220 Film Prices

faberryman · Dec 2, 2021

Agulliver said:
Can you cost this, please? And let us know your conclusions.

It was just an whimsical idea I had after reading this:

mtjade2007 said:
I am not a film manufacturing expert but I tend to believe it would not cost much. Why? Take Kodak as an example, Kodak already had 220 production lines before. They were taken off line. I don't think they had destroyed them. They could be activated again. They could order leader/trailer paper and packaging materials from 3rd party manufacturers. I don't think in this case the cost of bringing back 220 production line would be expensive. I tend to believe the main reason 220 is not offered today is because films are like perishable produce, If the stock is not sold quickly it would be gone wasted. Unless the market shows a strong demand they simply don't give it a damn. I believe the films are coated based on orders they receive plus some short term forecast. I doubt there is any 220 order and market forecast to drive the manufacturing.

It is up to photographers to show there is a demand for 220 by buying a lot of Shanghai 220.

reddesert · Dec 2, 2021

If anyone is actually technologically capable of reviving 220, it might be the people at Film for Classics, who have been spooling film to make 620 and 127 for years, https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explor...land-the-last-of-the-classic-film-re-spoolers You can still buy their film through B&H and others. But it isn't cheap, because doing this at a small scale takes time and equipment and costs more than people expect. If newly rolled 220 film came out and cost north of $30 a roll, I think enthusiasm would drop.

swchris · Dec 2, 2021

Agulliver said:
I demand a lifetime supply of free Kodachrome in 220, 135 and super 8

Don't forget Double (Normal) 8....

eli griggs · Dec 2, 2021

Someone should clue In the film makers in how much we like expired b&w films, as well as colour, and use the expression "Seasoned" just as a bragging point, like Scotch and Whiskey Makers.

Skinning cats just requires some mental judo and a willingness to make things happen, IMO.

Cheers and Godspeed to all, this Holiday Season!

faberryman said:
It was just an whimsical idea I had after reading this:

It is up to photographers to show there is a demand for 220 by buying a lot of Shanghai 220.

Sirius Glass · Dec 2, 2021

eli griggs said:
Someone should clue In the film makers in how much we like expired b&w films, as well as colour, and use the expression "Seasoned" just as a bragging point, like Scotch and Whiskey Makers.

Skinning cats just requires some mental judo and a willingness to make things happen, IMO.

Cheers and Godspeed to all, this Holiday Season!

I do not care for out of date film unless it became out of date in my freezer. I use in date film because my photographs are valuable. You can have my share of unfrozen out of date film.

Also why would film manufacture so much excess that they would be stuck with out of date film? They would cut back on production and raise prices for their products. Is that really what you are advocating?

AnselMortensen · Dec 2, 2021

I have a brick of 220 on order from Shanghai.
When it will arrive is anybody's guess.
I have paid my money and taken my chances.
Anybody else?

I demand Kodak make High Speed Infrared film in 5x7.

eli griggs · Dec 2, 2021

No, and "seasoned" film in the makers cold storage would no suffer any more than what's in your own freezer.

I've seen it written here in several posts, that minimum production is an issue, so it's easy enough, if I listen to some of the "Authorities" on this film topic to believe excesses are a sure thing in any production of Kodak or Ilford.

I believe that even at a lower price point for excess runs, both would rather sell than recycle/destroy older films, if there is a product and market that they create and expand into the general photography population, World wide.

If you want to shoot new, that's no skin off anyone's nose, but from many of the photographers here and elsewhere, aged film is a great resource and there,even you could yourself profit, in that such a market would make sure your new film is still being made and we all could continue to support those makers we depend on so much to continue with a line of product.

IMO.

eli griggs · Dec 2, 2021

There is a big difference between demanding something and creating a demand in the market with some thought of an expanded product line without undercutting your normal product line.

Again, just my opinion.

Cheers.

