TiMo
Hi Mirko,
I see that you’ll be offering CHM again from March. Isn’t that part of the ADOX film range? I’m missing the “ADOX” before “CHM”.
?
It also says that the development times are the same as for RPX 100/400, Kentmere 100/400 and APX New 100/400. Is it the same film in new packaging?
?
If you have a moment, I’d be grateful for a bit of information.
?
Best regards, Tim
?
?
Neutrino
Personally, I’d restrict it if the CHM films don’t actually bear the ADOX name; after all, these films have absolutely nothing to do with ADOX as such. There’s already enough relabelled stock out there that nobody can make sense of anymore, so in my opinion we don’t need any more of it. In my view, it would be good for ADOX to distinguish its genuinely own films, such as the CHS II, from re-labelled goods. In that respect, I commend FOTOIMPEX’s clear communication that these are Kentmere films and, as already mentioned, I would also be very strict about not associating the ADOX brand with them.
€
However, I am interested in the following points: FOTOIMPEX reports that there are remaining stocks of Kentmere. Does that mean that both films have been discontinued, or is it just the Kentmere brand that is ceasing to exist? I can’t quite picture the film itself, as it is, after all, a very popular film that is available under every conceivable brand.
€
It also states that the development times are the same as for the RPX films. That at least suggests that identical films lie behind them. As far as I know, however, it has already been confirmed and proven that at least the current RPX product range consists of distinct products, which may have been only slightly modified, but are still distinct products, aren’t they?
Olivinyl
... I’d been wondering why Kentmere 100/400 is now only occasionally available as a 30.5m roll!
Best wishes, Oliver
TiMo
Personally, I’d restrict it if the CHM films don’t actually bear the ADOX name; after all, these films have absolutely nothing to do with ADOX as such. There’s already enough relabelled stock out there that nobody can make sense of anymore, so in my opinion we don’t need any more of it. In my view, it would be good for ADOX to distinguish its genuinely own films, such as the CHS II, from re-labelled goods. In that respect, I commend FOTOIMPEX’s clear communication that these are Kentmeren films and, as already mentioned, I would also be very restrictive if the ADOX brand were not associated with them.
?
I agree. However, I automatically associate CHM with ADOX, because the film was previously available under the ADOX brand.
piu58
> the same as for RPX 100/400, Kentmere 100/400, APX New 100/400
?
Hmm.
?
RPX 100, K100 and APX New 100 are the same, as far as I can tell. K400 and APX New 400 are also the same. RPX 400, however, has a different emulsion and requires different processing times.
?
The first batch of RPX 400 – many years ago – was an unfulfilled customer order at Ilford. Maco bought up the stuff, cut it up and launched it on the market as RPX 400. It then turned out that this film could be pushed well with the SPUR-PXD developer, but the K400 could not. At the time, Maco said the film would not be reissued.
?
A few years later, however, it did reappear. As the formula was well known, Maco was naturally able to order it from Ilford. To complete the range, a 100 ISO RPX was added, which is at least a very close relative of the K100. The RPX 25, on the other hand, has nothing to do with Ilford/Harmann; it is an aerial photography film, something quite different.
Morte
The only thing that really matters, I think, for all concerned Kentmere users (like me) is this: we can now choose to buy the film either as APX New or as FOTOIMPEX CHM. That’s good news. The truly bargain price of 3.49 euros per roll is probably just a fond memory now. But compared to Ilford’s prices, it’s not too bad. As long as the emulsion is still available!
Update: As I’ve just noticed, the RPX 400 costs just €3.30. That’s a bargain, of course. I’ve used it before and liked it, back then with A49 developer from FOTOIMPEX. Whether it’s identical to or different from the Kentmere 400, I can’t say. But I’d venture to say that the differences aren’t likely to be very significant for pictorial photography.
MirkoBoeddecker
We actually liked selling Kentmere as Kentmere, as it made it clear exactly what it was and where it came from.
?
However, we have recently been informed that sales in Germany are being discontinued. Under our own label, we have the opportunity to source the material directly, offering a wider range of products and – subject to very high minimum order volumes – ultimately at a lower price.
?
