# How is Ilford's health?



## Ilovemycam (Jul 3, 2013)

Is Ilford thriving or just getting by and following in the steps of Kodak?


----------



## gsgary (Jul 3, 2013)

Thriving, they have just brought a new pinhole camera out and started making one use cameras again, they are providing film for Freestyle


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 3, 2013)

Pretty sure they're doing just fine.  (They're owned by Harman Technology, BTW.)

From what I understood of the whole Kodak thing, the film side was never in any trouble anyway.  When you see Ilford making printers that nobody wants to buy, then it might be time to wonder.


----------



## gsgary (Jul 3, 2013)

I'm buying 100 feet of HP5 every 2 months


----------



## cgw (Jul 3, 2013)

Believe they're privately-held, so no financial statements to pour over but they seem to be right-sized for the current market and well-managed. Who doesn't like their film, paper, chemistry and willingness to take risks with things like the Titan and direct=positive paper. I'm guessing they'll be the last man standing in b&w. Maybe last man standing in film!


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 3, 2013)

Ilford just finished taking orders for ULF (Ultra Large Format) films at the end of June, done annually. If they're continuing to make film in more unusual sizes that seems to be a good sign that they're going to continue on.


----------



## timor (Jul 3, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> From what I understood of the whole Kodak thing, the film side was never in any trouble anyway. /QUOTE] It seems so. Old cliche of creator killed by monster of own design.
> At some point I gonna become an Ilford films user, it is still better choice than switch to digital.


----------



## ann (Jul 3, 2013)

they are in good shape, and in fact recently came out with several new products, including a heavy weight fine art silver paper.


----------



## peter27 (Jul 4, 2013)

I thought the camera film side of Kodak was now safe. Haven't their UK pension plan bought this out?


----------



## cptkid (Jul 5, 2013)

Ilford are doing a right roaring trade. 

Everyone knows they make A class film, and will continue to do so. 

I think film died for a while a couple of years after digital came around, but film seems to be booming at the moment.

EDIT - I live about 15 minutes from Ilford in Mobberley and I always smile when I drive past.


----------



## peter27 (Jul 5, 2013)

gsgary said:


> Thriving, they have just brought a new pinhole camera out and started making one use cameras again, they are providing film for Freestyle



On a recent visit to Wales I treated myself to a piggy bank in the shape of an old camera. I didn't know what I was going to be saving for though, and have been putting the odd coin or two in with the vague idea it could be my film fund. Now I know what the money will eventually go on - a Titan pinhole camera!


----------



## gsgary (Jul 5, 2013)

peter27 said:


> On a recent visit to Wales I treated myself to a piggy bank in the shape of an old camera. I didn't know what I was going to be saving for though, and have been putting the odd coin or two in with the vague idea it could be my film fund. Now I know what the money will eventually go on - a Titan pinhole camera!



If you want film i have a discount code for Ilford, let me know if you want it you will probably get discount on the camera


----------



## cgw (Jul 5, 2013)

cptkid said:


> Ilford are doing a right roaring trade.
> 
> Everyone knows they make A class film, and will continue to do so.
> 
> ...



Please quantify "booming." Wish it was true but...

http://www.krlretirees.com/News_Items/20120901_US_Film_and_Camera_Sales_1995-2012_-_PMA.pdf


http://pmanewsline.com/2011/06/01/yet-another-article-about-the-decline-of-film/#.UdbFAKzJrFs


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 5, 2013)

cgw said:


> cptkid said:
> 
> 
> > Ilford are doing a right roaring trade.
> ...



Sorry, your pmanewsline link is 2 full years out of date, and with the amount of film cameras already on the market it's amazing that any new ones are being sold at all.


----------



## cptkid (Jul 5, 2013)

cgw said:


> cptkid said:
> 
> 
> > Ilford are doing a right roaring trade.
> ...




