As you all know HARMAN technology do NOT sell ILFORD Photo product for private label, but we are obviously a photo manufacturer :
HARMAN technology believe passionately that variety and choice in the analog monochrome film and paper market is vital to ensure a dynamic industry going forward, as it not only encourages competition but ongoing product development, this we believe benefits the industry and all end users. Initiatives such as our 'defend the darkroom' hopefully helps the sales of all producers of analog photo products.
Whilst we are obviously a business, everything we do, and every decision we take is focussed on on the promotion of monochrome photography, for the current generation of our customers and just as important to us, the future generation of customers.
Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :
I wonder if Harman can disclose a private production agreement between two companies.
Even if they can, it may prove counter productive to say to the regular customers/supporters that Harman is producing a competitor product...
I've worked for Aerospace companies and some mecanical work was done in the factry I was working in for another well known aerospace company just because they can't produce that much in so short a time... It was strange when crossing the factory to see another brand made in house. But this production was well paid and, of course, was very well done by skilled professional.
It took me too long to type. Simon has answered ;-)
So : Bergger new production won't be relabelled Ilford products. That's very good new! I would enjoy to find new BRF 200 coated on acetate base (no curl) and with photo numbering
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Well, not exactly if you read the reviews. Even though the changes were intentional, some were necessary to correct faults and others were needed to fix percieved faults (addenda for keeping and paper tint to name a few) and the speed and contrast are just slightly different.
Originally Posted by Ulrich Drolshagen
In any event, we will see what results. No one can say for sure until it is done by either company.
Although NB's image characteristics were very appealing, I gave up and discarded all my stock (from several different production batches separated by more than a year) because of coating-related patterns that resulted from Forte's antiquated line. I look forward to an NB line manufactured in HARMAN's first-tier plant. More high quality choices available equals goodness!
You are the expert. But I am sure, Bergger will sell us any difference between their current products and the future ones resulting from the use of different coating plants as substantial improvement
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
I have no doubt that Ilford can do a far better job at making and coating emulsions than any other operating plants except Fuji and Kodak today. It remains to be seen (with no disrespect to Mirko) whether the resurrection of Agfa products will meet the same quality characteristics, but they probably will.
In any event, we can look forward to an improvement in the Bergger products simply because they are being made at the Ilford plant. My question is whether they will be the same Bergger products, with the same tone and curve shape. This is not a matter of Ilford science and technology, it is a matter of moving formulas between plants where many things differ. You don't just flip a switch. This is one aspect of emulsion transfer (lets call it that for now) that Ilford is not familiar with to any great extent AFAIK, having only one plant.
Kodak had an EQG (Emulsion Quality Group) that met yearly. Their effort was to insure that every lab, world-wide, could produce the exact same emulsions at every scale. To do this, we had a set of standard emulsions that were made everywhere at every scale and then compared. If a lab failed this test, then it was decertified until the problem(s) were fixed.
It was amazing to see the results, and the changes needed to make a Harrow, Chalon and Rochester formula for a simple cubic bromide emulsion (for example) match at all 3 plants and at all 3 scales. That was a minimum total of 9 emulsions and the formulas each differed, but when the correction factors were understood, then we could apply them to all formulas and there was no remaining problem.
Of course, there were plants in Australia, Canada, Brazil, and Colorado to also consider. In addition, there were many labs at each site, so the total number of emulsions to consider was in the hundreds when all was said and done. We saw the results placed on a huge graph for grain size, size distribution, grain type, and photographic qualities such as speed, curve shape, reciprocity and etc. This was a very extensive set of experiments.
Decertification in this process was a blow to the individual lab!
AFAIK, the same thing was done for coating machines, but that was done in a different division.
I hope that this puts things in perspective from my POV.
I'm old enough to remember the problems Ilford had when they moved their plant to the present location in Mobberley, all due to the differences in local water quality.
Yet I'm sure that Bergger and Ilford are working together on producing the "Bergger-est" products possible, and I'm very happy that I won't have to give up those special papers I've grown to love.
Not that I don't like Ilford's papers; it's just that some negatives print far better on some papers than on others. Bergger Art Classic silver Supreme and Ilford Galerie are both very important to me, as are the various flavours of Ilford MG.
-- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist