Where Rebadged Ilford Sheet Film, Cheap?

[Andre Noble]

Anyone have a good source in the USA for below-B&H-priced (There it's currently $80 for 100 sheet box of HP5+ and FP4+ 4x5), accurately cut, FRESH, Ilford sheet film that's re-labeled by some retailer?

Particularly interested in the 4x5 and 8x10 sizes of Ilford FP4+ sheet film.

[Ralph Barker]

As I understand, Ilford no longer sells on that basis.

[Jim Chinn]

One of the things that got Ilford (as well as Forte and Agfa) into financial trouble was re-branding thier own products and then undercutting themselves price wise. Ilford no longer rebrands. I think what is rebranded now and sold through retailers such as Freestyle is either Efke or Foma?

[Andre Noble]

Gotcha. Makes sense to me.

On another topic, is this Chinese B&W 4x5 "Shanghai Film" something new, by the way?, or has it been out?, just curious:

http://cgi.ebay.com/2-NEW-Shanghai-4x5-Black-White-Negative-Sheet-Film_W0QQitemZ290002892701QQihZ019QQcategoryZ4200QQssPageNameZWD1VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[David Luttmann]

I thought Forte rebranded was Arista Classic & .EDU. Has this changed? I too am curious about the Shanghai film. There is also "Lucky" branded film out of China as well. Anyone know what this stuff is?

[Bill_1856]

Eighty bucks for 100 sheets. Man, that's already cheap, cheap, cheap! And we're lucky to have it at that. Film isn't the place to skimp.

[Donald Qualls]

Freestyle sells Forte as .EDU (Made in Hungary) and Foma as .EDU Ultra. Any of the old Ilford stock they might still have predates the Ilford bankruptcy, and as such is close to the expiration it would have if packaged by Ilford when originally manufactured.

Shanghai and Lucky films are made by those companies, primarily for the domestic (Chinese) market. I've used Lucky in 120, and it's not bad film, a lot like Tri-X 400 was 30+ years ago. Haven't use the Shanghai, but from what I've seen, it's overrated on speed. Shantou Era is another Chinese film that seems quite okay, though I haven't use it. Of that group, Shantou is the only one I'm aware of that's even made in 4x5, and it's not imported to this country in any format AFAIK.

[Henry Friedman]

Last year, everyone was crying about Ilford's bankruptcy. If you like the product, pony up. Unless you want to be searching for a new favorite film next year.

[Robert Ley]

I'm with Henry and Bill. Be thankful that Ilford is still coating film and support them for whatever it costs. I buy nothing but Ilford film and paper and say a little prayer for their continued good financial health. I have seen what Kodak has done with their B&W paper and am even more thankful for Ilford.

[Andre Noble]

Be thankful that Ilford is still coating film and support them for whatever it costs.

Bull. As long is they or anyone else is manufacturing a film I want, my job as a consumer/photographer is to get the product at the lowest possible cost.

But Ilford will take your outright donations if you feel so magnanimous.:)

[Marko]

Bull. As long is they or anyone else is manufacturing a film I want, my job as a consumer/photographer is to get the product at the lowest possible cost.

I'm afraid that times for competion have past for the film industry. It is now time for survival.

In my opinion, there is simply no contest between Kodak firmly on the way to self-destruction on one side, assorted Chinese and Eastern European companies with flimsy quality control and uneven runs on the other, and Ilford re-emerging and re-introducing products and looking very serious overall.

I'd rather pay a bit more and be able to count on both long(er) term availability and dependable quality then be forced to look for new film every quarter and run tests for every batch of it.

But that's just me, a mixed digital and film hobbyist who will happily continue with digital once the film is gone. I'll defer to film-only shooters on this one, this was just my $.02.

[Ole Tjugen]

Bull. As long is they or anyone else is manufacturing a film I want, my job as a consumer/photographer is to get the product at the lowest possible cost.

But Ilford will take your outright donations if you feel so magnanimous.:)

I would rather pay the full price for Ilford products (including the Norwegian 23% sales tax) than see them gone for good.

I have every confidence in Ilford's commitment to BW, and sincerely hope they are able to continue makin theur exellent products.

[Donald Qualls]

I'd love to be able to support Ilford, but every time I order film, I have to choose between getting enough to carry me until next time I have money to spend, or buying Ilford and probably running out with weeks or even months on an empty freezer. If my choice is between no film at all or the cheap stuff everyone else reviles, I'll take the cheap stuff. And for whatever my opinion is worth, I like Foma better than the very small sample of Ilford I've used. Every company has quality issues -- even Ilford. But the quality of the film matters very little if I don't have any.

[lee\c]

will you cry if Ilford goes away Donald? That is a great way for that to happen.


lee\c

[Donald Qualls]

Lee, I probably would -- but I'd cry if I periodically had no film for a month or more at a time, too. Until you've gone a month or two on my budget, don't give me too hard a time for choosing to have film over spending twice as much (= having half as much film) to support a company I admire.

