Ektar 100 in 220?

The only way to get anything more in 220 and keep it alive, like most things, would be to use it I am personally going to give some 220 a try. I have never tried 220. I do have the back for my camera but it has just sat. 220 is quite a bit of color for me to shoot though. I would be cool to see Ektar in 220.

Like HRST, I want it for my Mamiya 7. Ekta made an interesting point about the back. The 7 is the only MF I have ever used and I thought everyone could use 220 easily.

Sysygy said:

Like HRST, I want it for my Mamiya 7. Ekta made an interesting point about the back. The 7 is the only MF I have ever used and I thought everyone could use 220 easily.

Click to expand...

Most MF shooters can.
Even if they need to buy a separate insert, or even full back. These things are lot cheaper than a pack of five 220 films nowadays.

Q.G. said:

Most MF shooters can.
Even if they need to buy a separate insert, or even full back. These things are lot cheaper than a pack of five 220 films nowadays.

Click to expand...

Indeed, and for the most part - 220 backs can be used with 120 film without problems (except if one forgets that there are only half as many frames as indicated on the counter)

I think we're very lucky in this day and age that they are making it in 120 at all, and it's too much to expect when just about every manufacturer is discontinuing 220 film to expect Kodak to start.

It's misleading to use such wordings as "we are lucky that film is manufactured", or words like make 220 or so. As I said, it's the same product, only cut to different length with different backing paper and different carton, and a different product number in a catalog.

This is simply a problem of the end of the chain and it is possible to fix it. There are many niche products and the key is to keep marketing costs down per product. If it's easy to manufacture, as in case of 220 film for companies that already produce 120 film, it can be done even if the markets are very low, if done correctly.

But it is not done, for some reason or other.

Optimizing the chain from factory to end-user for current business situation may be very important in the future anyway. 220 film may become viable at the same time.

Please understand the fact that selling one 220 film is equivalent of selling two rolls of 120. Selling bigger "family packs" is a basic thing in any business; you can sell more and selling more means more profit. In 220 film, you don't even need to drop the per exposure price.

This is a state that can change anytime or, again, it may not change.

hrst said:

... As I said, it's the same product, only cut to different length with different backing paper and different carton, and a different product number in a catalog.

Click to expand...

This is hardly a trivial change.

hrst said:

... Please understand the fact that selling one 220 film is equivalent of selling two rolls of 120. Selling bigger "family packs" is a basic thing in any business; you can sell more and selling more means more profit. In 220 film, you don't even need to drop the per exposure price.

Click to expand...

This isn't exactly true, although there is a lot of truth in it.

Selling two rolls of 120 is like selling two rolls of 120. If a manufacturer wants to sell ProPaks of 5, then that's a pretty easy way to up the exposure count, and a lot simpler than a completely new manufacturing line.

You have to keep in mind that film is a number of products, not one product. The Master Roll product is a raw material for the slitting plant.

Granted, Kodak owns 220 confection lines, so it's not a giant stretch to think they could supply it easily enough if it's profitable.

I think the "best" strategy is to begin getting folks to think that the remaining film users are likely to be quantity hobbyist buyers, not casual mom and pop buyer. So somehow we would need to get the marketing projectors at K thinking in terms of *US* rather than the ordinary consumers as their target.

I know I can pop off 20 shots on a roll of 220 in an afternoon. I'm sure everyone else here can, too. If I go out to shoot something, I'm likely to shoot *THE WHOLE ROLL* regardless of whether it's 120 or 220. The question becomes whether I'll reload a second roll if it's 120.

As I understand it, there are probably only two 220 finishing machines left in the world that work (1 for Kodak and 1 for Fuji), they are very old, and they would be very, very expensive to replace.

Simon Galley has posted about Ilford's 220 machine. It was old and not economically repairable. To have a new one manufactured would have made no economic sense, given any reasonable projections about sales. Ilford investigated purchasing time on other manufacturers' machines, but were unable to make an arrangement. As a result, Ilford doesn't sell 220 film.

PE has posted as well that it is becoming difficult to obtain different backing papers for roll film, as there are very few sources that remain in business.

I expect that it is the nature and condition of the finishing machinery that has the greatest influence on 220 film choice, followed closely by the relative difficulty of obtaining special purpose backing paper. It can all be done, but most likely at an increased cost.

