PeterVolkmar
Hello,
I was out and about on Sunday with just "light luggage", i.e. my Certo Six. There was half a roll left in it, so I grabbed two Adox CHM 400s from the fridge. As is often the case when you don’t really have anything special planned: there were endless subjects to photograph, and the film I’d loaded was full in no time. No problem, there were still plenty of films left (by my standards). I took the first CHM out of its smart tin: it wasn’t stuck together, just loosely wound around the reel, with a light leak everywhere. But luckily, there was still the second film. I opened the tin carefully in the partial shade: same story. No chance of getting it out without light hitting the sides; unusable. It ruined my weekend. Back home I checked: it was a real ‘lucky find’ – out of 10 films, 3 weren’t sealed. With the CHM 125, it was one in ten. That puts the money saved into perspective, of course. Should I expect this more often? I’ll obviously check the films before packing them into the canisters in future, but if that’s the norm, the film makes no sense to me. Nobody can compensate me for the hassle anyway, and nobody’s covering the nearly 100 km I drove either (well, it wasn’t planned as a photography trip anyway, but now I have to go back there again...).
Regards, Peter
Gast
Hello Peter,
Unfortunately, you’re not the only one. I also experienced issues with non-adhesive “tapes” in my first – and, as far as I’m concerned, last – CHM delivery, with both the CHM 400 and the CHM 125. Three of the 400 films weren’t sealed – that’s 30% of the order – and in the order of 10 125 films, at least one film was affected. That’s 10% of the order!
That is more than annoying. Incidentally, these problems also occurred with the Classic Roll films. The ‘end-sealing paper’ was also frequently missing there. As photography is one of the ways I earn my living, this is no longer acceptable to me.
My conclusion: I’m now back to using Agfa’s APX 400 for 400-speed roll film; there will certainly still be sufficient quantities available over the next few years – Maco/Rollei’s stock of original Agfa roll film alone will last for several years! Although the film is called “Retro” there, it is the “genuine” APX and remains consistent in quality, whilst also being within the usual price range. Mirko also still has plenty of the genuine APX roll film in stock.
As an alternative to the super-panchromatic 400 Classic films, I’ve been using the R3 for some time now, as it is also a super-panchromatic film, just like the Classic, and is even more versatile.
I believe that, regardless of whether it’s manufactured in-house or not, Mirko should – or rather must – ensure greater consistency in terms of material quality and processing.
Until then, best regards,
Lothar
piu58
Of course it’s annoying.
But just between us: if the films only cost half the price, you could just take them all out of the box at home and check if they’re stuck together. If you do it in the dark, you might even be able to save the ones that aren’t stuck together. I’m assuming they end up in the containers even in the dark.
MirkoBoeddecker
Peter, Zensua,
When did you buy the films?
Any films delivered after November shouldn’t actually have this problem anymore.
We’re also now checking every film before we pack it.
Any film that has come unstuck will be replaced. We just need it returned to us and we will replace the film and cover the postage.
Switching to Rollei, Agfa or R3 is not a solution because the film comes from the same packaging facilities. Although in this case, of course, we’ve had a bit of a rough ride and hopefully the better adhesives are now being used for everyone.
There are now only very limited options for packaging roll films at all (to be precise, just under two options), and due to the high proportion of manual work combined with increased labour costs, we may not be able to offer anything in this area at all in the medium term. Even now, the cost of packaging a single roll of film alone is higher than Ilford’s production cost for the entire film.
Best regards,
Mirko
Gast
Hi Uwe,
I don’t want to start a debate here – it’s pointless anyway – but the way you describe it… you might think you could just take each one out of the tin at home and check if it’s stuck together… but unfortunately, that’s not possible.
A film that hasn’t been sealed sticks to the inside of the can. That means it presses against the inner wall and isn’t easy to remove. You have to fiddle with it, and in the process the film shifts out of its ‘spool guide’ – and it’s a miracle not to scratch it in the process. Afterwards, you have to wind it back up tightly so that it feeds smoothly through the camera... and so on and so forth.
In short, a film that has popped open is no longer usable, except perhaps as experimental film.
Until then,
Lothar
Gast
Hello Mirko,
The CHM 400 was batch 508026, up to April 2008, and the CHM 125 was batch 508027, up to April 2008.
Delivered with invoice 130720 dated 12 August 2005.
I could only send you the cracked CHM 125 (as it cracked in the studio, I kept it as a cautionary example); the three 400s ended up in a bin last autumn whilst out on an assignment. I haven’t ordered any more CHMs since then but, as you can see from my account, have opted for APXs instead.
