Ektar 100 In 120 Rolls

[braxus]

I called Kodak the other day and was talking to him about the new Ektar 100 film. Anyway he told me he hears at least once a day, if not more, that he gets requests for people to get Kodak to produce this new film in 120 rolls. So maybe if more of you on here phoned Kodak and put in a request as well, Kodak might seriously consider making 120 rolls of this film. If they see enough demand for it, they'll make it.

 

[amuderick]

I am building a slit-scan panoramic 120 camera and maybe Ektar 100 will be available by the time it is finished. It would be the optimal film to use. Here's hoping!

I would even be interested in a pre-arranged bulk purchase. How many 120 rolls come off a master roll? 30,000, right? Same as 36exp 35mm, just differently sized. I don't care if the packaging has to say Tmax 100...I'd pre-order 100-200 rolls. This camera is going to burn film. If you find another 150 people willing to get in on it, we should have a MOQ.

 

[nickandre]

I called Kodak the other day and was talking to him...

Ahh, mr. Kodak himself...

5,000 feet x 42 inches means 17.5 K square feet. If a 120 roll is 6cm by (6cm x 13) which is half a square foot. 35,000 who's counting. maybe some loose ends will account for the other 5 k.

I believe the market for 120 film is just about zero. Though such a nice film only in 35mm is really a shame. They could at least cut a 5000 ft length of 63mm film on the next run and hand it to the TMAX 120 division.

When kodak says "the plan is to produce it in 35mm" that means no.

 

[nickandre]

Heres an idea. At some future date we'll get everyone on APUG and pre-arrange a time for every member to call kodak in 5 minute intervals. We will hit them with so many requests that somebody will hear.

 

[E76]

I believe the market for 120 film is just about zero. Though such a nice film only in 35mm is really a shame. They could at least cut a 5000 ft length of 63mm film on the next run and hand it to the TMAX 120 division.

Isn't 120 film coated on a different base than 135? IIRC, 135 is thicker...

 

[nickandre]

There's no reason why it couldn't be on the same base. I don't care.

 

[fschifano]

There must be a reason for the 120 support material to be different, else it would be the same and you'd be able to cut both sizes from the same master roll.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Rollei Retro, for example, is 35mm APX 100 cut to the size of 120 film, and packaged appropriately.

 

[Alexander Ghaffari]

You can use the same base...it is cheaper. If it was cost justified, medium format would be made (usually) on a thiner base.

I imagine that a prudent business-type could order slitting a minimal amount of 120 film from the 35mm film's master roll and sell enough for a slight profit. *Advertising is actually handy for increasing sales...* They would probably worry about the cost of packaging design and production, or something insignificant to the end-user.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Rollei Retro, for example, is 35mm APX 100 cut to the size of 120 film, and packaged appropriately.

Indeed it is! The original APX100 OTOH, didn't have the same thickness for 135, 120 and sheets. 135 was 120μm, 120 was 95μm and 175μm for sheets. Retro 100 has the same thickness in 120 and 135, because they don't have any other kind of available master rolls. Besides, doesn't Retro 100 curl badly? I haven't used any, but I think it was mentioned in APUG some time ago.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

When I spoke with one of the Kodak reps at PhotoPlus about it, he said they were testing Ektar 100 in medium and large format, and most certainly didn't rule it out.

 

[Oren Grad]

There's no reason why it couldn't be on the same base. I don't care.

Some medium format cameras and backs would have trouble with the thicker base - some with long memories may recall the hiccups when 120 TMX and TMY first reached the market around 20 years ago. The market is so small to begin with, I'm sure this is a headache Kodak would just as soon avoid.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Indeed I do. Weren't some cameras damaged by the film on the thicker base?

 

[JBrunner]

Ahh, mr. Kodak himself...

5
I believe the market for 120 film is just about zero.

Not true. MF tends to be used by professionals who still shoot film, and a pro shoot uses a lot of film. Last job I did on MF used 40 rolls on one days work. Someone like me might use 2000 rolls of a particular emulsion a year. Some use more. Now there are far less pro shooters using MF than hobbyists using 135, but how many hobbyists average 5-6 rolls a day, every day?

MF sales are healthy enough that they keep making it, and that says its use is far from zero. Kodak just needs to feel the ROI will be worth gearing up for. Sensible.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Jason, I sincerely appreciate your user view of it. I shoot nowhere near as much, but I still average about 200 rolls per year.

It would be interesting to have a film like the Ektar in 120 format. Questions is: Would is cannibalize some of the Portra offering? Is the film similar to any of the ISO 160 Portra films? If not, perhaps it would make sense to introduce it. If it's too similar to one of them, it would seem like more inventory for them to maintain.

- Thomas

 

[JBrunner]

Jason, I sincerely appreciate your user view of it. I shoot nowhere near as much, but I still average about 200 rolls per year.

It would be interesting to have a film like the Ektar in 120 format. Questions is: Would is cannibalize some of the Portra offering? Is the film similar to any of the ISO 160 Portra films? If not, perhaps it would make sense to introduce it. If it's too similar to one of them, it would seem like more inventory for them to maintain.

- Thomas

Well, from my point of view, no, because I hardly ever shoot color neg for work unless it's motion picture. For commercial work with a still camera I almost invariably shoot chrome, no matter the format. I might use a Portra film for a portrait, but agencies expect chromes.

 

[wogster]

There must be a reason for the 120 support material to be different, else it would be the same and you'd be able to cut both sizes from the same master roll.

