I wrote to Shanghai film about their 220 availability

[David A. Goldfarb]

Efke had a long history of hiring blind employees in the dark areas of the factory. I could imagine the same working in 220 film assembly. How much demand could there be? One or two workers could probably satisfy the annual world demand in less than a month, if that.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Somewhere around 35-40 years ago, I was visiting the Kodak Australasian film processing facility in Melbourne. The part I was visiting with a colleague to see how their roller transport machines worked, was their colour print from colour negative section. The Kodachrome film developing section was also there, one of about 7 in the world I believe..

In complete darkness blind employees would join and spool films sent in from customers from various parts of the world onto 1,000 foot reels, identical looking to movie film reels. These were then fed into roller transport machines and came out the other end as fully processed and dry film. I have no idea how many blind employees they had, but it was a very busy facility. The flashes in the exposing department where colour prints were made, was faster than a machine gun firing rate, so to speak. I don't know how many of these machines they had, but it was quite a few. Incredible output, just incredible.

David, I think you are right, the entire world production for a year, would almost certainly be manufactured in a very short time frame.

Mick.

 

[MattKing]

The North Vancouver BC, Canada Kodachrome lab that my Dad was customer service manager for between 1961 and 1983 had sighted people in the pre-splice area - allways women if I understood and remember correctly.
I'm not sure how long it took them to load an entire roll - which itself was almost a mile of film at a time - but they did that day after day, shift after shift. In busy times the Kodachrome line was running 24 hours a day.
I remember my Dad talking about a mysterious set of scratches that appeared one time. They traced it to a very small, apparently innocuous change in how one of the women was handling the film at the pre-splice stage.
When you think of volumes, it is important to remember how much of that film was double 8 and Super 8 movie film.

 

[mshchem]

The North Vancouver BC, Canada Kodachrome lab that my Dad was customer service manager for between 1961 and 1983 had sighted people in the pre-splice area - allways women if I understood and remember correctly.
I'm not sure how long it took them to load an entire roll - which itself was almost a mile of film at a time - but they did that day after day, shift after shift. In busy times the Kodachrome line was running 24 hours a day.
I remember my Dad talking about a mysterious set of scratches that appeared one time. They traced it to a very small, apparently innocuous change in how one of the women was handling the film at the pre-splice stage.
When you think of volumes, it is important to remember how much of that film was double 8 and Super 8 movie film.

Excellent point about the huge volume of movie film, help me out, in 9th grade I made a 10 minute film, I wanted to super impose titles, I used what I called "regular 8" it was split down the middle and spliced back together. Was that double 8? I always thought it was just 16mm. Everyone else in my class made a dopey black and white video, state of the art for 1973. I was in charge, director, did most of the cinematography, best scene was when I had my buddy filming me,from the backseat, driving my 65 Chevy Biscayne, straight 6, 3 on the tree. I was peeling around corners so fast, the body roll on that car was so bad, it looked like the car was on two wheels.

 

[MattKing]

I used what I called "regular 8" it was split down the middle and spliced back together. Was that double 8? I always thought it was just 16mm.

IIRC, the split down the middle regular 8 was double 8.
But that was a long time ago, and my Dad's camera, and he would bring the film home from work, not buy it from a store, so the memory might be unreliable.
I expect the highest volumes were Super 8. They processed a fair bit of 16mm as well.

 

[mshchem]

Abraham Zapruder stood on a concrete pedestal along Elm Street in Dealey Plaza holding a high-end Model 414 PD Bell & Howell Zoomatic Director Series Camera. He filmed from the time the presidential limousine turned onto Elm Street[1] for a total of 26.6 seconds, exposing 486 frames of standard 8 mm Kodachrome II safety film, running at 18.3 frames/second.[note 1]


Frame 371 showing Jacqueline Kennedy reaching out across the back of the presidential limousine as Secret Service agent Clint Hill climbs aboard.
After Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels promised Zapruder that the film would only be used for an official investigation, the two men sought to develop the footage as soon as possible. As television station WFAA's equipment was incompatible with the format, Eastman Kodak's Dallas film processing facility developed the film and Jamieson Film Company produced three copies. Zapruder gave two of the copies to Sorrels and they were sent to Washington. The original film was retained by Zapruder, in addition to one of the copies.

