220 Film Petition / Reply From ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Customers :

We have received your petition for the return of ILFORD 220 roll film, we deeply respect the fervour and passion shown and the great effort that has been expended to assemble such a list of renowned photographers who would like to see this format re-introduced.

We have obviously taken note of the potential commercial opportunity of once again having 220 film within our product family, we would be remiss not to.

The Board of Directors of ILFORD Photo, HARMAN technology Limited have discussed this petition and the opportunity, and discussed at length with our manufacturing and finishing staff the practicalities of returning 220 film to the range.

After due deliberation, we find it impossible to do so at this time, the reasons are set out below.

1) The finishing route of this film is part automated, the machine designated to 220 is chronically obsolete, in excess of 50 years old, and is currently de-commissioned. To refurbish the machine is impossible and to manufacture a new one ( using the old machine as a template ) would cost in the region of £ 300,000.

2) Hand finishing of 220 has been evaluated and rejected due to the potential quality issues of hand finishing in total darkness.

3) The highly specialised coated papers used for backing strips for 120 and for 'tops and tails' for 220 film has to be ordered ( and finished in a process ) in very large quantities, the minimum order for 'tops and tails' to our required specification would equate to seven years and eight months stock* having to be ordered and paid for in advance of any production.

* Based on the last full years sales figures of all ILFORD 220 films, with no decline in sales taken into account and using a generic, none film specific
'top and tail'.

4) If we were to commit to a new machine and the advance order for 'tops and tails' and endeavour to recover the costs ( including interest ) over a 3 year period, the cost of an individual 220 film would be more than three an half times the cost of a 120 film, we do not believe this sustainable, therefore volume would reduce, and we would fail to recover the cost of our investment.

So what can ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology do ?

Our intention is to continue to try and pursuade a partner to finish the film for us, we have had little success so far, but we will continue, and increase our efforts, now that AGFA Photo has gone ( although they had already ceased all manufacture of roll film and the equipment was scrapped ) only two companies in the World have a quality system that is equal to our own for the finishing of roll film so we do not have many options.

We will keep the photographers who petitioned us ( and APUG members ) informed of any progress. The board of ILFORD Photo would like to take this opportunity to reassure all those who petitioned us and all APUG memebers that all the film products will continue to be available in 120 and that all our other monochrome product families will continue to be manufactured and new products will continue to be added to the range. We always have been, and always will be, passionate about our products, and our customers who use them.

We thank you for purchasing, using and valuing our products:

Simon.R.Galley, Director, for and on behalf of the board of directors of ILFORD Photo, HARMAN technology Limited :

Mobberley, Cheshire, UK 7th April, 2006:

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

An unfortunate result, but thanks for taking the requests seriously and taking the time to compose a serious reply.

Is there any headway to be made with Fuji? I gather their offerings in instant print materials involved partnerships with Polaroid, and some small operators (Wittner in Germany, and Spectra Lab in California) have managed to work with them to bring out Velvia in Super-8 and 16mm, so they don't seem closed to the idea of collaboration.

 

[Petzi]

Thanks for the clear statement.

I didn't know that Agfa had scrapped their equipment to make roll film before their insolvency. It seems like a rather absurd move. Or perhaps that was after they went bankrupt?

 

[Petzi]

Both Fuji and Kodak have pretty large minimum order requirements. I think both would make b/w film in 220 if someone ordered enough of that.

 

[Chazzy]

Does anyone know of another manufacturer who makes 220 black and white film, besides Kodak? I'm not aware of one, or I would consider switching brands. I hate loading film backs.

 

[Petzi]

There are no b/w films in 220 rolls available except Tri-X 320.

 

[Chazzy]

Both Fuji and Kodak have pretty large minimum order requirements. I think both would make b/w film in 220 if someone ordered enough of that.

Kodak already does--but I have no faith in their commitment to traditional photography anymore and am convinced that they will continue dropping more and more products. I would hate to standardize on Kodak again--but then, I also hate buying extra 120 backs and loading them, so maybe I should give the 220 Tri-X Professional a try.

 

[Petzi]

Tri-X 320 is not a bad film per se, but it is weird because of its highly non-linear characteristic curve.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f009_0497ac.gif

Personally I would like some Kodak T-Max or Fuji Acros. Would buy Ilford Delta if that was available.

 

[Donald Qualls]

There are no b/w films in 220 rolls available except Tri-X 320.

Last time I looked, you could also get T400CN (or whatever they're calling it this year) in 220 (though calling that a B&W film is stretching a bit).

Honestly, I can't say this is unexpected; like the recent discontinuation of Polaroid's positive/negative stocks in 3x3 and 3x4 pack film forms, there are times when the market simply can no longer support niche products like these. I have only one camera that could possibly use 220, and I'd have to play games with the counter to use it in that one; I'm just happy to still have a selection of twenty or so B&W emulsions in 120 and a slightly larger number in 35 mm in these days of shrinking market.

Simon, Ilford Photo/Harman Technologies, true to your word, offer a wider range than any other company; with the full range of products from Pan F through Delta 3200 available in both 35 mm and 120, and a decent selection even in large format, you could carry the needs of about 98% of B&W photography even if everyone else in the business packed in.

Hopefully there will come a time when my budget won't force me to buy the cheapest films in order to have film in the freezer rather than having to ration the last few rolls, and I can support your business in more than spirit. In the meantime, you keep everyone else honest, too -- without your standard, the other brands I buy wouldn't have to toe the line so carefully, and there'd be nothing keeping the small companies from producing junk in the knowledge that the others were doing the same.