Everywhere I go I see people rocking film cameras, the pound shops near me are selling it by the tonne, all these hipsters are lapping up film, places light firstcallphotographic in the UK are making millions from selling everything to do with film. 

The second hand camera shops in manchester are selling SLRS/Rangefinders quicker than they can get them in, ebay has 1000's of films/cameras/developing tools. 

Film is cool right now. I think that will continue for a while to come.


----------



## cgw (Jul 5, 2013)

Mike_E said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> > cptkid said:
> ...



And you're seeing a roaring counter-trend that invalidates their data on  film camera and film sales?


----------



## cgw (Jul 5, 2013)

cptkid said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> > cptkid said:
> ...



Problem is, none of this nano-trend in film use is doing anything to even begin to reverse the slide in demand for film. Funny but I see far more people rocking iPhones and other smartphones than old Nikon or Pentax SLRs. "Peak" film was around 1999 and has done nothing but decline since. Film is cool for a statistically insignificant sliver of the photo market.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 5, 2013)

I don't understand.

Are you saying that a small increase in demand for film isn't an increase in demand for film at all? Because that's silly.

Are you saying that a small increase in demand for film isn't pushing film back up to the peak demand leves in the last century? Because that's obvious.

Of course the market for film has shrunk. Of course it's a tiny fraction of the film market. It's also a tiny fraction of the GDP as well, so what? The market for unicycles is also quite small, and yet, they keep making them. The actual question is whether the market is:

1) large enough to support a viable number of manufacturers
2) stable enough to continue to support them


----------



## cgw (Jul 5, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I don't understand.
> 
> Are you saying that a small increase in demand for film isn't an increase in demand for film at all? Because that's silly.
> 
> ...



Show me the "increase" in demand, please. You really need to look at the PMA figures for film sales from 1999 to 2010 to gain an idea how huge the decline was. What's "obvious" is that the PMA estimated that 1 billion rolls of film were sold in 1999; by 2010, that had declined to 20 million and I doubt there's been much to slow the decline--much less reverse it. The issue is demand. Both Kodak and Fuji have narrowed their product lines. What accounts for the collapse of labs  across N. America?


----------



## amolitor (Jul 5, 2013)

I don't have any market figures, I assumed you did. You described it as a "nano-trend in film use" which sounded like an uptick to me, but possibly I misinterpreted your remark. Regardess, you allow that more people are using film these days, I'm not sure how that squares with a "but film usage is still dropping off" conclusion. Possibly you do not allow as more people are using film these days, though.

I did look at the film sales figures. I even plotted them. It's flattening out pretty aggressively by 2012, it's would not take much of a fad to push the derivative into positive territory.


----------



## cgw (Jul 5, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I don't have any market figures, I assumed you did. You described it as a "nano-trend in film use" which sounded like an uptick to me, but possibly I misinterpreted your remark. Regardess, you allow that more people are using film these days, I'm not sure how that squares with a "but film usage is still dropping off" conclusion. Possibly you do not allow as more people are using film these days, though.
> 
> I did look at the film sales figures. I even plotted them. It's flattening out pretty aggressively by 2012, it's would not take much of a fad to push the derivative into positive territory.



"Nano" as in exceedingly small, too small to matter in this case. "More" people using film? C'mon, compared to when? Based on what? The reason demand for film tanked is that people stopped buying it, OK? Where's the confusion? Please consider the magnitude of difference between one billion and 20 million and then tell me that any measurable movement from the bottom of your chart upwards(based on what data, please?)will have any effect. 

Sorry but the film 'revival' is mostly fabulism.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 5, 2013)

The billion number is irrelevant. What matters is the 15 million number we're seeing in 2012, in terms of going forward.

