I love Tmax 400, but...

ic-racer said:

220 Film

No paper backing = done well
It had twice as much film per roll and was a better product, so I'd pay more
Processing cost is the same as 2 rolls of 120 in a single Jobo reel. Easier to load because it is all in one piece.
It did catch on, every camera manufacturer made 220 backs.
I'd think the only people that want a crappy paper backing and short 8 exposure rolls are the LOMO crowd and the peeping-tom-red-window-vintage crowd.

Click to expand...

Gee I do not have a peeping-tom-red-window and I get twelve shots per roll. Maybe you should get rid of your camera and buy a Hasselblad.

If you recall from when Simon of Ilford was here, he addressed the issue of 220. Said it's coated on a thinner support than 120, plus the paper is different, with large minimum orders. They would have needed a new machine to finish the rolls, and I think he said they even looked into having Kodak finish the films for them, but it simply wasn't economic. He also said then when it was sold, 220 was only 5% of 120 sales, so not economic to produce for that small volume.

The problem with 220 film is that it was not targeted at the average/non-professional photographer. That means that only certain films were made in 220. I used a lot of 220 when I shot weddings. Anything to decrease the amount of loading and unloading film backs was a blessing. It was also nice if you had to film out in the cold. Try to load a Pentax 6X7 with numb fingers sometime? Ask me how I know! As for cost? Well, that's how I know it was aimed at professional photographers 'cuz they don't quibble about cost over convenience. JohnW

In order to strike the use of 220 from my bucket list I bought three rolls of Portra 160NC (the second version) some time ago. I had the first roll developed by lab, to have a known good development (expired film) before I did the second myself. The third is still in the freezer. The 220 roll cost a little less to develop than 2x120. Not that I doubt your word that it will cost more elsewhere. Just saying that it doesn't need to be like that.

Anyway for normal use I too prefer the shorter 120 film for quicker turn around. I always want to use as many different types of film as I can when I travel somewhere just for photography.

John Wiegerink said:

The problem with 220 film is that it was not targeted at the average/non-professional photographer. That means that only certain films were made in 220. I used a lot of 220 when I shot weddings. Anything to decrease the amount of loading and unloading film backs was a blessing. It was also nice if you had to film out in the cold. Try to load a Pentax 6X7 with numb fingers sometime? Ask me how I know! As for cost? Well, that's how I know it was aimed at professional photographers 'cuz they don't quibble about cost over convenience. JohnW

Click to expand...

When 220 first came out I watched it with great interest. I quickly realized back then that I was not the target customer. Over the years I never was in that group.

Until very recently the pro labs in my area had pricing structures that made 220 film very attractive.
The problem with 220 is that:
1) it is incompatible with a very large percentage of the medium format cameras/film backs that are still in operation; and
2) it requires an entirely separate finishing procedure, including entirely separate machines and backing (actually leader and trailer) paper.
In a world where the costs of finishing make up a substantial portion of the cost of film, and a world where minimum order quantities and pricing result in a substantial portion of the cost of medium format film coming from the backing/leader/trailer paper itself, a format that represents a small percentage of the user base isn't likely to be supported.
If you were a manufacturer, and the smallest quantity of leader/trailer you could buy would be (as an example) at least 5 years supply, would you borrow the money to buy that paper?

gunnar_g said:

It probably is because the film touches different parts of the backing paper before and after exposure.

Click to expand...

Can you say how much time passed between exposure and processing for the specific picture shown above that exhibits "offset" from before and after exposure? Also, it would be interesting to know when and where you bought the rolls, as you mention different batch numbers.

mnemosyne said:

Can you say how much time passed between exposure and processing for the specific picture shown above that exhibits "offset" from before and after exposure? Also, it would be interesting to know when and where you bought the rolls, as you mention different batch numbers.

Click to expand...

This one probably sat for a few months in camera before development. Film is from Macodirect. This was batch 155002.

If 220 film was available in more emulsions when I got back into MF, I would have bought 220 backs and shot it. It was not and I moved on after many months searching.

I spent ten years as an art director for a major US retailer; we did see a fair amount of 220 for fashion shoots, esp. the guys shooting 645 - to them it was like a Nikon on steroids. But the market was too small I imagine. At least I can grab up 220 backs and shoot 120 in them with no issues (RB67 anyway).

One thing I like about my Fuji rangfinder - flick a switch on the top and it's ready for 220. None of this needing to buy another piece nonsense.

Sirius Glass said:

This is a well known problem which is slowly being corrected by removing products with the offending paper backing. Follow the above urls to other threads to find out what to do.

Welcome to APUG Photrio

Click to expand...

Hi, upon what basis do you say the well-known problem is being slowly corrected?

M Carter said:

I spent ten years as an art director for a major US retailer; we did see a fair amount of 220 for fashion shoots, esp. the guys shooting 645 - to them it was like a Nikon on steroids. But the market was too small I imagine. At least I can grab up 220 backs and shoot 120 in them with no issues (RB67 anyway).