 

[Kino]

Thank you Simon for that honest assessment of the situation.

I can respect your conclusions and thank you, your staff and Ilford for taking the time and effort to seriously consider the request.

If I haven't said it before, Delta 100 in 120 is an epiphany. Saving up for a freezer full now!

Keep up the fantastic work.

Frank Wylie

 

[herb]

Ilford and 220 etc

I have only recently come to admire FP4- it was so much better in many ways
than tx 320, foma and forte that I could go on and on. I bought a ton of fp4, and will enjoy using it. I also use jandc, and since they sell Ilford, one can help both companies prosper.

 

[Brac]

Until recently Konica-Minolta were offering some of their professional colour negative films in 220 size. As they are now withdrawing from the photographic market I wonder whether their 220 machine might be available to Ilford?

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Brac,

I am not sure Konica-Minolta finished it themselves, but thanks for the info and we will check it out:

Simon.

 

[Peter Williams]

Simon,

Your participation on APUG is truly extraordinary. Thank you.

 

[reggie]

Wow. Would any other company give such an honest and detailed response? I was cringing half way thru the problems they would encounter and I don't blame them for not doing it.

Thank you for the great response, Simon!

-R

 

[dphill]

At the risk of turning this into an Ilford lovefest, I would like to come out of lurk mode and make a comment for what its worth.

I think that somewhere in Ilford's business plan, it understands that a honest and continued dialog with it's customers ensures that it will stay in business for some time. If you check through past posts by Simon on behalf of Ilford, you will find that, good news or bad news, he/they have been straightforward with information that concerns us as consumers of their product. That candor will allow Ilford to continue to sell their product in the future even to the point of (may the Flying Spaghetti Monster forbid) direct from factory retail sales.
In 30 years of working in companies from brick and mortar, to mail order, to the full gamut of corporations, the ones that have survived have defined their place, their niche so to speak. They are not greedy. They provide a product, earn a decent living and are happy with that plan. All that I have seen with regards to the new Ilford is they have found their niche, they are not greedy and are quite happy to earn a decent living by producing a superior product.
As long as they continue the dialog, they will have me as a customer.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

2) Hand finishing of 220 has been evaluated and rejected due to the potential quality issues of hand finishing in total darkness.

What about using Infrared Night vision goggles to do this step? I understand the manual part will raise costs, but night vision would remove the total darknesss aspect...

Kirk www.keyesphoto.com

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

I know this is woefully off-topic, and I too resent Kodak's not making B&W paper anymore but you people really need to stop bashing them. Kodak film is some of the best quality film made today. For certain their C-41 and ECN-2 color negative films have the highest resolving power, finest grain, and most consistant base densities. Kodak invented T-grain, double-electron sensitization, and movie film among many other technical innovations. They kept Super 8 film alive, and have kept Kodachrome alive. They have an incredible commitment to analog photography and despite their current pro-digital stance continue to pour tens of millions into film R&D. If you want to get them to change their priorities, buy their stock, buy their film, and show up to their friggin' board meetings! BTW, I think Tri-X 320 is a superb film. I've used it and I love it.

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

 

[PhotoJim]

No disrespect intended, Karl - but I thought Kodak completely wound up its silver halide photography R&D division.

Kodak's decision to abandon the B&W paper market certainly gives me pause for thought. I for one would not criticize anybody that decided to use another maker's products if that person cared about the product's long-term commercial viability. Some photographers take years to get to know a product; it seems likely that Ilford will be staying in this business for a long time and the question is open to wide debate when asked of Kodak.

I agree that being more proactive about using Kodak's products and raising and kicking a fuss with them might help things, but it seems easier to buy Ilford and Fuji products. It gives me more time to actually do photography.

I still shoot Plus-X and Tri-X occasionally but until Kodak states an intention to stay in the monochrome (and indeed silver photography) market in the longer term, I will have a preference for Ilford and Fuji, two companies that have clearly stated that they are around for awhile yet.

(I am still cranky that Ilford got rid of velvet stipple fibre paper a few years ago... I loved that stuff.)

 

[theyankeesnapper]

Why 220 at all?

Except in rare occasions when one may need the additional frames, I find 220 may be prone to sratching from the lack of backing, and light leaks are possible from the tops and tails* when not wound as tight as they should be after removal from the camera.

Regards.

bob


*so thats what their called....

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Aside from the advantage of a longer roll, Zeiss claims that 220 produces sharper results in general, when the pressure plate is in direct contact with the film (I'm sure there is considerable variation, though, between different camera backs and film transport systems). Somehow 35mm cameras, long roll cameras, and movie cameras seem to work without scratching the film as long as things are kept clean. I don't see why this should be a particular issue with 220.

 

[antielectrons]

Simon, thanks for your reply. Shame it wouldnt work out. Given the price of the finishing equipment how are things looking as regards 120 film? I hope you have a plentifull supply of parts!

 

[theyankeesnapper]

Why 220 at all?

For those who would like to get a pro-pack or two of 125PX-220 dated 11/07.

Go to:
http://www.samys.com/product.php?ItemNo=KODA8717910

Samy's seem's to have a limited supply still available.

Good luck.

Bob McCarthy
theyankeesnapper@aol.com

 

[John Bartley]

I would like to add my voice to those who express thanks to someone who understands that what most of us desire in the way of an answer to our questions is a plain, open, straightforward answer.

Thank you Simon.

 

[Thomassauerwein]

I find 220 color transparency very handy for shooting commercial lifestyle stuff. It would have been nice in B/W also. OH Well! Simon, thanks to you and Ilford for your consideration. The detailed denial is very considerate. Again Thanks.