HOW WOULD YOU HAVE LIKED TO BE THE MACHINE OPERATOR THAT PROCESSED, SPLIT, SPLICED THAT ROLL OF FILM. KODACHROME II, THAT WAS THE HIGH SPEED DAYLIGHT ASA 25 .GOD I MISS KODAK, THE MEGA COOL 20TH CENTURY COMPANY.

 

[chris77]

Very interesting thread, thanks to all of you.

 

[Donald Qualls]

They could, except for the different printing on them.
But how do you know that the Shanghai backing paper and ink won't react with the Ilford emulsions?

Why would we care? Use Ilford backing if you're packing Ilford film.

 

[pentaxuser]

I had assumed that Matt's comment that Donald quotes refers to 220 Shanghai film being topped and tailed by Ilford backing paper in the Ilford factory s o presumably there is some way that even with 220 film the backing paper which doesn't infringe of the exposed frames can somehow adversely affect it

I may either have misunderstood Matt's comment completely or there still remains a problem Either way Matt can clarify matters, I am sure

pentaxuser

 

[Donald Qualls]

Matt's reply was to my comment that there's little to no difference between 220 leader and trailer and the corresponding portions of 120 backing. The little up arrow by his name in the post where I quote him will take you do the post I quoted, and the similar one there will take you to the post he quoted.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Donald. So if the Shanghai backing paper reacts with the Shanghai film it will be on part of the first and last frames only? I have never seen a 220 opened out so to speak so if the backing paper can affect part of the first and last frame of a 220 but doesn't obscure the first and last frame, how does it manage to affect the exposed frames but not obscure part of those frames?

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Thanks Donald. So if the Shanghai backing paper reacts with the Shanghai film it will be on part of the first and last frames only? I have never seen a 220 opened out so to speak so if the backing paper can affect part of the first and last frame of a 220 but doesn't obscure the first and last frame, how does it manage to affect the exposed frames but not obscure part of those frames?

pentaxuser

Donald is correct - any problem with using the Ilford 120 backing paper with Ilford film would only be with the relatively small differences in the printing.
As to whether it would make economic sense to send the film and backing paper to the other side of the globe and then send it back ....?
But as to the interaction between film, leaders and trailers, remember that the leader and trailer and film are all rolled up together, and in contact with each other.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Generally it's the back side of the paper (and the ink on that side, specifically) that reacts because it's in contact with the emulsion side of the film. So for 220, the trailer would be in contact with the last frame (maybe two frames in 645) when the film is on the spool waiting to be used, and the header would be in contact with the first frame or two when the film has been exposed and a few frames wound on, until it's unrolled for processing. By comparison, in 120, every single frame is in contact with backing both from factory to camera, and from camera to development (except while actually in the film gate).

Wrapper offset will always be less of a problem with 220 than with 120.

 

[ic-racer]

Once I get some, I'll compare it to some common films. I did previously a 3-way comparison between Shanghai 8x10 100 , Trix and HP5. For this test I arbitrarily used the Trix as the base comparison film and zeroed my sensitometer to the Trix.

 

[pentaxuser]

Donald &Matt. Thanks both, I get it now. Your explanations that is, not Shanghai film Otherwise this would be incorrect grammar - the present tense where the future is required. English is not my first language - that's Scottish. I still have to stop myself starting every post on Photrio with Och Aye or Hoots, mon.

pentaxuser

 

[Agulliver]

I wrote to the chap offering Shanghai 220 films via Facebook but didn't receive a reply.

As for movie film....the 16mm wide film with perforations for 8mm which is exposed and the flipped over to be exposed again.....split down the middle after processing and spliced together is known by various names.....8mm (the name before super 8 came out)...standard 8mm....double 8mm...double run 8mm....

 

[ic-racer]

http://www.yalefilmandvideo.com is my go-to place for dual-8 B&W processing of Foma-8. In the 1980 when I was in school, we could not get B&W reversal processed, so I did all my film work in color, reluctantly. Availability of B&W reversal processing today is another reason I think film photography is better now than it used to be. Even in the 1980s I had to mail-order 120 B&W film with a paper mail-order form and a check and the selection was much more limited than what Freestyle or B&H offers today.

 

[Nokton48]

I wrote to the chap offering Shanghai 220 films via Facebook but didn't receive a reply.

He replied to me on facebook and asked how many rolls? I have responded twice but so far nothing but crickets.................

 

[Agulliver]

http://www.yalefilmandvideo.com is my go-to place for dual-8 B&W processing of Foma-8. In the 1980 when I was in school, we could not get B&W reversal processed, so I did all my film work in color, reluctantly. Availability of B&W reversal processing today is another reason I think film photography is better now than it used to be. Even in the 1980s I had to mail-order 120 B&W film with a paper mail-order form and a check and the selection was much more limited than what Freestyle or B&H offers today.

When I started making super 8 films in the 80s, Kodachrome was far more available and cheaper than any B&W movie film....and Agfa Moviechrome was cheaper still. Boots (pharmacy chain) even sold the Agfa Moviechrome under their own brand name 50p cheaper than the Agfa branded product. Turnaround was reliably 5 days via 1st class post.

Regarding the guy selling 220 via Facebook, I've read here that he seems to have a positive reputation.

UPDATE he's just replied to me, and seems unenthusiastic about small orders. I think the cost of postage will be too high compared to the cost of the films. He seems to want to help if someone is willing to place a larger order.

 

[BrianShaw]

Did he say how many is a minimum order?

 

[Wallendo]

Many backing paper problems have been ink related. Would any 220 film ever be in contact with ink? I can't imagine why it would, but no have any 220 paper to evaluate.

 

[PhotoJim]

Many backing paper problems have been ink related. Would any 220 film ever be in contact with ink? I can't imagine why it would, but no have any 220 paper to evaluate.

Usually there are some markings on the leader and tail of 220, but they are only in contact with the very beginning and end of the film, whereas a 120 paper backing is in contact with the entire film.

 

[Prest_400]

Many backing paper problems have been ink related. Would any 220 film ever be in contact with ink? I can't imagine why it would, but no have any 220 paper to evaluate.

Back in the threads about Kodak 120 imprinting, PE mentioned that 220 would have not had this problem as the contact between paper and film is minimal.

About Shanghai 400 220, I am curious and woukd like to try, just to get 16 exp on 6x9! IDK if it is gonna be more widely available. My country taxes any non EU purchase, so it is quite impractical to have a try in the near future.

 

[Agulliver]

Did he say how many is a minimum order?

No, but he did say that he'd had too many inquiries from people wanting to "try it out" or order a handful. He wants to help but I think lots of little orders is not something he wishes to deal with.

I'd love to add it to my stash, but realistically I'd use 2/3 rolls a year max. I have one camera which uses 200, my Kiev 6. It's a lovely camera but it's huge and while I am strong enough to carry it....it's not practical to travel with. And it also takes 120 film, so I don't *need* 220....it would just be nice sometimes to have 24 6x6 exposures on one roll.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'm with you on that. I have one 220 back for my RB67, which likely makes your Kiev 6 look lightweight, plus one other camera I could trick into using 220 (with a lot of dancing with the frame counter). If I could order a couple rolls at a time, I'd likely keep a couple around because 20 exposures of 6x7 is occasionally a good thing (saves reloading in a busy environment) -- but I won't miss it (I use the 220 back for 35mm panoramic at present).