MattKing · Dec 2, 2021

(IRONY turned on)
There is a simple solution.
Someone needs to spend the necessary sum to build a new confectioning machine for 220.
Then they need to buy a selection of different 220 leaders and trailers, each of which is suitable for use with the films that Kodak, Ilford and Fuji would want to use them for. You may have to do a bunch of testing, which may mean big bucks spent on the minimum order quantities demanded by the specialist paper suppliers and printers.
Then sell your 220 confectioning services to each of the film manufacturers, at a price that allows them to in turn sell the film at a reasonable price.
You shouldn't have to invest more than a few million dollars to get it up and running.
And if the film manufacturers didn't have to tie up all that capital, I'm sure they would be overjoyed to buy your product.
It would be a wonderfully charitable thing for you to do. There would probably be no chance of you ever coming close to making a profit on it, but your desire to do good would certainly trump that, wouldn't it?
Remember, the actual film in a 220 film package may be one of the lowest cost parts.
(IRONY turned off)

eli griggs · Dec 3, 2021

Kodak already has remjet that, in particular, their B&W films could benefit from and there are many companies that produce 'films', such as one German Solar cell maker makes uses for their flexible product, so other materials are there to be altered and utilized for non-paper leaders and tails, in 220 films.

Ilford could also come up with a comparable product to Remjet, and move forward back to the future.

Lack of vision and a willingness to test what's possible does no recommend any real World success, where doing nothing when avenues of inventions are simply waiting for a first step to be taken are ignored and profane to those who see photography (and other things) as stuck firmly in their minds as one regime only.

IMO.

MattKing said:
(IRONY turned on)
There is a simple solution.
Someone needs to spend the necessary sum to build a new confectioning machine for 220.
Then they need to buy a selection of different 220 leaders and trailers, each of which is suitable for use with the films that Kodak, Ilford and Fuji would want to use them for. You may have to do a bunch of testing, which may mean big bucks spent on the minimum order quantities demanded by the specialist paper suppliers and printers.
Then sell your 220 confectioning services to each of the film manufacturers, at a price that allows them to in turn sell the film at a reasonable price.
You shouldn't have to invest more than a few million dollars to get it up and running.
And if the film manufacturers didn't have to tie up all that capital, I'm sure they would be overjoyed to buy your product.
It would be a wonderfully charitable thing for you to do. There would probably be no chance of you ever coming close to making a profit on it, but your desire to do good would certainly trump that, wouldn't it?
Remember, the actual film in a 220 film package may be one of the lowest cost parts.
(IRONY turned off)

Donald Qualls · Dec 3, 2021

eli griggs said:
Kodak already has remjet

What possible benefit would remjet add to 220 film? Cameras that use 220 have frame counting systems so don't need red windows (even if remjet would protect against that; I don't believe it would), and without high speed film transport the conductivity of remjet has no benefit -- but it's always a PITA to deal with during development unless you have a cine process line that includes a remjet removal step (and, BTW, needs to run miles of film in a "batch" to work right).

faberryman · Dec 3, 2021

eli griggs said:
Skinning cats just requires some mental judo and a willingness to make things happen, IMO.

I thought Kodak, Fuji, Foma, and all the rest couldn't manufacture enough film to keep up with demand as it is. Where is all this production to come from to create this excess you guys think is going to magically appear in film makers freezers?

Speaking of demand, how many rolls of what kind of film do you shoot every year? How many additional rolls of film would you commit to buying each year to do your part to increase demand.

Donald Qualls · Dec 3, 2021

I think for Kodak and Fuji, at least, the problem was the opposite -- the sudden decrease in demand for film in the early 2000s led to a situation where it wasn't profitable to run the existing lines (optimized for the early-1990s demand level, which was huge), due to minimum production. Downsizing without sinking the company was hard.

