i guess it is safe to say your mileage may vary from the mileage
posted on the sticker on the side of the vehicle ...
i look at house brands like knock-off handbags.
often times they are made side by side in the same chinese factory
as the actual "big name" bag. the difference is the name plate ...
some folks like name brands, some don't mind so much.
yes, i used to have a sankyo radio in my car.
Originally Posted by Lopaka
Variability is exactly one problem we have with the products of one large grocery chain. We too have pretty much stopped buying their products. A certain product in upstate NY is made in Canada, while the same product near the Pa border is made in Alabama, and the quality and taste are entirely different.
This isn't to say that all of their house products are bad either, some are quite good and there is no competition for them.
OTOH, as said above, my philosophy is "if it works, use it". Same thing applies here.
Some of the Arista chemicals are just relabeled Clayton chemicals, the Ultra Cold Tone Developer for one and maybe the Premium Cold Tone Developer, the two I've used. I've also used their Rapid Fix without any problems.
Something to consider. A couple of years ago Kodak sold its chemical producing division to a third party, not sure but it might have been Champion. Now Kodak contracts with "Champion" to make the photo chemical products it sells under the Kodak name, both color and b/w chemistry. If Freestyle, or other vendor is selling versions of Kodak chemicals under their own name made by the same company that makes Kodak chemicals, then they could be identical in everything but name.
All private label film is made by the "known" film manufacturers. If you figure out which, then you can expect just about identical results. The "private label" films are sold cheaper because of large orders to the manufacturer giving a wholesale discount price, and also because the selling vendor is the warrantor, and the manufacturer does not advertise and warranty the product. Also, some vendors purchase film in bulk rolls (very-very large rolls) and cut and package it themselves, thus giving an additional cost savings.
I'm sure that Kodak would ensure an exclusive license to use their own processes and not allow Champion to sell proprietary materials to others. Kodak also now buys their own formulation of color paper support from Schoeller now that the paper plant at Kodak Park is closes. This does not mean that Ilford or any other company can buy or use it.
I do know that Kodak is now permitted to package products under other labels, but this does not mean that they supply the latest generation of materials under someone elses name.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
PE, I must take exception to your characterization of "house brands VS. name brands". What you say may be true of vegetables, spices, and canned meats; but when we, Clayton Chemical, private label products for our customers, the formulas we use are richer in active indgrediants, the concentrations are greater, and in many instances the quality of raw materials is higher. With all of those advantages, we still can provide greater value and image quality to the user and greater profit margins to the dealer.
JustDave, there are so many products out there that to help you, we really need to know what you like. If you like Kodak D-76, then somebody can probably point you to third-party products that work more-or-less like D-76, but first we need to know you like D-76. (Just to pick an example.)
On another issue, although the grocery store product analogy is apt in some ways, it may not be in other ways. We here on APUG have a pretty good collective understanding of who makes what (particularly for Freestyle's offerings), so we can offer good overall advice on what's equivalent to what. Although I'm sure some people know who makes Kroger's or Wegman's or Safeway's canned veggies, most consumers are clueless about this detail. Thus, there's a huge difference on that score.
That said, there are questions of quality control. A D-76 workalike (to pick on D-76 again) made by FooBar, Inc. might be made to very different QC standards than Kodak's D-76. For film and paper, it's yet another story, since it's all made in the same place -- Arista.EDU Ultra is Foma film, made in the same factory. (In fact, I've gotten Foma-branded film with "Ultra" edge markings!) I doubt if the manufacturers lower their QC standards for rebranded products, but who knows -- maybe they do. OTOH, when another company gets their hands on the product, say to cut down big rolls of paper into their own boxes, things can go awry. I've heard tales of paper being improperly sealed in its (supposedly) light-proof bags, for instance. I've never heard of such problems with Freestyle's house brand films or papers (most of which have packaging that resembles that of their name-brand equivalents, so I suspect it's packaged by the original manufacturer), but I have heard of it with some others, such as UltraFine's repackaged papers.
BUT whould it be practial for (say Kodak) to make a Different type of film to package as "Arista Profesional" that was substantally different than their main offerings? Freestyle is a big seller but I don't imagine them selling (39 Strands * 3000 FT = 117,000) @18/100ft =~ 20,000 rolls of film. which would be just one master roll. if the film was not the same as sold under the name brand.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
(the Arista Pro I received was either packaged by Kodak or someone took a lot of trouble to duplicate the font used for the expiry date and the current Kodak Film cans.
MIND YOU - I supose that Kodak might have had a master roll that was slightly off spec and offered it to freestyle rather then junking it... ?
I had this thought, why don't I just look at the bio hazard sheet and compare chemicals? (I see where you get a manufacturer for a house brand Arista Liquid Film Developer = Clayton).
Anyway, as an example, I compared KMAX with TMAX:
50 - 60 Water (7732-18-5)
35 - 45 Diethanolamine-sulphur dioxide complex (63149-47-3)
1 - 5 Sodium metabisulphite (7681-57-4)
1 - 5 Hydroquinone (123-31-9)
0.1 - 1 4-hydroxymethyl-4-methyl-1-phenyl-3-pyrazolidinone (13047-13-7)
POTASSIUM SULFITE 10117-38-1 N.E. N.E. 10-15
HYDROQUINONE 123-31-9 2mg/m³ 2mg/m³ 1-5
DIETHYLENE GLYCOL 111-46-6 10mg/m³ (WEEL) 50 ppm TWA 1-5
Now, it's been decades since my college chemistry classes, but from what I remember (not much), aside from the Hydroquinone component, these developers aren't identical. BUT! I guess TMAX developer is just a Hydroquinone developer and when shopping for a developer, I should just look for a Hydroquinone developer? The Hydroquinone is what really counts?
Well, here are answers for two of the above posts here.
Kodak does not market any defective product either under their label or under any one elses label. If it has a defect, it is scrap. They may however, offer an older formula film to a company at reduced price. For example, it would be foolish of Kodak to offer their new Ektar 100 to a "competitor" and allow it to be sold at a discount.
I can also see a competitor using spooling equipment or some such that resembles Kodak spooling equipment. And I can see their buying boxes from Kodak's supplier. There is no magic in getting the same packing, but I can also see Kodak packing it for them. It really does not matter. I doubt if the film sold under another label is the latest and greatest from Kodak though.
As for the KMAX and TMAX in the MSDS, note that the Kodak formula contains a phenidone type developing agent whereas the KMAX does not. Also, the Kodak formula does not contain any potassium salts. In addition, the Kodak developer contains DEA, but the other one does not list the alkali at all.
These are thoughts to consider when thinking about similarity.