I personally was amazed that in the current situation that Kodak brought out Ektar at all when even the only professional dealers in the city I live in of over 200,000 people has only about forty rolls of film in stock in total of all makes and sizes because according to them " Nobody uses it these days" Kodak make Ektar in 35mm , i20, 4X5 and 8X10, sometimes we have to be grateful for small mercy s

That's interesting to note about Ilford - I wonder if their position would change if Kodak or Fuji were to retire one of their 220 finishers, and it were available to be acquired? All I really remember about Ilford's stance was that it would never happen, so perhaps there are other issues (such as the supply chain issues) as well.

guyjr said:

That's interesting to note about Ilford - I wonder if their position would change if Kodak or Fuji were to retire one of their 220 finishers, and it were available to be acquired? All I really remember about Ilford's stance was that it would never happen, so perhaps there are other issues (such as the supply chain issues) as well.

Click to expand...

Oh yes, they will just pack it up and ship it UPS. Have you ever seen how large the equipment is???

We are speaking about a very, very simple industrial machine. It cuts the film with a blade - just like the 120 cutter. Or like scissors. The "magic" is to roll it on a core with a backing paper. Yes, it's a bit different from 120 machine because there are two sheets of paper and two pieces of tape instead of one. Such a machine (for 120, which is very similar) is shown in a KODAK documentary film from the 50's. The link has been here on APUG. The machine shown on the film is not big at all. I would call it compact!

If the machine is big, then it produces a vast amount of rolls. If they all sell, then the big machine is justified financially. If less rolls are needed, then there's absolutely no reason to buy such a big machine. This is a self-controlling system. Someone just have to make the correct decision. It's not rocket science but very simple industrial business.

This is very, very simple automation nowadays. In fact, this is about what happened in industrial revolution in the 18th century. The machinery in question is not complicated, and not big even at industrial scale. You cannot even mention it in the same sentence with emulsion manufacturing, coating etc. - those are really complicated and costly operations. 120 vs. 220 is just a matter of packaging, which has been automatized centuries ago and has nothing special, magic or costly here. Machines are used because they are much cheaper than people doing the same job. One person could roll 220 rolls in 10 seconds or so. It wouldn't be so costly even hand-made. Cutting film and inserting a BACKING PAPER is an extremely simple task.

Sorry, but I respect clear logical thinking and facts I can find higher than authorities named but not citated. It's too easy to mis-interpret and read off the context.

I'm 100% sure that the actual problem lies in marketing strategies, like: how many rolls of 120 and 220 should be sold and where (it's difficult to foresee the exact sales number---leftovers are not wanted), or simply a problem of market places (certain stores may have a fixed number of places for products on their shelves and they would be reluctant to take any extra products for sale), etc. Things like these. This is the reason I'm saying that the end-chain needs some optimization.

And, as I said, it needs some reforming anyway! Film business has changed much and it needs continuous care and renewal to stay profitable. One example of such development is the demise of small, local stores, often criticized here at APUG, but it's the only way the FILM can stay, and that's what really counts. As you can see, large Internet/mail-based companies do not have the problem I mentioned about 220 - fixed number of products on their shelves. And, as they sell more, at a larger geographic area, the problem of leftovers due to fluctuations of market is less pronounced. This kind of development might well make 220 more successful. The question is, is it still going to be successful enough to be produced? What else can be done, if anything?

I found the post from Simon Galley of Ilford:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Nil volentibus arduum, and all that.
They could if they wanted to. They don't want to. Probably have good reasons for that.

Q.G. said:

Nil volentibus arduum, and all that.
They could if they wanted to. They don't want to. Probably have good reasons for that.

Click to expand...

Sure they could do it if they wanted to. But Ilford's objective is to make a profit, not to make film. Making and selling film is the vehicle they use to make a profit.

Why don't we petition the government to purchase them a confectioning machine to support our art use of film?

Thank you. It's a very understandable and honest description of the situation, and I find that it fits to the points I have just guessed or deducted in my posts here quite well. It seems they have thought about hand finishing, which I mentioned in my last post just as an example or price comparison! I'm quite surprised it has been considered in practice.

It would be nice if Kodak or Fuji would give as accurate description of their inner workings as Ilford, but it's very unusual in any industry. For example, where does Kodak get their backing papers? They might even do them by themselves. At least they have higher total output which might make the numbers more reasonable for them than Ilford.

This is a delicate subject with a tons of questions in air and it cannot be simply disclosed as impossible or possible.

One problem of today's film business I didn't mention in my last post is quality control---yes, the very, very, very high quality standard. Lowering it just a little bit may someday become a must even for these companies... It doesn't need to get as low as ADOX level, not even near to it, but however...

