Originally Posted by Paul Cunningham
Why do you think Kodak have stopped HIE, Plusx, Panatomicx, 3200, etc., ...
Why would Simon want to help commercial competitors?
The size of the market would need to be comparable with the coating machine throughput but unless you have one to hand you would need to also justify the capital cost. I doubt that even SFX is a high volume seller.
Film from a smaller volume machine probably will have higher production costs. If so it would have to be dedicated to premium types.
It is more realistic to assume/plan on a reduction in film and format choice as the film volume reduces.
220 and 127 examples- I have 4 cameras that can use 220 but don't expect to buy any more.
If you need IR a digital camera without a hot filter may be a more available option.
It's kind of you to address the question, but it is directed toward Simon and Ilford.
As for IR solutions, I have several at hand, and being an IR enthusiast, would welcome more.
I wonder if Harman Ilford is the same Harman that took over the Crown tape recorder company.
Nope. That Harmon is audio products. For example, Harmon/Kardon.
Originally Posted by Tom1956
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.
The industry does not need APUG to learn how to do these things or communicate with one another.
Originally Posted by Paul Cunningham
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The world market for IR film is very, very small.
It would not be viable for us to produce one and we have capacity to make down to pretty small coated volumes if needed.
I have mentioned many times some of the complicated manufacturing issues around very low volume products that may be attractive to film users.
1 ) 35mm / 120 and Sheet film are typically produced on three different bases with three different
2 ) You can produce small volume products ( and we do ) but when you are trying to get a return on your R&D investment and have to spread that over a very small volume it would make the cost per film prohibitive and you would sell less.
3 ) IR film has very poor keeping qualities compared to normal panchromatic emulsion types.
4 ) Making a true IR film would compromise sales of ILFORD SFX film, we have a policy of keeping all films currently made in production in all existing formats.
5 ) When making small volumes waste rises to a higher percentage of good coated stock.
Finally I noted somebody saying ' HARMAN may never introduce another film' well that is an opinion not based in fact, but of course its an opinion to which everyone is entitled....
We will look, and do look at new product opportunities on a monthly basis, in depth, and the team of 7people that discuss it have well in excess of 120 years experience in the photo market, balanced against our wish to innovate and satisfy customer requirements is to run a profitable and stable business that continues to focus on analog monochrome photographic products as its core market ( although we do other things ) and to offer and manufacture now, and in the future the largest range of ultra high quality monochrome photographic products in the world, bar none.
Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :
Originally Posted by Simon R Galley
Simon, I understand Ilford's position and commitment with respect to SFX.
In my uniformed imagination, I could see the true IR market being equal to the size of the SFX market, but that would probably presume either that some or all of the SFX customers would be happy with true IR and are using SFX because there is no true IR available (and not from Ilford).
As you previously mentioned, it seems not all of the features of SFX are present in true IR.
Thanks again for your comments and perspectives.
I'd have to say, Ilford has a pretty impressive B&W range of film. I don't shoot much B&W, mostly color, but I generally do shoot Ilford when it's B&W (the exception is in the IR film, where I typically shoot the Rollei IR400s).
Let's take a look at what you can get in the Ilford/Harman line from B&H (I'm only looking at 35mm here, since that's what I primarily shoot), traditional grain films first:
ISO 50 - Pan F
ISO 100 - Kentmere 100
ISO 125 - FP4+
ISO 200 - SFX
ISO 400 - Kentmere 400
ISO 400 - HP5+
In the T-grain type 35mm films, we have:
ISO 100 - Delta 100
ISO 400 - Delta 400
ISO 3200 - Delta 3200 (note this film has a true speed of 1000, but low contrast so it looks good when pushed to 3200).
And finally in the chromogenic films:
ISO 400 - XP2 Super
So Ilford/Harman has an offering for B&W film in box speeds ranging from 50 to 3200, including 2 100-speed films and 4 400-speed films. Contrast this with Kodak B&W emulsions, also available from B&H:
Traditional - 400TX
T-Grain - TMax 100
T-Grain - TMax 400
And finally Fuji, available from B&H:
ISO 100 - Neopan Acros 100
ISO 400 - Neopan 400
So Ilford has 10 B&W films, Kodak has 4 B&W films, and Fuji has 2 B&W films. I dare say Harman is doing something right to be able to support that many B&W films! Would a true B&W IR film be a good thing to have? Sure, but not if it hurts Harman's ability to offer the impressive variety of film it already produces.
Shoot more film.
There are eight ways to put a slide into a projector tray. Seven of them are wrong.
Harman was the only reason I didn't sell off my darkroom when the crisis first hit. I thought hard about it. It was the never-more-valuable-than-at-this-moment distressed seller's argument. But then I heard "have not and will not discontinue..." and I held fast.
Originally Posted by ME Super
While acknowledging the obvious disclaimer regarding the unforeseeable for every film manufacturer, I couldn't be happier today with that decision.
"There is very limited audience for the arty stuff, and it is largely comprised of other arty types, most of whom have no money to spend because no one is buying their stuff either. More people bring their emotions to an image than bring their intellect. The former are the folks who have checkbooks because they are engineers, accountants, and bankers—and generally they are engineers, accountants and bankers because they are not artists."
— Amanda Tomlin, Looking Glass Magazine, 2014