You seem to be holding several conflicting opinions. Is there or is there not a trend toward using film? You want, apparently, to acknowledge that there is some increased uptake, and yet to also claim that film sales are continuing to trend downward, without any supporting data either way. Either there IS a trend, nano or otherwise, toward increased usage, or there IS NOT. I don't know which one it is, and I don't much care, but I do know they cannot simultaneously be true. As a former mathematician, I am having trouble understanding what your mental model of film sales over the last 12 months could possibly look like. But you know, that's ok. I don't need to understand it.

Anyways. I don't actually care about whether derivatives are positive or negative. I just care whether Ilford has a viable business model going forward or not. I rather hope it does!


----------



## gsgary (Jul 5, 2013)

I think film use is much bigger in the UK, i have got more than 20 places i can get a roll of colour film developed within 20 miles and at least 5 within 5 miles and 2 within walking distance


----------



## cgw (Jul 5, 2013)

amolitor said:


> The billion number is irrelevant. What matters is the 15 million number we're seeing in 2012, in terms of going forward.
> 
> You seem to be holding several conflicting opinions. Is there or is there not a trend toward using film? You want, apparently, to acknowledge that there is some increased uptake, and yet to also claim that film sales are continuing to trend downward, without any supporting data either way. Either there IS a trend, nano or otherwise, toward increased usage, or there IS NOT. I don't know which one it is, and I don't much care, but I do know they cannot simultaneously be true. As a former mathematician, I am having trouble understanding what your mental model of film sales over the last 12 months could possibly look like. But you know, that's ok. I don't need to understand it.
> 
> Anyways. I don't actually care about whether derivatives are positive or negative. I just care whether Ilford has a viable business model going forward or not. I rather hope it does!



Tell me what a secular trend is, OK? With respect, anyone claiming to be numerate who can't/won't recognize the difference for a manufacturer between 1 billion and <20 million units of output isn't really engaged. 'Nano-trend' is a sarcastic usage to describe something exceedingly small and, I'd argue, meaningless for a company like Kodak. Do show me 2012 *production* data for film, since higher prices make *sales* figures a poor measure of actual consumption.

Ilford is right-sized, innovative and flexible in the face of collapsed demand. They'll be around because they are.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 5, 2013)

What? What on earth are you on about?

Nobody is suggesting that we're going to return to 1999. The _only question on the table_ is whether there's a bottom or if it drops to zero. The big numbers are irrelevant. Being able to describe it as a "secular trend"  isn't interesting or relevant, and smells a bit like someone trying to sound smart. We're in long-tail territory here, the hump of the demand curve is long gone (not very long in years, but we're on digital time now, the hump was an eternity and a half ago).

The shape of the tail is all anyone ought to be worrying about today.

ETA: And with that, ugh. I'm out. I hate myself when I get drawn into stupid **** like this.


----------



## cgw (Jul 5, 2013)

amolitor said:


> What? What on earth are you on about?
> 
> Nobody is suggesting that we're going to return to 1999. The _only question on the table_ is whether there's a bottom or if it drops to zero. The big numbers are irrelevant. Being able to describe it as a "secular trend"  isn't interesting or relevant, and smells a bit like someone trying to sound smart. We're in long-tail territory here, the hump of the demand curve is long gone (not very long in years, but we're on digital time now, the hump was an eternity and a half ago).
> 
> ...



You'll probably get more support over at APUG where many never did get why Kodak hit the rocks in early 2012 and where genuine fact-free "stupid @&%!" discussion on this topic runs waist-deep. You can ignore the "big numbers"(demand?) but film manufacturers, labs, and retailers didn't over the last decade.


----------



## compur (Jul 5, 2013)

cgw said:


> You'll probably get more support over at APUG where many never did get why Kodak hit the rocks in early 2012 and where genuine fact-free "stupid @&%!" discussion on this topic runs waist-deep. You can ignore the "big numbers"(demand?) but film manufacturers, labs, and retailers didn't over the last decade.



Dear cgw,
The gym called.  You left your T-shirt in the locker room again.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 5, 2013)

I think they have the particle physics market nailed.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 5, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> Is Ilford thriving or just getting by and following in the steps of Kodak?