Excuse an obvious question...do Kodak or Fuji make any kind of 220 films now? (I have checked their websites and those of various mail order suppliers and can't find anything, but would like to try a few rolls if I've overlooked a source. :confused: )

What would interest me is knowing how much paper costs, i.e. how much money would be tied up in seven years and some months worth of leader and trailer stock.
Are the costs of it really prohibitive? Or is it cheap, and though it would appear silly to have a stock that could last that long, not really a worry?

But i'm sure 220 film has entered the downward spiral into the Black Hole of Oblivion a while ago already.
With choice dwindling, use of it does that too. Which in turn will make it less profitable, so a further decrease in production. Which leads to... etc.
I don't think it is reversible.

railwayman3 said:

Excuse an obvious question...do Kodak or Fuji make any kind of 220 films now? (I have checked their websites and those of various mail order suppliers and can't find anything, but would like to try a few rolls if I've overlooked a source. :confused: )

Click to expand...

Kodak Portra 160 NC (perhaps also another type of Portra, i don't know.)
Luckily, the film i like best for exactly those things i like to use 220 film for.


P.S.
I had a look at what B & H is offering, and Portra 400 NC and 400 VC also still come in 220 size.
So do Fuji's Pro160S and Pro800Z.
Then there still are Fuji's Astia, Provia and Velvia. And Kodak's E100VS.
No B&W film, i'm afraid...

Q.G. said:

Kodak Portra 160 NC (perhaps also another type of Portra, i don't know.)
Luckily, the film i like best for exactly those things i like to use 220 film for.


P.S.
I had a look at what B & H is offering, and Portra 400 NC and 400 VC also still come in 220 size.
So do Fuji's Pro160S and Pro800Z.
Then there still are Fuji's Astia, Provia and Velvia. And Kodak's E100VS.
No B&W film, i'm afraid...

Click to expand...

Thanks....I'm in the UK, so maybe it's that there is none imported here. At least I now know that it does exist, even if I have to buy from overseas.

railwayman3 said:

Thanks....I'm in the UK, so maybe it's that there is none imported here. At least I now know that it does exist, even if I have to buy from overseas.

Click to expand...

I seem to be linking to AG Photographic a lot recently :

http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/portra-160nc-220-5-pack-302-p.asp

As Kodak makes some 220 products currently, they have the machine and backing paper for the process. So none of the Ilford points apply to Kodak. As you can see from Ilford's post, there is no other technical manufacturing points than the rolling machine and paper. Rest is marketing as discussed above.

hrst said:

...the rolling machine and paper.

Click to expand...

I had one of those. I was no good at doing it by hand.
That was a lo-o-o-o-ng time ago. I stopped doing that sort of thing in 1980.

hrst said:

I'm 100% sure that the actual problem lies in marketing strategies, like: how many rolls of 120 and 220 should be sold and where (it's difficult to foresee the exact sales number---leftovers are not wanted

Click to expand...

It's more likely that for every roll of 220 sold there would be a reduction in sales of two rolls of 120 and it would not be economic to run both lines.

Ilford had a similar decision to make a few years ago when they were thinking about making a Delta 25 film. In the end they realised that Delta 25 sales would impact on Pan F sales and both lines could become un-economic.


Steve.

You missed the point.

You cannot compare 120 vs. 220 to two different emulsions. Manufacturing many emulsions is a problem because each of them should sell in quite high volumes because of the cost involved in emulsion making and coating for the whole master roll. Please read my previous posts again. There's a huge difference between these operations:

Manufacturing different emulsions
-> emulsion making, coating, slitting, (perfing), cutting, packaging, selling
|
|
|
Manufacturing different sizes with different film base (35 mm vs. medium format vs. sheet film)
-> coating, slitting, (perfing), cutting, packaging, selling
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manufacturing different lengths with different packaging (120 vs. 220)
-> cutting, packaging, selling

It's almost the same matter as selling 4x5" but not selling 8x10".


While it's completely true that selling 220 is directly off from selling the same product in 120, it's also an undoubtable fact that when you have 120 film in your camera with fewer exposures, you shoot fewer frames than when you have more exposures available. With 220, you also have to shoot more before you can change the film to your camera (if you don't have multiple backs). This makes you use more film. These are considered as disadvantages by some, and as advantages by some, but from sales point of view, people using 220 rolls use them more than a half of number of 120 rolls they would use instead. I've seen it myself. I can shoot in a different way, more like with 35mm, with 220 roll in Mamiya 7.