Under the ADOX label, we will no longer release any products in the manufacture of which we are not at least significantly involved.
I know that things used to be different in the past, but things change. Back then, we didn’t have a factory either.
?
That is why it is a FOTOIMPEX CHM without ADOX. It is also only marketed directly (not via retailers); otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to offer it at a competitive price again.
?
For months now, the purchase price of Kentmere films has been higher than our retail price, and it should have been raised long ago.
?
To the best of my knowledge, the exposure and development data for all the films mentioned are the same, and any differences are likely due to batch variations and storage time, but of course I cannot speak for other brands.
?
In the long or medium term, the CHM will not cost more than its ‘siblings’. In the short term, there are always special offers, or one person may have bought before the euro became the lira whilst another missed out. Currently, we’re at 3.56 for a pack of ten – that really isn’t far off 3.49.
?
Overall, of course, with a 30% depreciation of our own currency against foreign currencies (within just 3 months), it’s not to be expected that films from England, Japan or the USA will remain the same price. Kodak in particular will soon become significantly more expensive. Fuji will surely follow suit.
?
Best regards,
?
Mirko
TiMo
Hello Mirko,
Thank you for clarifying that.
It’s great to hear that you now only market original products under the ADOX name.
Wolf_XL
...for me as a user, all this 'labelling' is a nightmare – especially when it’s not entirely clear what’s actually being sold under each label.
?
It gets particularly bad when films with different emulsions are marketed under the same name... All I really want is for film XYZ to still have exactly the same properties even after two or more years – provided it’s still being marketed as film XYZ. It gets particularly nasty when a brand is relabelled yet again – for example, when Ilford Kentmere becomes Agfa APX New.
?
A similar game is also being played with Rodinal – nobody can make head nor tail of it anymore – which was the reason I switched to D-76.
?
That’s why I think it’s a good approach that AdOX should only be allowed to be called AdOX if it comes from their own production...
MirkoBoeddecker
They play a similar game with Rodinal too – nobody can make head nor tail of it anymore – which is why I switched to D-76.
Blimey, that’s quite a swing!
€
It’s a long way from Rodinal to D76, and all Rodinal derivatives are certainly closer to the original than D76 :-)
€
In this case, ‘re-labelled’ is perhaps not quite the right term.
Here, for example, ADONAL is sold with the note “Produced according to the last known original Rodinal formula” (it’s also on the bottle), and that’s exactly how it is.
Agfa has, of course, fallen apart, and both the name and (later) the production facilities were no longer available.
We then employed Agfa staff and ‘recovered’ the formulas. Since the second batch of ADONAL, it has also been bottled in-house. It is only mixed elsewhere, because a high-performance and therefore competitive mixing plant costs millions. It makes more sense to make use of something that is already in place elsewhere.
€
For a year now, however, Rodinal has also been available again as Rodinal:
http://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/fotochemie/ADOX-Rodinal-500-ml.html
€
€
So you could come back :-)
€
Best regards,
€
Mirko
AchimBauer
Hello everyone,
For some reason, I can’t seem to paste it, so here it is typed out.
Mirko, you said, “Under our own label, we have the opportunity to access the material directly and offer a wider range of products.”
Does ‘range of products’ include roll film as well? Or is the CHS 2 coming soon?
€
Regards, Achim
MirkoBoeddecker
Hi Achim,
?
To ‘make’ CHM or RPX roll films, all you need is a sheet of paper, a printer, ink and a bank account with enough funds :-)
To make a CHS 100 II roll film, however, you need quite a bit more.
But it’s on its way.
?
Best regards,
?
Mirko
AchimBauer
Hi Mirko,
?
OK. But what does ‘product variety’ mean, then?
?
Regards, Achim
MirkoBoeddecker
Kentmere films were only available in 36-exposure rolls. Under our own label, we can offer various other formats. However, I can’t say at the moment whether this would be commercially viable or sensible. Roll film and 35mm films would certainly be good; perhaps film sold by the metre as well.
To start with, we’ll offer what’s been discontinued (Kentmere 35mm) and then, depending on how successful that is, we’ll see what happens next.
?
Best regards,
?
Mirko
