220 film in Europe

[F994]

Hello guys, generally I consider 12 frames per roll just too much but this summer I'll be working on a project where I'll need a lot of frames so I'd find really useful 24 frames straight.
I heard that Kodak Portra 400 is still being produced in 220 format but I can't find it anywhere online in Europe. Do you know how to help me?

 

[MattKing]

Kodak is no longer making 220 film. If you find any, it will be older stock, and may now be all past its "Develop Before" date.

 

[macfred]

Like Matt says ...
I bought my last Portra 400 in 220 at amazon.de about 6 months ago - it's not available anymore.

 

[Prest_400]

I heard that Kodak Portra 400 is still being produced in 220 format but I can't find it anywhere online in Europe. Do you know how to help me?

Kodak discontinued all 220 around late summer/fall of 2015 sadly.

You can find Fuji 160NS in 220 from Asia, and at a still quite good price, however. Recently discontinued as well.

 

[F994]

That's really sad, too bad, I'll go with 120s

 

[mooseontheloose]

Velvia 100 is still available in the shops here in Japan, but no colour neg film.

 

[trendland]

The cutting of 220 films can't be the problem.
You also need much less backing paper.
Here - less demand on 220 films is indeed the reason.
The only guys who bought such films (>90%) were proffessionals.
Since 2000 there was a lost of 99,99%.
with regards

 

[F994]

Since 2000 there was a lost of 99,99%.
with regards

Yes, of course but since there's no issue in selling that format why don't produce a small stock every year?

Thanks for the reply

 

[RattyMouse]

Shoot 6 x 4.5 and get 16 shots per roll.

 

[AgX]

One might change over to 70mm. Ilfordphoto is likely to offer 70mm rolls on special order in future too. But of course that will be b&w...

But if one has the chance to use 70mm one most likely has a second type-120 magazine anyway.

 

[cmacd123]

The cutting of 220 films can't be the problem.
You also need much less backing paper.

that of course is the problem, 220 needs "Different" backing paper, and that would require a separate production run. almost all of the remaining film manufacuurers have gone to using Generic paper with just the labels changing for all their production. even the current Kodak paper is semi-generic, in that in olden days the paper would have the type of film printed between every frame number so if you were not sure what was in your brownie, you could take a shot and see when you wound to the next number if you had Kodacolor, Verichrome pan, Tri-X or Ektachrome.

 

[MattKing]

Several years ago Simon Galley of Harman/Ilford posted some very interesting information about 220 film.
The machine used by Ilford to put together the 220 film, leader and trailer was worn out. It was going to cost Ilford something like 300,000 pounds to replace or refurbish it. The available suppliers of the leader and trailer papers had huge minimum order requirements - many year's worth - and the paper itself is very expensive (purchasing the backing paper for 120 costs Harman more than it costs them to manufacture the film itself).
Harman/Ilford looked at those factors as well as the numbers for projected sales. If they repaired or replaced the machine and bought more of the leader and trailer papers, they saw no way they could obtain anything close to a reasonable return on their investment in 220, even if they sold the film for many years. As a result, they reluctantly discontinued the product.

 

[trendland]

Several years ago Simon Galley of Harman/Ilford posted some very interesting information about 220 film.
The machine used by Ilford to put together the 220 film, leader and trailer was worn out. It was going to cost Ilford something like 300,000 pounds to replace or refurbish it. The available suppliers of the leader and trailer papers had huge minimum order requirements - many year's worth - and the paper itself is very expensive (purchasing the backing paper for 120 costs Harman more than it costs them to manufacture the film itself).
Harman/Ilford looked at those factors as well as the numbers for projected sales. If they repaired or replaced the machine and bought more of the leader and trailer papers, they saw no way they could obtain anything close to a reasonable return on their investment in 220, even if they sold the film for many years. As a result, they reluctantly discontinued the product.