Incidentally, when it comes to returns, exchanges and refunds, I’ve unfortunately found that there’s a big difference between theory and practice; that’s why I no longer send anything back for ‘minor’ mishaps, as the effort involved is out of all proportion to the ‘success’.
Best regards
Lothar
MirkoBoeddecker
Hello Lothar,
The reason we have to insist on returns is, of course, that otherwise fictitious quantities would be reported here. I also need a mountain of film because otherwise the lovely ladies in the packing department won’t be sufficiently aware of the problem.
The reason is understood and the solution lies – pardon the pun – in the ladies’ hands.
According to our latest sorting operations, the rate should be around 10–15% at most.
That’s roughly how much we’ve been sorting out by hand from every batch here since October/November, when the first complaints arrived.
Cracked films belong in the bin or back to us. Taping them up usually doesn’t help.
We will replace any film that has cracked. Even if you send it back after two years.
Best regards,
Mirko
Wolfgg
So, if I’ve understood Mirko’s reply correctly, it means it’s high time to start carefully storing (hoarding) empty spools, paper and adhesive tape after the development of a roll of film. The day of reckoning is on the horizon, when certain emulsions will, at best, only be available as ‘60mm-wide 100-foot rolls’ for you to make into roll film yourself.
Regards, Wolfgang
MirkoBoeddecker
Wolfgang,
That’s certainly not wrong, but that wasn’t the point of my post.
We’ve managed to set up a roll film production line by hand, without machines. Unfortunately, though, that costs more than machine production (significantly more).
That’s also the reason why the price difference for roll films is smaller than for 35mm films.
So it doesn’t make sense to keep the CHM (made from Ilford material) running if it’s more expensive than Ilford’s original products.
Should Ilford ever have to shut down the roll film machine, we can always start up again in small batches....
We’ll continue to offer other films in small batches as well.
Best regards,
Mirko
PeterVolkmar
Hello,
The CHM 125 has batch number 508027, expiry date 04/2008, purchased about six months ago; the CHM 400 has batch number 508026, expiry date 04/2008, purchased a month ago. I’ll be sending the four back in a few days. In future, I’ll of course check the tins beforehand; I simply hadn’t expected something like this. It would have been nice to have been told about this in advance; it was really annoying for me. On the other hand, it’s obviously economic madness for you as well...
Regards, Peter
komet
I’ve also found a cracked CHM 400, batch 508026, which I only bought recently on 10 March 2006. I’ll only send it back when I’m back in Germany, though, otherwise it’ll end up being too expensive for everyone.
I must stress, though, that the plastic cartridges are brilliant. That’s actually the only reason I bought the films.
Regards, Anthony
MirkoBoeddecker
Hello Peter,
Thank you for the information (the fact that the CHM 400 was purchased a month ago was important to me).
Unfortunately, we have realised that our subsequent ‘quality check’ was apparently not thorough enough.
A simple visual check (opening the tin and having a look) isn’t enough, because some films were stuck together in such a way that they stay in the tin but come apart at the first heavy jolt.
We are now taking every film out of the tin for inspection and checking the adhesive strip.
Hopefully, this will prevent such items from being dispatched again.
Apologies to everyone who experienced problems with this.
There’s always something new with these small batches.... :)
Best regards,
Mirko
PeterVolkmar
Hi Mirko,
Does that mean the CHM won’t be around much longer?
Best regards, Peter
P.S. I’ve since got hold of the invoice: the 400 was delivered on 9 March 2006.
cfb_de
Hi Peter,
Mirko has already given the answer:
- The packaging of this stuff is more expensive than the retail price of the original at Ilford. Mind you, ‘retail’ doesn’t refer to us little guys.
- The packaging is flawed; the errors can only be minimised by pressure from the buyer (=Mirko).
Now just think about Mirko’s hourly rate when he’s standing in the dark behind the packaging tables with a whip in his hand, and you’ll get the picture.
Either they get their act together, or we’ll be buying from Ilford in future. After all, Mirko isn’t the Berlin photography branch of the Federal Ministry of Social Affairs and actually has to earn his breakfast rolls from the leftovers in his shop.
Even if you sometimes have to remind him that we, as customers, aren’t buying from a soup kitchen ;-)
By the way: the Vario Classic FB off the roll... It’s been in storage long enough now. I could bathe in it! Awesome paper. Which is more than can be said for some films... nah, I’ve lost the appetite for that myself.
Best regards,
Franz