Click to expand...

The older manual 12 exposure mag for Hasselblad could use 220 by resitting the number count when it riches 12 .Can't do that with the A12 mag.

lensmagic said:

Hi, upon what basis do you say the well-known problem is being slowly corrected?

Click to expand...

Have you made any effort to look at the similar threads below or even thought to do a search?

mike c said:

The older manual 12 exposure mag for Hasselblad could use 220 by resitting the number count when it riches 12 .Can't do that with the A12 mag.

Click to expand...

The only way I know to reset the count requires removing the insert and then advance the film the distance from the arrow to the location '1' which would waste a lot of film. However if 120 is used in a 220 back the last photograph is lost, only 11 exposures on the roll.

220 required too much of a commitment! After 10 shots (6x7) I'm more that ready to switch to another type of film. Same problem for 135; all the best pro films are 36 exp, when all I want is 12. But then I was never a fashion or wedding photographer.

Sirius Glass said:

This is a well known problem which is slowly being corrected by removing products with the offending paper backing. Follow the above urls to other threads to find out what to do.

Welcome to APUG Photrio

Click to expand...

Thanks!
I wondered about this too. The other threads seem to say it was fixed starting with batch 153. All my rolls with problems have come from batch153, 154 and 155. This is why I posted.

The only other report I've been able to find about problems in later batches was from Ste_S. He posted a few days before me, I guess I should have found that one.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...achrome-100-update.155668/page-2#post-2034527

Please point me in the right direction if you know of any other reports.

gunnar_g said:

Thanks!
I wondered about this too. The other threads seem to say it was fixed starting with batch 153. All my rolls with problems have come from batch153, 154 and 155. This is why I posted.

The only other report I've been able to find about problems in later batches was from Ste_S. He posted a few days before me, I guess I should have found that one.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...achrome-100-update.155668/page-2#post-2034527

Please point me in the right direction if you know of any other reports.

Click to expand...

Kodak said at the time said they had taken steps to minimize the problem, that it was fixed was more the interpretation of the crowd, it seems to me. It is interesting that we have heard nothing about problems from the alleged "post-fix" batch numbers for more than a year and now the first reports start to pop up. A possible explanation would be that the degree of "aging" that the first improved batch numbers (as yours) have reached by now could play a roll here (= material that has been in storage for a while is more likely affected than fresh material) and make the film more susceptible to problems of this kind under certain conditions.

OTOH and to be fair, at least in the case of the frame with the "double exposure" shown here, the film was sitting for several months after exposure before it was finally processed. This is something that is generally not recommended (the usual manufacturer's recommendation is to "process as soon as possible") and IMO could lead to this kind of problem with any film. It would be interesting to know details about the other rolls/frames that also showed the problem, albeit less pronounced if I understood you correctly. It cannot be completely ruled out that these are "freak" occurrences that are still within the usual range of incidence of such problems with any film (regardless of brand), as they always have occurred, with the marked difference that the film crowd is currently on red alert and Kodak is "on parole" because of the big problems in the recent past, so any single occurrence of the problem is likely to be scrutinized more critically and create a much bigger wave among the Internet public than it would have five years ago.

mnemosyne said:

OTOH and to be fair, at least in the case of the frame with the "double exposure" shown here, the film was sitting for several months after exposure before it was finally processed. This is something that is generally not recommended (the usual manufacturer's recommendation is to "process as soon as possible") and IMO could lead to this kind of problem with any film.

Click to expand...

I dont believe this for a second. Many many people let film sit around for far longer than a few months before processing. This might be the new norm with Kodak film since they can't get a handle on their paper issue but I can assure you that I have let film sit for quite a long time with no issues whatsoever.

Further, the last time I got nailed with this paper problem with Kodak film, I bought, shot, and processed the film in under 3 weeks.