Such information you gave Matt is interisting - indeed. But I personaly would like to relative these statement of manufacturers.
So it might be correct that Ilford (years ago) spend more money to produce the backing paper than for the whole film.
But we may speculate within such calculation the costs of new expensive machines for assembling were in the "intern" cost of each film/pice backing paper.
AND we don't know the complete intern calculation of each film.
May be Ilford spent the full sum of USD 0,44 in £ /per film.
And intern costs of each backing paper was indeed more : USD 0,51/per film.
So may I ask our OP if he would like to spend USD 1, - / 1,50 more per film ?
Then the case could be solved from
immense costs of backing paper....

with regards

PS : The total demand is indeed much to less. Perhaps we speculate of less then
50.000,- 220 films per year (worldwide)
AND how many different emulsions?
50.000 / 12 different films ?
The manufacturers may be much afraid of having expired films wich came to scratch from advance of less demand.

 

[mnemosyne]

Such information you gave Matt is interisting - indeed. But I personaly would like to relative these statement of manufacturers.
So it might be correct that Ilford (years ago) spend more money to produce the backing paper than for the whole film.
But we may speculate within such calculation the costs of new expensive machines for assembling were in the "intern" cost of each film/pice backing paper.
AND we don't know the complete intern calculation of each film.
May be Ilford spent the full sum of USD 0,44 in £ /per film.
And intern costs of each backing paper was indeed more : USD 0,51/per film.
So may I ask our OP if he would like to spend USD 1, - / 1,50 more per film ?
Then the case could be solved from
immense costs of backing paper....

No, problem not solved. Read again. Harman's statement that purchasing the backing paper was more expensive than manufacturing the rest of the film was referring to 120 film, not 220. If it was so simple that 220 film was a pound or one and a half a roll more expensive to manufacture than 120 film Harman would certainly not have stopped offering it.

 

[trendland]

No, problem not solved. Read again. Harman's statement that purchasing the backing paper was more expensive than manufacturing the rest of the film was referring to 120 film, not 220. If it was so simple that 220 film was a pound or one and a half a roll more expensive to manufacture than 120 film Harman would certainly not have stopped offering it.

Yes Harman stated it - this might be.
If I will beliefe such statement of any manufacturers is a total different issue.
Matt told this as an example of the past.
Meanwhile Ilford films in 120 seams to be not cheaper than the backing paper for it.....

with regards

PS : It is allowed to have own ideas and it is allowed not to beliefe everything what manufacturers have to state.
PPS : Give me just a roll 120film in 500ft
of Ilford Delta 100 and I will assemble any kind of lenght.
You need 10 exposures in 6x7 no problem - I will assemble normal 120 films.
You need your beloved 220 film - NO problem at all to me.
But what about half a roll 120 ? For testing the film ? You need just 6 frames in 6x7 a roll - NO problem.
But 20 exposures are mostly to much to a short shooting? Why not to assemble a film between 120/220 .
The best may be 15 exposure 6x7 or18 in 6x6 by the way - how would it be with
24 exposures in 4,5x6???
Thats no problem at all because I own much of this most expensive backing paper.

 

[trendland]

.....as if I has guessed that this normal backing paper is outweighed by gold since the middle of 2017......
I N C R E D I B L E N O N S E N C E...

 

[MattKing]

No, problem not solved. Read again. Harman's statement that purchasing the backing paper was more expensive than manufacturing the rest of the film was referring to 120 film, not 220. If it was so simple that 220 film was a pound or one and a half a roll more expensive to manufacture than 120 film Harman would certainly not have stopped offering it.

It was the minimum order requirement that mattered most - several years worth at projected volumes. That plus the capital expense of replacing or repairing the machine made it un-economic.

 

[trendland]

It was the minimum order requirement that mattered most - several years worth at projected volumes. That plus the capital expense of replacing or repairing the machine made it un-economic.

Quite clear Matt - "Incredible Nonsense"
wasn't in regard of the info you gave - hope you unterstand this right.
It also isn't explicide meant to Ilford - it is more to general problems of higher scale film manufacturers in concern of cost's with backing paper.
To explain : Sure production of products is a real expensive business. In a smal market the question is on profitablity.
But sometimes there is indeed an urgend need to reinvest in new machines. To make the whole product portfolio most
atractive - special in a market of less demand.

with regards

PS : Kodak might realize such urgend need.....

