Hello Tepe,
?
Don’t forget Foma either, because Harmann (and specifically the name Kentmeere) and Foma are always mentioned whenever no one knows what was coated where. From what I’ve read, the film is said to be made in Germany; that could be Inoviscoat or the original Agfa factory, which has now gone through three name changes and is now called Filmotec.
And whoever makes it, it’s got nothing to do with solidarity, because everyone has to keep their machines running at full capacity. Apparently, audio tapes and other things used to be coated on the coating machines back in the day, and who needs audio tapes these days apart from enthusiasts of old technology?
And competition in the sensitivity class?
Every film has its own character and its own fans; a red wine drinker won’t be happy with white wine either.
But to get back to the main topic, it would be interesting to know who is now casting the Zeha?sszwei (CHS2). Or as the Swabians say, ‘I’m not curious, but I’d quite like to know’
?
?
Regards, Achim
?
Hello Achim,
?
As for the ‘Made in Germany’ label on the CHS 100 II:
The emulsion was developed in Germany and is manufactured in Germany. Furthermore, the packaging of this film also takes place here in Germany.
Thus, the vast majority of the value added is definitely generated in Germany. Quite regardless of whether the coating is now done in Germany (InovisCoat), Belgium (Agfa-Gevaert) or England (Ilford Photo / Harman Technologies).
?
Coating at FilmoTec is out of the question because FilmoTec cannot apply coating to large-scale productions in-house (they do not have the necessary coating machine). This is no secret either: FilmoTec themselves once stated in an interview in a Handelsblatt article that they do not apply coating in-house (they manufacture the emulsion and package it). FilmoTec used to have their film coated by Forte, and now they have it coated by Harman.
?
Whether the film is coated by InovisCoat, Agfa-Gevaert or Harman is completely irrelevant to the photographer, as all three produce coatings of the highest quality.
If we want smaller suppliers such as ADOX, Bergger, Maco/Rollei-Film etc. to continue supplying us with products in the future, we must also accept that they keep certain trade secrets to themselves so that they can survive in a fiercely competitive market.
We as film photographers already enjoy a very high degree of transparency. Much greater than in most other industries.
But to expect smaller suppliers to disclose every detail is unrealistic and also counterproductive. It would jeopardise the very existence of these smaller companies.
What’s more, there’s always a double standard at play here: no one expects Kodak or Fujifilm to disclose everything. But if AdOX, Maco and the like ever protect a detail as a trade secret, they’re immediately met with a barrage of criticism. Pretty unfair, in my opinion.
?
BG,
Henning
