ILFORD Photo / CHANGE TO 120 WRAPPERS

[Simon R Galley]

Dear ILFORD Roll Film Users,

Back in 2006 I asked for feedback from APUGGERS on changing to generic wrappers for 120 film. With your positive feedback we have progressed this.

Between now and mid Year 2007* all our 120 films will change to generic wrappers, essentially all the branding ( FP4+ / HP5+ / Delta 100 / Delta 400/ PAN F + / SFX 200 etc , will be removed from the wrapper and transferred to the exposed and unexposed labels , the wrappers are identical in quality to the branded ones they replace. As originally stated this is being done to improve flexibility and to try and help offset rising costs.

* All ILFORD 120 films will move to generic wrappers by approximately mid Year, timing is purely dependant on manufactured volumes and existing branded wrapper stocks, so it could be any film any time.

To give you an example of added flexibility, it is one of the reasons why we have been able to re-introduce SFX 200 film in 120 as we can now use a generic label.

So once again thanks for your feedback and contribution to our product offerings.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited:

[arigram]

Hmmm, I guess there is no chance of implementing the features of the
MF film rolls: design and convenience
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/3...nvenience.html
thread...

The problem with generic wrapping is that you won't be able to tell the film unless its either in its box or completely opened. For example, we will have to mark the wrappers if we place different film without boxes inside a pouch.

[Steve Smith]

essentially all the branding ( FP4+ / HP5+ / Delta 100 / Delta 400/ PAN F + / SFX 200 etc , will be removed from the wrapper and transferred to the exposed and unexposed labels

This shouldn't be a problem as the only time it is not visible is when it is in the camera.

Steve.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Sounds like a sensible move. Just be sure the new printing is visible through red window backs!

[Jim Noel]

I hope youalso switch back to blacker inks for printing the frame numbers so the films are more easily used in older cameras with red windows. The present gray inks require either facing the red window towards the sun, a bad idea, or using a flashlight.

This would be a tremendous help to those of us wh like to use antique cameras.
Thanks,
Jim

[Simon R Galley]

Ahh Mr.Goldfarb,

This has been mentioned to me several times before, we are aware that our numbers can be hard to see, but its better that than the number transferred right onto the image you have just exposed ( called wrapper offset in the trade ) a major problem with...you have guessed it ...red window back cameras...

Honestly though its a balance, and where film is involved, we will always err on the side of extreme caution, our motto is 'you can make another print, you can never have a single moment in time again'.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

[David A. Goldfarb]

Also those brand new Chinese rollfilm backs and pano cameras often use the red window.

Foma's backing is probably the best in this regard--silver print on black paper with very clear dots leading up to the frame number.

[Simon R Galley]

Dear David,

I agree FOMA's are the clearest, but our backing paper is totally different to theirs, its about the interaction between the backing paper and the film, we could not print like that on our wrappers without introducing a risk to the film product.

Kind Regards

Simon.

[PKM-25]

Hmmm, I guess there is no chance of implementing the features of the
MF film rolls: design and convenience
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/3...nvenience.html
thread...

The problem with generic wrapping is that you won't be able to tell the film unless its either in its box or completely opened. For example, we will have to mark the wrappers if we place different film without boxes inside a pouch.

Hats off to Ilford for keeping things going. If this is what they have to do, then this is what they have to do. We can adapt, it is the least we can do in these stormy times...

[David A. Goldfarb]

Thanks, Simon. I think we were posting at the same time.