220 B&W - What to do?

[Q.G.]

Well, it a moot point Michael, as Kodak said no.

Specifically to Tri-X though.

You didn't ask about T-Max?

 

[jgjbowen]

I was looking through a box of old photo stuff today and came across a 220 back for the Hasselblad. I wish I had sold that years ago when I sold the cameras and lenses.... not much value now.
-rob

Rob,

I have 3 220 backs but I also have a pretty good stash of 220 film. I see that Hasselblad says you can use 120 film in a 220 back. You'll only get 11 exposures, but you can do it. I believe your 220 back has some value, not as much value as it had last year, but it does have value. Check Ebay, somebody is purchasing 220 'blad backs.

 

[aoresteen]

Specifically to Tri-X though.

You didn't ask about T-Max?

Well, I could. But from the three emails Peter sent he made it clear: no B&W 220. Seems like there's been a corporate direction to say no to any 220 B&W.

It's interesting that the new Portra 400 will be available in 220.

 

[aoresteen]

70mm DP B&W still available in ISO 400 from Maco.

For more film choices contact Agfa.

The MACO 70mm DP is an IR film rather than a reular pan 400 or 125 B&W film.

http://www.macodirect.de/rollei-infrared-70mm-305m-p-428.html

 

[Ektagraphic]

Well, I could. But from the three emails Peter sent he made it clear: no B&W 220. Seems like there's been a corporate direction to say no to any 220 B&W.

It's interesting that the new Portra 400 will be available in 220.

That is odd. A movement away from black and white products?

 

[Q.G.]

That is odd. A movement away from black and white products?

You must have heard before that there is no B&W film in 220 format available from any manufacturer anymore.

The reason for that will be the obvious one: except for very few, noone buys the stuff.
That doesn't constitute a movement away from B&W products. It's just an unwillingness to make stuff they can't sell.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It's just an unwillingness to make stuff they can't sell.

As if that is a good reason! Humpf!

 

[michaelbsc]

As if that is a good reason! Humpf!

Quite right. Humph indeed. Why in this day and age of entitlement they should be forced to make them for me and sell at below cost. After all, I've been standing here with my palm upturned long enough.

 

[MaximusM3]

I understand that 220 backs made excellent bookends, paperweights, and wheel chocks. I never needed those, so I never bought the 220 backs in the first place.

Steve

True...

always love your straight to the point humor, Steve.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Quite right. Humph indeed. Why in this day and age of entitlement they should be forced to make them for me and sell at below cost. After all, I've been standing here with my palm upturned long enough.

Don't bother me with logical reasons, just make the products I want!

 

[MattKing]

This is about more than sales, although sales are critical.

This is also about the finishing (confectioning?) procedure and equipment itself.

PE has posted that the backing paper sources for 120 are drying up. Simon Galley has posted that there are real difficulties with backing paper.

Simon Galley has posted that Ilford's 220 equipment was so old as to be unrepairable, and to replace it was totally uneconomic. Is there any reason to believe that Kodak has no "challenges" with their 220 equipment?

Problems like these with 120 materials and equipment can be dealt with practically, because there are sufficient sales volumes to pay for it.

It occurs to me that if the Kodak 220 equipment requires high amounts of maintenance or is nearing the end of its useful life, they would likely want to reserve it for the colour 220 films.

 

[clayne]

Can I ask a stupid question? Why in this age of modern technology and mechanization is it so difficult to make a simple backing paper? It's not like it's made of diamonds.

 

[Ektagraphic]

From what people have explained here, the paper is rather complex, believe it or not.

 

[MattKing]

I think it has more to do with attaching two different pieces of backing paper to a 5+ foot piece of film, without damaging it or getting any dust on it, and then rolling it onto a relatively tiny plastic spool, again without damaging it, all in the dark, at speed.

I'm sure it can be done - it just costs way to much to do it economically.

 

[Ektagraphic]

I agree Matt but they still do it for color films...even slide...and they just introduced the Portra 400 in 220.

