220 B&W - What to do?

[K-G]

As it seems that no manufacturer can provide 220 B&W film at reasonable user cost and company profit, I have thought of another solution. If 120/220 type film can be delivered in bulk rolls like the 100 feet ( 30,5 m ) rolls that 135 type film is available in, I think it would be possible to fix your own 220 rolls. Personally I save all my empty spools and leftover backing papers from both 120 and 220 film and I have a feeling that I am not alone. Even if it sounds a litle bit more complicated than loading your own 135 cassettes, I still think it is possible. Has anyone ever heard of comments from any of the major film suppliers on such an issue ?
Another thing that I am not sure about is if 120 film can be rolled up in 220 lengths without problem. Somewhere I read that the film base for 220 film is slightly thinner than that of 120 in order to get all the film on to the spool without light leakages. True or not, I don´t know. Perhaps 120 film has to be rolled up in a shorter length than ordinary 220 length. If you have any facts on my questions and/or think the idea is insane or ingenious, please let me know.

Karl-Gustaf

 

[AgX]

The actual film is the same in type 120 and 220.

 

[michaelbsc]

As it seems that no manufacturer can provide 220 B&W film at reasonable user cost and company profit, I have thought of another solution. If 120/220 type film can be delivered in bulk rolls like the 100 feet ( 30,5 m ) rolls that 135 type film is available in, I think it would be possible to fix your own 220 rolls...

As already mentioned, slitting 70mm long rolls is the best chance of getting this.

Another thing that I am not sure about is if 120 film can be rolled up in 220 lengths without problem. Somewhere I read that the film base for 220 film is slightly thinner than that of 120 in order to get all the film on to the spool without light leakages. True or not, I don´t know. Perhaps 120 film has to be rolled up in a shorter length than ordinary 220 length. If you have any facts on my questions and/or think the idea is insane or ingenious, please let me know.

I know that most 220 was the same base as its 120 twin. That's why the backing paper was left off, so it would roll up on the same spools. Some brands may have used two different substrates. I don't know that much about 220.

I have never seen long rolls of 120 size film, though I have looked around a little. You can get long rolls of 46mm (127 size, and kind of rare) and long rolls of 70mm. But not the 62mm size that is 120 film.

So if you were to build a slitter that cuts 62mm and 8mm you could satisfy your 8mm habit as well as make homegrown 220. Can't remember what uses unperfed 8mm. (minox maybe?)

There used to be a guy on eBay selling slitters to any width you wanted, but I didn't see him listing any products when I checked just now. User name was xkaes. Real name was Joe something.

 

[Q.G.]

If we are going to have to fiddle with long rolls that have to be cut to size, split lengthwise even, i can tell you that i for one will not bother. And i doubt that i would be alone.


Apropos 70 mm rolls: why not load those in 70 mm backs, instead of trying to cut them down and 'package' them as 220 rolls??

 

[michaelbsc]

Apropos 70 mm rolls: why not load those in 70 mm backs, instead of trying to cut them down and 'package' them as 220 rolls??

You need a camera that has 70mm backs available to use it as 70mm. I don't know how many have that, but nothing I happen own has them available. But then again, I'm not in the market for 220 film either.

I learned the slitting details trying to cut down film for 16mm Minoltas.

Can it be done? Sure. I expect I, or any one handy with tools, could build a jig to make it easy out of junk around the shop. And if I wanted it bad enough for my own hobby I'd do it.

If, on the other hand, you came to me as a customer asking for a machine, that you expected to work flawless for years on end to meet even a minuscule production schedule, I couldn't do it for less than $10K. You would have to want 220 film mighty badly to justify that. Even if you figure you save yourself 20 minutes on a shoot reloading (what are assistants for, anyway) the price would take a long time to repay. You can't simply say it's 20 minutes on a shoot. It's several hours of your time before the shoot preparing the homemade 220 as well as the cost of the machine you have to recover on the shoot. You may never get to break even, much less profitable.

 

[michaelbsc]

Here's some slitter info.

http://www.subclub.org/darkroom/splitter.htm

It's for sub-mini format, but the idea is the same.

 

[Q.G.]

I still would rather spend my 'fiddling time' loading 120 film into my 120 backs.

 

[michaelbsc]

I still would rather spend my 'fiddling time' loading 120 film into my 120 backs.

Well, since I don't even own any 220 backs, that's what I'm going to do as well. Buy, load, and develop 120.

But in the grand scheme of thinking about how to do impossible things, I realized that the guy on evilBay who sells the 9,5 inch wide aerial film in rolls could supply raw materials as well. Of course, I have no idea if that's even suitable film for camera use. If it's for duplication then the spectral sensitivity is probably not all that great compared to panchromatic.

Still, if you're the tinkerer kind of person, you could have fun with that.

 

[R gould]

The loss of 220 is no problem, never used the stuff, prefer 120,Richard

 

[Sirius Glass]

As it seems that no manufacturer can provide 220 B&W film at reasonable user cost and company profit, I have thought of another solution. If 120/220 type film can be delivered in bulk rolls like the 100 feet ( 30,5 m ) rolls that 135 type film is available in, I think it would be possible to fix your own 220 rolls. Personally I save all my empty spools and leftover backing papers from both 120 and 220 film and I have a feeling that I am not alone. Even if it sounds a litle bit more complicated than loading your own 135 cassettes, I still think it is possible. Has anyone ever heard of comments from any of the major film suppliers on such an issue ?
Another thing that I am not sure about is if 120 film can be rolled up in 220 lengths without problem. Somewhere I read that the film base for 220 film is slightly thinner than that of 120 in order to get all the film on to the spool without light leakages. True or not, I don´t know. Perhaps 120 film has to be rolled up in a shorter length than ordinary 220 length. If you have any facts on my questions and/or think the idea is insane or ingenious, please let me know.

Karl-Gustaf

You and ten others? That will support selling the production roll?

 

[lxdude]

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.

120 is easier.
With 220 two pieces of paper have to be attached to the film, one at either end.

With 120 the paper and film are rolled together onto the spool, the film within the longer paper. Alignment is simple and exact positioning of the paper and film ends is less crucial.

 

[AgX]

120 is easier.

Type 120 is not easier. At least not in the meaning that the emulsion is in contact with the backing paper over its full length. Something one is practically not to be concerned with in type 220.

 

[lxdude]

Type 120 is not easier. At least not in the meaning that the emulsion is in contact with the backing paper over its full length. Something one is practically not to be concerned with in type 220.

I meant easier to spool, not having to attach the paper to the roll at beginning and end. It is mechanically easier to wind film and paper on the spool, compared to having to connect paper to the film at each end.

 

[lxdude]

Type 120 is not easier. At least not in the meaning that the emulsion is in contact with the backing paper over its full length. Something one is practically not to be concerned with in type 220.

I can see that could be a problem. 120 has been made for a long time and I have not heard of problems, which I assume would be scuffing or scratching, especially with the soft older emulsions. Are there problems with it these days?

 

[AgX]

Basically you have two kinds of problems:

-) mechanical ones

-) chemical ones

 

[lxdude]

OK- so the mechanical ones I can see. The chemical ones would be interactions, I suppose?

 

[AgX]

Yes, but I would rather not go into details.

 

[Q.G.]

Would that not be a problem when selecting your materials, and not at manufacture/confectioning?
Joining film and paper once, then winding it on, would appear to be much simpler (and thus cheaper) than joining and taping, winding for a bit, joining and taping again, then winding again.

So what are the mechanical problems?

 

[lxdude]

I took mechanical to mean the paper scuffing or scratching the emulsion, or if it were too rough it could imprint a texture onto it.

 

[Q.G.]

I see.
Just guessing, but wouldn't having (relatively soft, compared to film) paper between the loops of film rather be extra protection against that sort of stuff, reducing the risk of that?

 

[lxdude]

I would think paper itself would be less soft than film base. Smoothness would seem to be more crucial. To me, the coating on the paper seems smooth and slick enough to avoid damaging the emulsion, but I've only used Kodak and Fuji, so I don't know about the others. It would seem to be more likely a problem with softer emulsions some smaller players are said to have.

I was referencing Agx's mention of two kinds of problems regarding backing paper contact with the emulsion itself: one mechanical, one chemical. I take mechanical to mean scuffing, etc., because I don't see what else it would be. I think the problems are probably more potential than actual; with the big players, anyway.

 

[2F/2F]

It is not coming back, as there is not much market for it, as evidenced by most people's responses on the matter in this thread. Regardless of why this is (and I do think that it is quite silly), the demand just is not there. What to do if you want to shoot it into the future is to stock up on TXP 220 and build a radiation-blocking freezer for the stash. However, I do not think that the prices it is selling for are worth paying at this point. When it was available over the counter at double the price of 120 or less, I bought it, but I am not going to hunt it down on E-Bay and pay 10 dollars a roll or more for it.

 

[Q.G.]

I would think paper itself would be less soft than film base.

You can cut the backing paper using the film.
You can't cut the film using backing paper.

[...] I was referencing Agx's mention of two kinds of problems regarding backing paper contact with the emulsion itself: one mechanical, one chemical. I take mechanical to mean scuffing, etc., because I don't see what else it would be.

The mechanics of joining film with paper?
Which was the subject before: it being less work/easier to produce 120 film, with only one piece of paper to stick to the film.

 

[lxdude]

You can cut the backing paper using the film.
You can't cut the film using backing paper.

That's toughness, more than softness. It could cut aluminum foil, too. In a durometer the paper would rate higher.

If the film and paper were rubbed together with enough pressure, which would be scuffed? I think it would be the film, though I don't think in normal conditions either would likely be affected.

An old machining technique for putting a high polish on metals in a lathe once the finish is very smooth is to use paper with light oil. The best paper I ever found for that is the very thin and smooth toilet seat covering paper, colloquially termed "ass gasket". The paper is not tough and not rough, but those little wood fibers still manage to remove enough metal to produce a mirror finish.
I don't know that the backing paper is wood-based, but it seems to be.

The mechanics of joining film with paper?
Which was the subject before: it being less work/easier to produce 120 film, with only one piece of paper to stick to the film.

Yes, that could be what he meant; I construed it differently.

 

[aoresteen]

Sigh.... I just want a 220 B&W film so when I load my 220 6x9 Toyo back I get 16 exp instead of 8 with 120. I guess I will have to live with 120 or 220 color.

TXP 220 is gone - I haven't seen any on ebay and good luck finding some.