It's not 120 that's different, it's 35mm, originally we had sheet film, which was quite thick because it needed to be stiff. Then when they developed roll film, they made it very thin so it could be easily wound on the spools. 35mm had to be thick enough that the perforations didn't pull through, but thin enough that it could still be spooled, so we ended up with three different thicknesses. However a lot has been done to soft plastics technology in the last 100 years since 35mm film stock was developed for motion picture use, It's possible to use a different backing material like polyester which could be thinner but still resist tearing, which would allow you to use a thinner base material for both 35mm and 120 coating.

Really I think it comes down to demand, if enough people ask for it, Kodak will run off a batch, if that batch sells well within the expiry time, they will make another batch. The problem isn't developing the film, heck Kodak has experienced people to do the engineering to do this, probably take almost no cost. The problem is packaging, you need to design a backing paper and a foil pouch a unique box, and the fancy closing tape.

Here is my suggestion for Mssrs Kodak, adopt the use of ink jetting for printing generic backing paper and foil pouches. Ink jetting is the technology that prints the name and address on mailed out printed catalogues and magazines these days, it could be used to simply print the film type, speed and size on the ends of the backing paper, and the sides of foil pouches. Or print all the information and fancy logos and stuff on the foil pouch and eliminate the box.

By the same token, how come they still ship plastic cans with 35mm film, simply put the cartridge in a similar foil pouch and eliminate the box. market the heck out of it to customers less packaging for the more environmentally friendly film user. Also means that the box shipped to dealers would be smaller and the weight would be less.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

As an aside, didn't Ilford make film that had double the amount of exposures once? If I remember correctly, the discussion revealed that the film base was thinner.
Perhaps it would be a good way for the film manufacturers to save money, by coating 120 and 35mm film on the same thin base. But then again, the reason this thick base still remains may still be one of importance that we don't know.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Paul;

The ink on 120 film must be totally harmless to film, as the ink is in contact with the film surface. The ink must give off no solvents or fumes that harm film emulsions.

Kodak ships 120 film in plastic and foil wrappers and not in the tubes that were used at one time.

The support used in making 120 and 35mm are almost the same thickness if not the same thickness nowdays. By some measurements of some films, they are the same. The real problem is that 120 film must make sharper turns in camera than 35mm film. This stress can fog film. All MF film must be tested in a variety of backs to see how the path type affects film. So, the actual formulation of some MF films differ from their 35mm counterparts to allow for the stresses introduced by transport through a variety of film backs.

PE

 

[nickandre]

Not true. MF tends to be used by professionals who still shoot film, and a pro shoot uses a lot of film. Last job I did on MF used 40 rolls on one days work. Someone like me might use 2000 rolls of a particular emulsion a year. Some use more. Now there are far less pro shooters using MF than hobbyists using 135, but how many hobbyists average 5-6 rolls a day, every day?

MF sales are healthy enough that they keep making it, and that says its use is far from zero. Kodak just needs to feel the ROI will be worth gearing up for. Sensible.

That was just based on a statement I read. The two largest markets for medium format film were weddings and portraiture. Those are the two markets which were first replaced by digital. In comparison, it is close to zero. There is still a market, but nothing like 35mm. My school shoots several thousand rolls of 35mm a year but no more than a few dozen or a hundred 120 rolls. 35mm has found a niche in school/educational photography while medium format remains a more "advanced" format.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

The fact that all currently manufactured "high-end" medium-format SLR's can accept both film and digital backs is a plus for medium format film. I am referring to the Sinar/Rollei Hy6 SLR, the current Hasselblad SLR (made by Fuji) and Mamiya products.
In addition there are the "specialist" medium format cameras such as panoramic and wide-format that only accept film.

 

[accozzaglia]

What I'll be doing in the coming months, as if to evince a point, is to shoot 35mm through a Yashica or Rolleiflex TLR or similar and have the images exposed straight to the sprocket holes. Then I'm going to scan and print them all to send en masse to Kodak and whine, "I don't know what's wrong! I keep taking pictures with all of this film Kodak makes, but this keeps happening! What's wrong? Why isn't it bigger? Can't this problem be fixed? My camera is teh greatestest! What's wrong with your film that it won't fit it?!

 

[wogster]

Paul;

The ink on 120 film must be totally harmless to film, as the ink is in contact with the film surface. The ink must give off no solvents or fumes that harm film emulsions.

Kodak ships 120 film in plastic and foil wrappers and not in the tubes that were used at one time.

The support used in making 120 and 35mm are almost the same thickness if not the same thickness nowdays. By some measurements of some films, they are the same. The real problem is that 120 film must make sharper turns in camera than 35mm film. This stress can fog film. All MF film must be tested in a variety of backs to see how the path type affects film. So, the actual formulation of some MF films differ from their 35mm counterparts to allow for the stresses introduced by transport through a variety of film backs.

PE

Ink would not be on the film, but the backing paper, although that would result in solvent issues, although these days, many inks are water based and should not give a problem.

 

[wogster]

That was just based on a statement I read. The two largest markets for medium format film were weddings and portraiture. Those are the two markets which were first replaced by digital. In comparison, it is close to zero. There is still a market, but nothing like 35mm. My school shoots several thousand rolls of 35mm a year but no more than a few dozen or a hundred 120 rolls. 35mm has found a niche in school/educational photography while medium format remains a more "advanced" format.

Some wedding photographers, from what I hear, are going back to film, because it was so easy to drop the rolls at the lab, and pick up the proof prints a few days later, rather then spending hundreds of hours going through digital images on the computer and printing them on an ink jet.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Some wedding photographers, from what I hear, are going back to film, because it was so easy to drop the rolls at the lab, and pick up the proof prints a few days later, rather then spending hundreds of hours going through digital images on the computer and printing them on an ink jet.

I am not a wedding photographer, rather a commercial photographer, but I can tell you I absolutely HATE to spend hours "processing" the digital shots. I just hate it. I love it when I shoot 4x5 transparencies.