 

[Q.G.]

From what people have explained here, the paper is rather complex, believe it or not.

I tend to do the "not" bit.

The only special paper that would be so expensive that the cost of it would be prohibitive comes in the shape of bank notes.

 

[Q.G.]

[...] and they just introduced the Portra 400 in 220.

That sounds like they introduced a new 220 film.
What they do however is pour a different emulsion on the stuff they continue to package as 220 film.

 

[michaelbsc]

Flexible manufacturing techniques are much easier to apply to discrete manufacturing than to process manufacturing. While each package of film may be a discrete unit, the manufcturing process is still set up much more like a chemical process plant.

I doubt 220 in B&W will ever be economically viable again.

Like I said earlier, of you show up at the gate with a billion dollars, you'll get a boxcar load of it. But if it has to compete in the marketplace it has already failed.

 

[SuzanneR]

I agree Matt but they still do it for color films...even slide...and they just introduced the Portra 400 in 220.

Yes, but changing the emulsions is also a complex problem... I don't think there is more than one machine that manufactures the 220 format color film at Kodak, and I think it's a rather big deal to switch from coating it with the color emulsions to the black and white.

 

[lxdude]

Yes, but changing the emulsions is also a complex problem... I don't think there is more than one machine that manufactures the 220 format color film at Kodak, and I think it's a rather big deal to switch from coating it with the color emulsions to the black and white.

120 and 220 are simply different lengths of the same emulsion. A master roll can be made into either.
Turning that master roll into 220 requires a different process than turning it into 120, though.

 

[Thingy]

Am I missing something? I should have thought that producing 220 film would be both easier and cheaper as, unlike 120 film, it does not need the paper backing except for the leader.

In the UK most professionals using roll film shoot in 120 format, which has made it economically unviable to continue producing 220 format film over here.

 

[SuzanneR]

120 and 220 are simply different lengths of the same emulsion. A master roll can be made into either.
Turning that master roll into 220 requires a different process than turning it into 120, though.

Point taken, and perhaps my understanding is flawed (entirely possible, because I don't really fully understand the ins and outs of manufacturing film), but I understood there to be a different machine (or facility) for manufacturing 120 and 220 master rolls.

Simon Galley of Ilford Harman at some point... maybe two years ago? offered a detailed explanation for why 220 format film was so much more difficult to manufacture than 120. The paper backing was one issue, and it seems at the time, I read that Kodak has had similar issues, and changing the emulsions on the machines was one such issue.

 

[MattKing]

As I understand it, the film base and emulsion of 220 is the same as 120.

The edge printing, starting leader, ending leader and labelling are different. Obviously, the 220 is cut to twice as long (approx.) as 120.

I wouldn't be surprised if Kodak has just one finishing machine for 220, and I also wouldn't be surprised to learn that it is really old and worn.

If that is the case, they may have a lot of wastage due to quality control issues.

Portra may have enough volume to absorb the wastage economically. It's doubtful that B & W 220 would.

Also, by limiting the number of different runs, Kodak may be trying to stretch out the life of their 220 machine as long as possible.

Here is Simon Galley's post explaining why Ilford isn't selling 220 film:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[hrst]

I wouldn't speculate too much how "old and worn" Kodak's 220 finishing machine is, let alone causing QC issues, as there is completely no basis for this. While Ilford does not finish in 220, and was petitioned to start doing it but couldn't because of not having suitable machinery, it's completely different from Kodak, who are doing it all the time.

 

[railwayman3]

I wouldn't speculate too much how "old and worn" Kodak's 220 finishing machine is, let alone causing QC issues, as there is completely no basis for this. While Ilford does not finish in 220, and was petitioned to start doing it but couldn't because of not having suitable machinery, it's completely different from Kodak, who are doing it all the time.

Well said...the heading of this "Product Availability" forum does say "This forum is NOT for rumors and speculation." Mods???