Sirius Glass · Dec 3, 2021

MattKing said:
(IRONY turned on)
There is a simple solution.
Someone needs to spend the necessary sum to build a new confectioning machine for 220.
Then they need to buy a selection of different 220 leaders and trailers, each of which is suitable for use with the films that Kodak, Ilford and Fuji would want to use them for. You may have to do a bunch of testing, which may mean big bucks spent on the minimum order quantities demanded by the specialist paper suppliers and printers.
Then sell your 220 confectioning services to each of the film manufacturers, at a price that allows them to in turn sell the film at a reasonable price.
You shouldn't have to invest more than a few million dollars to get it up and running.
And if the film manufacturers didn't have to tie up all that capital, I'm sure they would be overjoyed to buy your product.
It would be a wonderfully charitable thing for you to do. There would probably be no chance of you ever coming close to making a profit on it, but your desire to do good would certainly trump that, wouldn't it?
Remember, the actual film in a 220 film package may be one of the lowest cost parts.
(IRONY turned off)

And if all that were to come about, there would not be a demand big enough to justify the expense. Ignoring that issue of justifying the investment, the demand for 220 film will not go up, but is would satisfy some grumpy old men on Photrio.

Agulliver · Dec 8, 2021

I think the problem is the fairly widespread belief that companies such as Ilford, Kodak, Fuji and Foma are somehow refusing to do things which are simple and cheap. The reality is that these things which the populace of Photrio would like (such as 220 film, higher speed colour reversal film, Kodachrome in some obscure size not made since 1936) are not actually cheap or simple....and would never recoup the investment needed to bring them about.

If I won Euromillions....sure, I could throw money at Kodak or Harman and I bet I could persuade them to get 220 confectioning up and running. I'd likely throw a million at it, and lose that money because the 220 would never even break even. But if I won £120 million it wouldn't matter. The fact is, no business can operate like that unless some insanely wealthy individual does come along and fund a vanity project. Heck if it happens I'll throw in another million and subsidise the price of the films. Portra and Tri-X in 220 for five dollarpounds a box.

MattKing · Dec 8, 2021

I agree entirely with Agulliver.
There may, however, be some examples where if one was to donate the initial capital costs for getting product manufacture up and running, the film manufacturers would then be able to manufacture that product at a reasonable price and make a sustainable profit on decent sales.
220 would probably not be in that group, because of the problem with the high cost, high minimum quantity, third party sourced leaders and trailers.

pentaxuser · Dec 8, 2021

MattKing said:
I agree entirely with Agulliver.
There may, however, be some examples where if one was to donate the initial capital costs for getting product manufacture up and running, the film manufacturers would then be able to manufacture that product at a reasonable price and make a sustainable profit on decent sales.
220 would probably not be in that group, because of the problem with the high cost, high minimum quantity, third party sourced leaders and trailers.

Yes it would seem that with the exception of Shanghai who seemingly have worked out a way of doing it in a relatively manual fashion at what we assume to be a profit or not, as the case may be, then unless other companies can be sure of replicating the Shanghai method at a profit we can be as certain as it is possible to be, that Shanghai will remain the sole producer of 220

pentaxuser

Huss · Dec 9, 2021

pentaxuser said:
Yes it would seem that with the exception of Shanghai who seemingly have worked out a way of doing it in a relatively manual fashion at what we assume to be a profit or not, as the case may be, then unless other companies can be sure of replicating the Shanghai method at a profit we can be as certain as it is possible to be, that Shanghai will remain the sole producer of 220

pentaxuser

Still waiting for my Shanghai film. 6 weeks now..

pentaxuser · Dec 9, 2021

Huss said:
Still waiting for my Shanghai film. 6 weeks now..

Yes under normal pre-Covid circumstances this would ring alarm bells but now I am unsure what definite conclusions we can draw from "6 weeks"

Still a shame for buyers however

pentaxuser

MattKing · Dec 9, 2021

Perhaps they are rolling it to order

Agulliver · Dec 10, 2021

pentaxuser said:
Yes it would seem that with the exception of Shanghai who seemingly have worked out a way of doing it in a relatively manual fashion at what we assume to be a profit or not, as the case may be, then unless other companies can be sure of replicating the Shanghai method at a profit we can be as certain as it is possible to be, that Shanghai will remain the sole producer of 220

pentaxuser

It is entirely possible that Shanghai don't need to make a profit. Or that labour costs are so low they can sell something for $10 that a Western manufacturer would have to price at $20. What will be interesting to see is how well Shanghai do with these unusual formats. Right now they are the only people making 220, other than some retailers offering to hand roll. They're also doing 127 and 620. All niche markets but if they can offer good quality, factory made film in those formats, we will soon know what the global demand for said formats is. Their 35mm and 120 is in a somewhat crowded marketplace and no longer has the USP of selling for much less than anything else but no doubt serves as a way to keep the machines going and hopefully keep quality up to spec.