I have to agree with Ratty Mouse on this one. I shot my first picture in 1955 with a Kodak Target 616 on Kodak film. That was my fathers camera and he was Dutch, which means shots were very selective and over an extended time frame. How do I know? I can remember bugging him for months to take the film to the drug store. He said he would as soon as it was "all" exposed. Seems like it was almost a year, but being a kid it's hard to tell. I do know that when it was developed I had completely forgot about it. When ma came home from town with the pictures I couldn't wait to see them and my famous shot of my mother, father and our English Setter hunting dog. To my surprise the only one that had a head was the dog. That was my first lesson in framing and composition with a box camera. Oh, and the film? It came out fine with no numbers either and that was even from spending a few weeks in a hot glove box of our 1954 Chevy.
I've been thinking about this Kodak bleeding problem for some time and trying to figure out exactly what the heck is really going on. Tell me if I'm wrong, but isn't Kodak Alaris just an assembly style company? Another words they buy components and assemble only. They manufacture nothing "in house" so to speak. That means they buy their film from Kodak USA and the backing paper from maybe China? Most companies doing this try and save money by buying their stock components in very large quantities at a very big discount. Now for Kodak Alris's problem. You have literally bought tons of this "shit" backing paper/ink and now you find you're in hot water. 1. Do you totally shutdown production until you get the problem corrected? 2. Do you tell your paper backing supplier to have this problem corrected and 5 tons of new and corrected backing paper on your receiving dock by closing time the next day or you'll find another supplier? 3. Or, since the complaints are not coming from 100% of the folks that bought said film, do you just keep running and replace film to those who complain. While doing this you are coming to an arrangement with your paper supplier to correct the ink issue and take back or compensate you for the tons of backing paper you already have I think Kodak Alaris took the last option and probably the only one they had since they have no leverage over one supplier if there really is only one supplier. You can't say I'm dumping you if there is only one can you? I do understand that problems like this happen all the time. It's not common, but it does happen. My only complaint is with the lack of honesty or the playing dumb for so long on Kadak Alaris's part. I absolutely hate companies that do this. Especially ones that do it at the risk of yours and my health with products they know are dangerous. At least this isn't that! Still, if Kodak Alaris would have come out immediately and said we have a problem and this is where it's at and this is how we are going to correct it. If it meant shutting down for a short spell to get this right it would have been to their benefit. I would totally understand and look at them as an honorable company doing the "RIGHT" thing. Now they have folks who won't buy Kodak film again and others like Ratty Mouse who will never forget those shots that he wanted so bad and were lost. Yes, that's my complaint................lack of honesty. Those are just my feelings of course and I certainly don't want the demise of a company like Kodak Alaris all I want is honesty. JohnW

Hey John... great story. I had a similar childhood experience except my Dad was an avid New Englander of (50%) thrifty Scot ancestry. And he was an engineer so he was...

I sure would like the answer to some of your questions. I may not have been paying much attention (OK, I haven't) but I'm not really sure who does the assembly - EK or KA.

My feelings on the topic are similar to yours except I try to refrain from using the words "lack of honesty" because I've never thought that Kodak had lied about the situation. They have ben silent so I tend to use the words "lack of transparency'. Minor difference in the words but in the end its all the same to us... we're left guessing, assuming, hoping, trying to figure it out, and sometimes clawing each others eyes out because there are multiple theories and interpretations.

Seriously Sirius, it,s been many moons since I had that back, it was one of the earlier manual 120 backs , not the A12 back. I unfortunately traded it in for some other Hassey equipment.

Mike

John Wiegerink said:

...Tell me if I'm wrong, but isn't Kodak Alaris just an assembly style company? Another words they buy components and assemble only...

Click to expand...

You're wrong. Kodak Alaris, a U.K. corporation, is a film marketing/distribution company only. It assembles nothing film-related.

John Wiegerink said:

...That means they buy their film from Kodak USA and the backing paper from maybe China?...

Click to expand...

Kodak Alaris obtains its finished, packaged film products from Eastman Kodak Company, which operates the Building 38 facility in Rochester. Eastman Kodak Company is the entity that 'owns' 120 backing paper issues, having outsourced that product.

John Wiegerink said:

...I think Kodak Alaris took the last option and probably the only one they had since they have no leverage over one supplier if there really is only one supplier...

Click to expand...

Unless someone has insider knowledge, it's not possible to say whether Kodak Alaris is able to purchase film from any source other than Eastman Kodak (and an insider saying so would likely violate a non-disclosure agreement). While I understand you were referring to the backing paper source when you wrote "only one supplier," the real tough spot Alaris finds itself in is that it probably has only one source of final product, i.e. Eastman Kodak. Thus, the entire approach to dealing with backing paper issues seems to have been established by Eastman Kodak, and is consistent with the way Eastman Kodak dealt with film defects for many, many decades.

Kodak Alaris' CEOs have each come from the electronics/technology sector. Perhaps recruiters should have drawn from executives in food distribution industries instead. Expertise with storing and transporting perishables could have been valuable.

I'm sure Kodak Alaris is charging Eastman Kodak for every roll returned to them. It's Eastman that should take on the full cost of this fiasco.

BrianShaw said:

Hey John... great story. I had a similar childhood experience except my Dad was an avid New Englander of (50%) thrifty Scot ancestry. And he was an engineer so he was...

I sure would like the answer to some of your questions. I may not have been paying much attention (OK, I haven't) but I'm not really sure who does the assembly - EK or KA.

My feelings on the topic are similar to yours except I try to refrain from using the words "lack of honesty" because I've never thought that Kodak had lied about the situation. They have ben silent so I tend to use the words "lack of transparency'. Minor difference in the words but in the end its all the same to us... we're left guessing, assuming, hoping, trying to figure it out, and sometimes clawing each others eyes out because there are multiple theories and interpretations.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I should have said, "lack of transparency" instead.