And do *not* tell me that if I can't afford Ilford, I can't afford photography -- if I hear that argument one more time, I'm liable to start shooting (and I don't mean with film).

[Christopher Perez]

I realize that this might not be possible for some folks, but I just pony up the bux for Kodak or Ilford.

I got out of 7x17 and 11x14 because the film was too expensive. For now, I seem to be able to afford 8x10. 4x5 film is no problem for me to buy, given my current budget.

So... I guess what I'm saying is that for me I buy into a format that I can afford. If it's still too expensive, then I try the next format size smaller.

[lee\c]

Donald,

I won't make that statement you refered to. It is your choice to shoot what film you want and can afford. I have been unemployed for over 3 years now. Without a regular paycheck I understand the economics of poverty pretty well. I too dont get to shoot as much as I would like but if Ilford goes under I dont like our chances of having a film as well made as we have now. I find that I edit BEFORE pulling the trigger much more now than I did when I had more money for film. That in and of itself has saved more than the price of one box of 4x5 film from Ilford. I used to use Efke and as much as I like that film and the way it respondes to Pyrocat HD I can not deal with the softness of the emulsion and having to shoot more film to account for the Efke problem for me, does not make good economic sense. So the only real path was to go to Ilford and just tough it out financially. But I suppose in the end we all must do what we must do.

I agree with Mr Perez. That seems like a sensible solution to me.

lee\c

[BrianShaw]

I would rather pay the full price for Ilford products ...

So, what is the "full price, after all? Here in L.A. there are only a couple of places to get Ilford 4x5. The good news is that it is always in stock and the price is within my budget. But I see much variation in Ilford 35mm product. HP5+ at a couple of shops is over $5 for a 36 exposure roll, but at another it is just over $3. Naturally, I'll drive the extra distance and buy a brick at a time... but what's the real price??

p.s. Please forgive the slight alteration of topic.

[Donald Qualls]

So... I guess what I'm saying is that for me I buy into a format that I can afford. If it's still too expensive, then I try the next format size smaller.

If I buy into a format I can afford, I'll be shooting digital only (until the digital camera I have dies, anyway).

I have cameras from Minolta 16 to 4x5. The cheapest to feed, in terms of film cost per "keeper" frame, are probably the 6x6 and 6x9 on 120, though it's a very close call against 4x5. I do what I can -- last time I had some money to spare, I bought bulk rolls of 35 mm, stocked up on 120, and bought all the 4x5 I could afford. I've bought chemicals so I can pay less for processing (though I can't cut much more off that bone -- I'm down to about 30 cents a roll including the cost of filtering my own water, since I don't trust the tap water here, even for washing).

And I shoot far less than I'd like (not least because of the fuel costs and wear and tear on the van to go places to shoot), though being still a novice in large format, I make mistakes that produce unprintable frames from time to time.

But if I bought Ilford, that last film purchase would have been one bulk roll of 35 mm, instead of one each in ISO 100 and 400, no 120 at all, and half as much 4x5 (probably less than that, because the smaller boxes cost more per sheet than the big boxes I bought). I'm hoping to make my photography self sustaining by the end of next year -- I won't get there if I have to curtail my film use by that margin.

[John Kasaian]

Donald,

You might consider Freestyle Arista.eduUltra---rebadged Fomapan 100 & 200. Its very inexpensive but yields delightful results. Its not Ilford---but its not "second rate" either. J and C also has a film from China that is even less expensive though I haven't tried it so I can't comment on it.

Edward Weston its said used some pretty funky film during the war years when silver was a strategic resource and he turned out OK, so you probably will too.

One of my favorite films is Kodak aerographic Plus X you can get by the roll (5" wide)on ebay which works out to mere pennies a sheet if you cut your own. It has a nice look to it the reminds me of Efke only I think the emulsion resists scratching better. YMMV of course.

[jnantz]

supposedly in a month or 2 photowarehouse will have
master rolls again 400 + 125 speed. not sure
what flavor it will be ( english or european or chinese ), or the price --

[Donald Qualls]

John, that's exactly what I have in the freezer now -- well, actually, in 4x5 it's Ultra 100 and .EDU (Made in Hungary) 400, but I'm considering changing to Ultra for the 400 also, next purchase. I've used Pro 100, but it's really not significantly cheaper than Ultra 100 and doesn't come in 35 mm -- with Ultra, I can standardize on one identical emulsion across 35 mm, 120 (and the 127 and 828 I recut from it, with 16 mm from the scraps) and 4x5 -- even larger, if I can ever afford to go there.

[Ash]

I love ilford film, and I hope to stumble across a small fortune sometime soon, and spend it on a few years worth to keep me going just in case :D

As a user of Ilford film from 35mm up to large format, I'd be disappointed to see them go. Hopefully by then the asians will have better quality control on their cheap film brands.