Last I heard Ilford had a sever cold and a touch of bronchitis, but was expected to recover nicely.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 5, 2013)

of course one key difference between ilford and kodak is that their digital media doesn't suck. Kodak made a major wrong turn in the late 1990's with dye sub, and really that is what ended up killing them.

Mind you though, Kodak still makes high end sensors, and pretty much owns that market.

ETA: I guess as it turns out even the sensors are now being made by a spinoff called Truesense. Audios Kodak...


----------



## cgw (Jul 6, 2013)

compur said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> > You'll probably get more support over at APUG where many never did get why Kodak hit the rocks in early 2012 and where genuine fact-free "stupid @&%!" discussion on this topic runs waist-deep. You can ignore the "big numbers"(demand?) but film manufacturers, labs, and retailers didn't over the last decade.
> ...



How's that "Flat Earth Society" shirt fittin', compur?


----------



## compur (Jul 6, 2013)

???  Is that some sort of Canadian joke?


----------



## terri (Jul 6, 2013)

Don't bother with him anymore, please, compur.   He's clearly only in this thread to enjoy being the naysayer.   

cgw:  


> Ilford is right-sized, innovative and flexible in the face of collapsed demand. They'll be around because they are.



You effectively answered the OP with this statement.   The rest has been antagonistic in tone, and not particularly helpful.   

I'd say you've made your opinions known, and you can give it a rest in this thread.   Thanks!


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 6, 2013)

timor said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > From what I understood of the whole Kodak thing, the film side was never in any trouble anyway.
> ...


I was never much of a Kodak fan anyway...  I've always preferred Fuji.  Their C-41 films are far superior in the way they handle mixed lighting - that "4th color layer technology" really does work.  In B&W, I do like Kodak films, but would never hesitate to use Fuji.

Really, the only Ilford film I have used is Delta 3200.  I shoot a ton of Kentmere 400 in 35mm though - while not an Ilford product, they are owned by the same company.


----------



## compur (Jul 8, 2013)

Here is an interesting site about the History of Ilford and its products:

Ilford History and Chronology


----------



## Estevam (Nov 21, 2013)

Ilford seems to hada adapted:
A Silver Lining - Ilford Factory Tour 2013


----------



## gsgary (Nov 21, 2013)

Estevam said:


> Ilford seems to hada adapted:
> A Silver Lining - Ilford Factory Tour 2013



I should have been on that tour but had to finish a job

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ann (Nov 21, 2013)

Film use is on the uptake. I received a message from Freestyle recently that indicated their analog sales had improved greatly within the past year.

Will film ever be King again, not likely but it isn't dead, and Ilford has been there developing new products for sometime now. So it would seem they are in good health.

i can remember when they declared bankruptcy several years ago, i was depressed for weeks, but then the management group, hocked their houses and everything else they could get their hands on to save the company.  

Their houses are no longer in jeopardy and as they say, they are going to be the last one standing.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 24, 2013)

ann said:


> Film use is on the uptake. I received a message from Freestyle recently that indicated their analog sales had improved greatly within the past year.
> 
> Will film ever be King again, not likely but it isn't dead, and Ilford has been there developing new products for sometime now. So it would seem they are in good health.
> 
> ...



1 of the camera shops i use said they sold twice as much film this year


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 24, 2013)

ann said:


> Their houses are no longer in jeopardy and as they say, they are going to be the last one standing.


I can see that.  They seem to be one of the only ones that still care.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 24, 2013)

ann said:


> Film use is on the uptake. I received a message from Freestyle recently that indicated their analog sales had improved greatly within the past year.
> 
> Will film ever be King again, not likely but it isn't dead, and Ilford has been there developing new products for sometime now. So it would seem they are in good health.
> 
> ...



The area around where the factory is base is a very expensive area to buy a house not far from there is where most of the Manchester United player live


----------

