadier sales.

[ivan_fontaine]

>.. but this may not be as true for B&W film (where Ilford shines) which >is used by enthusiasts and may have steadier sales.

 

Unfortunately the B&W market is also collapsing. Even faster than color. For example in France in 2003, the sale of B&W film (135) decreased by 13.2%, E6 slides by more than 14%.

 

 

 

On the other hand, Lucky film is starting to export some B&W film...

 

I think we're going to see a big reduction in the number of available products.

[eliot_rosen]

I suspect digital is far less prevalent in developing nations than in places like the USA, France, etc. There should still be a pretty good market for film in developing countries that will be much slower in converting over to digital. I suspect film will outlast most of us on this forum. :-)

[Spearhead]

<i>I suspect digital is far less prevalent in developing nations than in places like the USA, France, etc. </i><p>

 

I'm sure "suspecting" is fun, but it's no replacement for being there. Last year, Kodak was trumpeting "developing nations" for growth in film sales, but it's gotten mighty quiet about that. Having spent December in a country poorer than China, I can only say that digital is everywhere. Most never even had film cameras, so digital is taking off. Just like cell phones, I saw tons of cell phones but most people don't have a home phone.<p>

 

But go on "suspecting" if it makes you feel good.

[lachaine]

My other hobby is cycling, and I love fine road frames made by hand from high-quality tubing silver-brazed into fine lugs - the traditional way. Of course, since the late 1980's to early 1990's, mass manufacturers have completely abandoned that method in favour of cheap welded aluminum frames, mostly imported from cheap production in China. But, there are quite a number of custom frame makers who continue the tradition. They all work on a very small scale, and the frames are expensive, but, on the other hand, they are better than they ever were.

 

One cherished item that used to be on fine bicycles was a leather saddle made by Brooks, in England. Like the bikes they were used on, genuine hand-made leather bicycle saddles have been pushed out of the mainstream by plastic-shelled monstrosities that can be churned out by the thousands at minimal cost and sold for maximum dollars.

 

The masses are buying these mountain bike-styled road bikes and the plastic saddles, because that's what they are selling and marketing. People learn to want the cheap poorly-made stuff, because they just don't know any better. But people who appreciate the special qualities of a fine steel bicycle and a fine suspended leather saddle are also still buying them. They have become niche markets for people who appreciate the product.

 

Much like Ilford, Brooks Saddles is a company that has gone under recently, a few times, but, because there are enough people who simply would not ride a bike if not on a Brooks B17 saddle (not pro cyclists, but the dedicated amateur), it had enough market value that it was finally bought by one of those cheap plastic saddle makers and so, anyone can still buy a brand new Brooks saddle.

 

It might come to a situation like that eventually with film. Similarly as with the leather bicycle saddles, I think that there will always be enough people who appreciate the qualities of a fine film to keep it available to some degree. It's hard to imagine HP5 not having enough of a market to continue somehow.

 

Digital photography is doing to the film industry what cheap TIG-welding and aluminum did to lugged, steel bicycle frames and what cheap plastic saddles have done to Brooks (and Ideale in France, Leper in Holland). Hopefully, there will be enough people left who appreciate the qualities and the sheer pleasure of fine film photography, and enough people who recognize the difference.

 

Hopefully, every company will be able to hang on until things stabilize, and production can be geared to the level of demand that is out there. There will certainly be some losers as the whole industry shakes itself out, but I think there will be some winners in the end.

[lachaine]

BTW, as the cycling forums and newsgroups on the internet and usenet developed in such a way as to push out the traditional, I quit them cold turkey a couple of years ago, and I've been happily enjoying my cycling ever since. With the constant cacophony of digital this and digital that, and the daily sky-is-falling reports about everything that is film, I think I will probably do the same with regards to photography, and just go out and enjoy taking pictures the way i want to take them.

[steve_chan5]

<i><blockquote>I suspect digital is far less prevalent in developing nations than in places like the USA, France, etc. There should still be a pretty good market for film in developing countries that will be much slower in converting over to digital. I suspect film will outlast most of us on this forum. :-)</blockquote></i>

<p>This same kind of thinking might suspect that cell phones and advanced wireless phone services less prevalent in this developing countries. And you would be dead wrong. With the trend towards embedded digicams in PDA's and cellphones, and the relative ease of deploying a digital print kiosk (versus a wet development/printing machine), I'd put my money on digital for developing countries.

[claudia__]

what percentage of consumers do you think want fountain pens? you can still buy them. and bottled ink. and as i found out this morning by calling an 800 number i can still have mine repaired. it will be the same with film. notice i did not say "suspect."