 

[cmacd123]

It was the minimum order requirement that mattered most - several years worth at projected volumes. That plus the capital expense of replacing or repairing the machine made it un-economic.

It was quite common when I started taking pictures that every line of Film had unique backing paper. you would get a roll of ILFORD HP4 120. and beside that on the shelf would be FP3 620 and they had completly different print on the paper.

NOW all the film produced by those folks uses the SAME paper, even stuff they package for others.

the 220 paper is quite a bit different, having for example two separate "start" arrows depending on what camera it is to be used in. it is not just 120 paer with the center section cut out. Both the head and tail portion would have to be ordered separately and meet the minimum order requirments. At the time Simon was posting this would have resulted in the paper getting dodgy to use before it was used up ..

then their was the issue of repairing or replacing a machine that was of an older era than the PREVIOUS 120 machine. As much of their equipment was bought from AGFA, the documentation of the old machine may no longer be available.

 

[Stephen Prunier]

I miss Simon Galley. He was always around to answer our questions. He even mailed me some information at no charge. Nice guy.

 

[PittP]

The 220-discussion has been coming up from time to time...
Backing paper: The rumours paddeled in the "internet" say that Harman actually owns the main supplier for backing paper - and apparently asks somewhat exorbitant prices from their customers. Info to be verified, though. Ilford used to have long rolls of backing paper in their special order list: Was more expensive than the same paper with a piece of film attached and nicely packaged as 120 film.
I once proposed 60mm film on long rolls (like 135 bulk film) to make your (or my) own 220-film using either separately sold backing paper or, as trendland also suggested, recycle left-overs from 120 film. Was not appreciated: Problem of packing such long rolls! And many agressively argued that 220 is much too long anyway (strange enough, including 135-users otherwise going through the endless ordeals of 36+ snaps/roll).
In very dusty conditions I don't like to change film. To get along I make what I call 210 film: 2 lengths of 120 film taped together, with appropriate lengths of backing paper as leader and tail. Works perfectly, though I loose one frame in the middle (220 > 210!).
May be, may be those heroes from Ferrania identify this niche for their P30, to sell 60mm film without backing paper (may be just because they can't get it in the needed quantities) - and we'll be blessed with the option of a tape-it-yourself-220-kit?
Cheers!

 

[trendland]

The 220-discussion has been coming up from time to time...
Backing paper: The rumours paddeled in the "internet" say that Harman actually owns the main supplier for backing paper - and apparently asks somewhat exorbitant prices from their customers. Info to be verified, though. Ilford used to have long rolls of backing paper in their special order list: Was more expensive than the same paper with a piece of film attached and nicely packaged as 120 film.
I once proposed 60mm film on long rolls (like 135 bulk film) to make your (or my) own 220-film using either separately sold backing paper or, as trendland also suggested, recycle left-overs from 120 film. Was not appreciated: Problem of packing such long rolls! And many agressively argued that 220 is much too long anyway (strange enough, including 135-users otherwise going through the endless ordeals of 36+ snaps/roll).
In very dusty conditions I don't like to change film. To get along I make what I call 210 film: 2 lengths of 120 film taped together, with appropriate lengths of backing paper as leader and tail. Works perfectly, though I loose one frame in the middle (220 > 210!).
May be, may be those heroes from Ferrania identify this niche for their P30, to sell 60mm film without backing paper (may be just because they can't get it in the needed quantities) - and we'll be blessed with the option of a tape-it-yourself-220-kit?
Cheers!

Hope Ferrania heroes did get this hint - because it is indeed no problem to tape it yourself. AND you would need no kit you would just have a need of some self developed 120 films and a household scissors.
My Pentax 67 II is eating a max. of 21 frames on 220.But if it is not knowing I feed it with 8 frame films as 220 I have no need of soo much backing paper - just the beginning part have to be exact messured.
with regards

 

[pentaxuser]

Will all of you please look at Lachlan Young's predictions for Kodak's special announcement this Friday 23rd. It is relevant and he could be right, couldn't he?

pentaxuser.