Demand for 220 is thought to be low for a variety of reasons. Firstly it was always a low quantity product used mostly by professional wedding/occasion photographers. Many of us never saw it in retailers even in the 80s. From what I have read here, 220 always cost more than 2x120. Additionally, almost every 220 camera can also use 120. The potential user base seems small. Whereas there must be millions of 127 cameras out there which realistically cannot use another film format (one can jam a 135 cassette into a few models). But most of these are low end cameras, how many owners actually want to use them? I'd love to know how many of each format they've sold in a couple of years time, though I doubt they'll be willing to divulge that information. One thing I would say, if we just snipe at them and don't buy the films....they'll disappear and we'll have no 120, 127 and 620 save that which is hand rolled.

It also shows once again how internet forums can be.

"We want Product X"

"No! Not like that!"

Donald Qualls · Dec 10, 2021

Agulliver said:
Whereas there must be millions of 127 cameras out there which realistically cannot use another film format

On the other hand, it's no harder to recut 120 to 127 than to respool it for 620. Same is true for 828, as long as your camera doesn't depend on the one perf per frame to stop advance or reset/unlock the shutter. For 220, though, film pretty well has to be originally confectioned that way.

abruzzi · Dec 10, 2021

Donald Qualls said:
For 220, though, film pretty well has to be originally confectioned that way.

is that true though? Not that I really care, but but using a rotary cutter then respooling the result onto a smaller reel doesn't seem that much easier than removing the film, cutting the backing paper to two specific lengths, taping them to the end pieces and re-rolling? All of them sound like too much work for me, but they don't sound too much different. I once tried cutting down 5x7 to 6.5x9 and quickly came to the conclusion that I wasn't interested in any camera that didn't have properly sized film available.

Donald Qualls · Dec 10, 2021

abruzzi said:
I once tried cutting down 5x7 to 6.5x9 and quickly came to the conclusion that I wasn't interested in any camera that didn't have properly sized film available.

Can't disagree, up to a point. For myself, I'm willing to trim 120 spools or even respool to use a favorite 620 camera. I'd recut to 127 regularly if I had a quality 127 camera (like a higher end Yashica 44 or Sawyers Mk. IV), and the same is true for 828 even if I just had time to clean the shutter in my Bantam RF. However, I can do much of that work in daylight -- the actual width cut produces almost undetectable fogging at the cut, so I can measure width accurately and cut cleanly, then trimming backing paper leader and tail in the light, before going into the darkroom or changing bag to actually respool. I completely agree for sheet film; this is why I don't use my 9x12 plate cameras much (though I still have to get around to ordering some actual plates from J. Lane -- gives me three emulsions to choose from, rather than one and claims of two others).

Sirius Glass · Dec 10, 2021

abruzzi said:
... I wasn't interested in any camera that didn't have properly sized film available.

My Kodak Brownie Hawkeye camera will take 120 film as long as I have a 620 take up spool. I have no interest in dealing with obsolete films such as 220 when today's manufacturer, Shanghai, does not have quality control and a range of modern emulsions.

220 Film Prices

faberryman

reddesert

swchris

eli griggs

Sirius Glass

AnselMortensen

eli griggs

eli griggs

MattKing

Moderator

eli griggs

Donald Qualls

faberryman

Donald Qualls

Sirius Glass

Agulliver

MattKing

Moderator

pentaxuser

Huss

pentaxuser

MattKing

Moderator

Agulliver

Donald Qualls

abruzzi

Donald Qualls

Sirius Glass

220 Film Prices

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency