Ilford and 220, for film resurgence?

eli griggs · Mar 24, 2020

Ilford, with all the 6 x 4.5 > film cameras out here, being put back into use, why has IIlford no put out any 220 runs of HP5+, PanF, or any other, of their most popular films, that do sell?

Why have you also no put out any 127 production, seeing how many of us are forced to cut and roll our own?

It would be one thing if, you, Ilford, were to put out such product, as a trial, and after a period of 6 months, and if you find no demand, give users notice enough to allow them to stock up and, again, then wait three or four years to see if demand is then high enough for regular runs, in the same length test, to try again.

The thing is, I do no know if you, Ilford, have even tried lately, and as dedicated to the Photographers and B&W films and paper, as you are, Ilford, why will you no try, because that is a contradiction, that I, and others, do no understand.

Ilford, please consider the above, many here are using kit that can use these formats, I think I have four Hasselblad backs alone for 220 and a Sawyer's MK.IV that must be 'spoon feed' 127, as well as older cameras that I would love to be using with the packaged stuff.

Perhaps, Ilford, you could only sell it in five and ten count boxes, at first, so at least you have a volume of answered demand from individuals above the occasional bought roll.

What ever it takes Ilford, and we all know you do no owe us a thing, please let me and your other Supporters here have these formats to buy again, or why no.

Eli Griggs
Ilford User since 1976

Lachlan Young · Mar 24, 2020

Ilford's 220 machine broke down in about 2002 & even at the level of demand in that pre-peak digital era, replacing it would have taken decades to pay off. This was explained innumerable times on here by Simon Galley of Harman Technology. Furthermore, the way that a 120 spooler/ roll assembler works allows it to operate in room lighting, whereas the 220 has to be operated in darkroom conditions (adds to costs, especially in staffing etc). A 127 spooler would likely be no cheaper than a 120 equivalent to build new & the only reason it has sort of survived as a format is because of a handful of machines that had miraculously avoided scrappage & which still work to an extent.

If you have a spare million USD/ GBP/ EUR burning a hole in your pocket to spend on the relevant machinery design and build, I'm sure Ilford might listen, otherwise it's a pointless endeavour for formats that were never really popular enough to survive.

BrianShaw · Mar 24, 2020

I’m not too sure that film is resurging quite that much...

Hunter_Compton · Mar 24, 2020

Ilford does offer a 46mm cut in their ULF program, however I would assume the added cost of backing paper and spools makes assembled 127 an unprofitable endeavor.

eli griggs · Mar 24, 2020

So, what you're saying is we need to make a crowd funding request to raise the monies needed for Ilford to provide us the film formats of 127 and 220 films we need.

Will Ilford take the monies raised or even match it, dollar for dollar, pound for pound, and commit to regular runs of their films?

Ilford, where are you and what do you have to say about this tactic, as I have little doubt a price of one million could be raised by request online and through Youtube mentions, by the MANY photographers that love your films.

If you have the funds, donated and raised outside your company/corporation, will you be able to give an initial price break to APUG/Phototrio users whom order through your link here?

Also, Ilford, if you could buy, build or fix the machinery for production, how long after receiving the monies could you be in full production?

Film Photography is back and production needs to be happening asap, while the new users seek out and buy & repair, the tons of vintage camera gear that just lies waiting for AFFORDABLE Films from you, which can give them life anew.

Ilford, what is your answer?

Lachlan Young · Mar 24, 2020

The bit which you are also missing is that you pay for the convenience of 220 - latterly, Kodak was having to charge about 2.5x a roll of 120 for 220 and (presumably) even then not making enough profit for it to be worth their while continuing to manufacture it.

Sirius Glass · Mar 24, 2020

The world never really beat a path to the 127 door. Getting any film manufacturer to start a new 127 is likely to happen after the twelveth of Never.

MattKing · Mar 24, 2020

IIRC, back when Simon Galley was posting on this, it was going to cost Harmon more than 300,000 pounds to replace the worn out machine necessary to "confection" 220. Based on even the most optimistic market projections, Harman could not justify applying so much of their limited capital to such a niche within a niche product.
The other major, major, major problem with 220 is the source of the leader and trailer backing papers.
Neither Ilford/Harman nor Kodak are able to produce them themselves, and I wouldn't be surprised if Fuji is no longer able to produce them now as well.
Back when Simon Galley was posting about this, he made it clear that the remaining source for those leaders and trailers had massive minimum order requirements that meant, even with the most optimistic projections, that even the smallest order would require that they buy and store many years of those leaders and trailers. They just could not justify tying up that much capital, and that much space, for that much time, to such a niche within a niche product.

Cholentpot · Mar 24, 2020

Learn to roll your own. It's not too bad. I've done it.

cmacd123 · Mar 24, 2020

127 was extremely popular at one time. That time ended when 126 came out in the early 1960s.

the folks who advertise 127 are probably rolling it by hand on home made equipment.

220 may be even less in demand than 127 and it is complex enough with the two splices that it is unlikely to be possible to "hand roll" any - even if the backing paper problem were to be solved.

Ferrania claimed to have salvaged a 127 machine, but with COVID-19 they are likely once again locked out of their building till fall. not even sure if 3M made any 220 for there to be a machine to salvage.

cmacd123 · Mar 24, 2020

Lachlan Young said:
The bit which you are also missing is that you pay for the convenience of 220 - latterly, Kodak was having to charge about 2.5x a roll of 120 for 220 and (presumably) even then not making enough profit for it to be worth their while continuing to manufacture it.

for a select market of a select market that price difference may have been acceptable, wedding photographers who would pay extra just to avoid having to change magazines or backs at critical moments..

Hunter_Compton · Mar 24, 2020

So, basically the question reflected back at the OP is whether you would be willing to buy 50 rolls a year at $30 per roll, for a decade, at which point the small number of people willing to buy either of these two formats would be profitable.

eli griggs · Mar 24, 2020

Until Ilford it self looks at the situation, including if they could source the backing paper they need from eastern Europa or Asia, they can no give an appreciation of the possibilities to resume production.

As far as niche markets, many, many photography materials have, over time, and continue to be available to photographers, including infrared films, new production of slide holder backs for Hasselblads, and obsolete developers and materials for non-mainstream photographer/darkroom practices.

Too many people are satisfied, IMO, with taking a step back when someone suggest a 'new or, in this case, a revived thing' saying this reason and these reasons are why you should no even 'go there', however, occasionally, those things are indeed possible, it only took making the steps forward and attempting in erstwhile fashion, to make a 'thing' happen.

Please, keep the feedback coming, even that which you might feel I am no proper attention to, and as we consider the possibilities, together with a response from Ilford, we might just discover what is doable, above just rolling your own, IF you can get the roll films in the first place.

IMO.

cmacd123 · Mar 24, 2020

Hunter_Compton said:
So, basically the question reflected back at the OP is whether you would be willing to buy 50 rolls a year at $30 per roll, for a decade, at which point the small number of people willing to buy either of these two formats would be profitable.

add a few zeros to all of those numbers like think 50rolls a week. while any of us might only use a few rolls of any film, the factory has to crank out thousands at a time to make it worth setting up the existing machines.

mshchem · Mar 24, 2020

I love 120. 220 has always been too long for me. There would be practically no market for 220 black and white. Back in the day wedding folks used 220 color negative by the zillions. All gone. I would like to see 4x5 Pack film......I ain't holding my breath

MattKing · Mar 25, 2020

eli griggs said:
Until Ilford it self looks at the situation, including if they could source the backing paper they need from eastern Europa or Asia, they can no give an appreciation of the possibilities to resume production.

The backing paper they use now for 120 costs them more to buy than it costs them to make the film.
Backing paper is complex and specialized. Even 220 leaders and trailers require that complex and specialized material. All of the remaining film manufacturers are challenged by the situation with backing paper - with Kodak's relatively recent problems with wrapper offset being the most obvious example.
Harman aren't going to accept some substandard material for 220, so they are stuck with the conditions applied by the one remaining high quality supplier left with the capability of supplying what the much diminished market needs.
The remaining film manufacturers have real issues with the availability of capital. It is probably best that they focus their energies on products that they can improve themselves, rather than tying up that capital purchasing material manufactured by others. As it is, they are having to be really careful with their orders of the constituent chemicals that they put into the films themselves. Many of those constituent chemicals have to be ordered months in advance because their orders are quite small (relatively) and their suppliers essentially have to fit them in amongst larger, more profitable orders from other customers.

eli griggs · Mar 25, 2020

Perhaps it's time to do away with Backing Paper, and evolve Backing Plastics or Polymer film surface material that will wash away like unexposed silvers will, in development, say a traditional, or modified acid stop.

IMO.

ic-racer · Mar 25, 2020

220 does not need any leader if used in 220 film backs with dark slides. No harder than loading 12 sheet film holders. The film backs are pretty cheap, on could easily stock up. Does anyone know where one wold get the film?

MattKing · Mar 26, 2020

eli griggs said:
Perhaps it's time to do away with Backing Paper, and evolve Backing Plastics or Polymer film surface material that will wash away like unexposed silvers will, in development, say a traditional, or modified acid stop.

IMO.

If someone actually comes up with a viable replacement for backing paper that includes those pesky numbers, I'm sure Kodak and Harmn and most likely Fuji would be happy to consider buying it.
I'm not sure how you would deal with the necessary connection to the take-up and feed spools though.

StepheKoontz · Mar 26, 2020

Sirius Glass said:
The world never really beat a path to the 127 door. Getting any film manufacturer to start a new 127 is likely to happen after the twelveth of Never.

Actually 127 film was very popular for a long time, it was one of the earliest formats of roll film.

pentaxuser · Mar 26, 2020

Eli, try a poll here but add whatever your best estimate of demand is and Ilford's rough costing of what the the cost of re-establishing 220 is for Ilford then see how many takers there are. It might just give you an idea of what the Photrio demand is vis a vis the likely cost and we of course a tiny part of the film market

It might be worth asking Henning Serger what he thinks the production investment might have to be and from his inside knowledge of the film revival and Ilford's set up he might even be able to give an informed opinion of the possible success of your request

pentaxuser

Agulliver · Mar 26, 2020

Ilford/Harman *did* look into bringing back 220 film. They calculated that it would cost 300,000 to repair their worn out 220 "confectioning" machinenery and that the minimum order of the leader/tail paper would mean they'd have to buy a decade's supply and store it somewhere.

If some random person starts a crowd funding page and actually makes the £300k they'd still have to persuade Harman that the space in their factory is worth it for the small volume of sales....assuming their 220 machinery is even extant at this point.

Film Ferrania also said that 220 was too complex and won't be happening. They did salvage a 127 confectioning machine and it's somewhere on their list....but their CEO is in isolation - as probably are all staff. Eventually they do hope to make 127 film in their factory.

Personally, if 220 and 127 films were available at around £10 each in B&W I would likely buy around two of each per year. If colour were also available I'd buy a couple of 220 colour films for my Kiev. But it's hardly necessary as my Kiev is the only camera I have even capable of using 220 and it also takes 120.

Ilford user since 1978

Sal Santamaura · Mar 26, 2020

Agulliver said:
...If some random person starts a crowd funding page and actually makes the £300k they'd still have to persuade Harman that the space in their factory is worth it for the small volume of sales...

If there's one thing HARMAN has to excess in its factory buildings, that thing is space. Ever since HARMAN's landlord's redevelopment plan was rejected by government authorities, making HARMAN's "rightsizing" of its plant unachievable, there's continued to be more than enough room to accommodate numerous 220 finishing machines. What there hasn't been, and will continue not to be, is a business case for even one of them. This reality sucks for those who fantasize about 220, but it's real.

Tom Kershaw · Mar 26, 2020

Sal Santamaura said:
If there's one thing HARMAN has to excess in its factory buildings, that thing is space. Ever since HARMAN's landlord's redevelopment plan was rejected by government authorities, making HARMAN's "rightsizing" of its plant unachievable, there's continued to be more than enough room to accommodate numerous 220 finishing machines. What there hasn't been, and will continue not to be, is a business case for even one of them. This reality sucks for those who fantasize about 220, but it's real.

Everyone reading this should know that Sal is absolutely correct. I've toured around the Harman factory site and it is huge, especially relative to the size of the current market. In fact I believe the facility when built and commissioned in the early 1980s was designed to accommodate a much larger company footprint than was ever seen at the site.

pentaxuser · Mar 26, 2020

Wasn't Kodak one of the last or maybe the last company to abandon the production of 220? . Does anyone with Kodak insider knowledge know what happened to its 220 machinery and the cost v benefit of starting it again?

Thanks
pentaxuser

Ilford and 220, for film resurgence?

eli griggs

Lachlan Young

BrianShaw

Hunter_Compton

eli griggs

Lachlan Young

Sirius Glass

MattKing

Moderator

Cholentpot

cmacd123

cmacd123

Hunter_Compton

eli griggs

cmacd123

mshchem

MattKing

Moderator

eli griggs

ic-racer

MattKing

Moderator

StepheKoontz

pentaxuser

Agulliver

Sal Santamaura

Tom Kershaw

pentaxuser

Ilford and 220, for film resurgence?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency