Ilford and 220, for film resurgence?

I found the 2006 thread started by Simon Galley that sets out why they stopped production in 2005 and were unable to re-start.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ly-from-ilford-photo-harman-technology.18206/
Minimum order quantities for the leader and trailer papers equal to 7.666 years of inventory.

I scan mine at 2400 as a rule, and save the gigapixels for shots I need that sort of resolution for. So far, it's all been testing.

MattKing said:

I found the 2006 thread started by Simon Galley that sets out why they stopped production in 2005 and were unable to re-start.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ly-from-ilford-photo-harman-technology.18206/
Minimum order quantities for the leader and trailer papers equal to 7.666 years of inventory.

Click to expand...

Not to mention which, with limited resources, that run will take the place of other product that might sell. So you divert resources from 120 production to 220 production, but now your 120 stock is limited, your 220 stock is selling slowly (because it's at least as expensive as two rolls of 120), and now you're in the hole for the next few months on 120 supply, and the next few years fiscally.

Any production choices have to be able to pay for themselves in fairly rapid order given the current market.

grat said:

Any production choices have to be able to pay for themselves in fairly rapid order given the current market.

Click to expand...

And forgetting that rule (or not having accurate information with which to apply it) caused most of the crises in the photographic manufacturing industry in the 2000s and 2010s.

I am a glutton for punishment.

Has anyone tried loading a reel like this??

I wouldn't think it would be much different from loading 220. The film is about 8 mm wider, and once it's going on the reel well, an extra couple feet of length makes little difference. Given a choice, I'd prefer a Paterson type plastic reel, but I doubt anyone (with the possible exception of Jobo) has offered those in 70mm with enough length for the bulk load version (116 reels are the right width, but those will take a maximum of about five feet of length because they're the same plates for 35mm and all the other formats they're made for are the same length or shorter).

I had a 70mm reel, but plastic, large Jobo tank with a huge reel for developing Hasselblad back, 70mm (cassette) films.

It was a good tool, but this was in the early/mid 1980's and I loved everything photographic, so loading it was no something I took note of.

Loaded and filled, it was a bit of a handful, but it was more difficult to complete shooting those large rolls of film often enough, to become 'expert' with the handling of it all.

I ended up just shooting colour negative film, and letting a lab develope them, when finally completed, and 120 for everything else, so I could get back E6 colour slides in a few hours and do the black and white myself.

If the hight is correct on that large steel tank, for the 70mm stuff you've shot, go for it, but use wide duct tape to join the top and tank, because you'll want them to stay together, should that heavy, wet tank, take a fall.

You might also want a wide enough board to catch a falling tank, if your sink is ABS or other plastic, just in case.

IMO.

eli griggs said:

I had a 70mm reel, but plastic, large Jobo tank with a huge reel for developing Hasselblad back, 70mm (cassette) films.

It was a good tool, but this was in the early/mid 1980's and I loved everything photographic, so loading it was no something I took note of.

Loaded and filled, it was a bit of a handful, but it was more difficult to complete shooting those large rolls of film often enough, to become 'expert' with the handling of it all.

I ended up just shooting colour negative film, and letting a lab develope them, when finally completed, and 120 for everything else, so I could get back E6 colour slides in a few hours and do the black and white myself.

If the hight is correct on that large steel tank, for the 70mm stuff you've shot, go for it, but use wide duct tape to join the top and tank, because you'll want them to stay together, should that heavy, wet tank, take a fall.

You might also want a wide enough board to catch a falling tank, if your sink is ABS or other plastic, just in case.

IMO.

Click to expand...

This is mostly an "experience" than a future practice. I have 4 rolls of VPS I bought from Ebay. The reel and tank are 70mm Nikor tank. I have plenty of chemistry. This is mostly a I want to give it a try. The film has been curled up for over 25 years. Will be interesting.

Well, FWIW, Ilford does offer 70mm during their annual Custom Cut event. Presumably in whatever emulsions come in 35mm, 120, or sheet sizes (may not include XP2 Super, since that isn't sold in sheets).

Sirius Glass said:

Every time I wanted to 220 the films I wanted were not available in that format, one roll costs more than twice 120 and processing cost more than twice 120 for slides or prints. So the costs were always out of line and the selections of films were too limited.

Click to expand...

From 2003 Calumet catalog

1. Fuji NPH 120 Propack = $14.99
2. Fuji NPH 220 Propack = $29.99
3. Kodak Portra400NC 120 Propack = $23.69
4. Kodak Portra400NC 220 Propack = $47.99

#2 not > 2* #1; #4 not > 2^ #3
I am puzzled by the belief that 220 was always significantly greater than 2* 120 cost.

wiltw said:

I am puzzled by the belief that 220 was always significantly greater than 2* 120 cost.

Click to expand...

Even if 220 cost about the same per frame as 120, that meant there was no advantage to it for those to whom two or three minutes of loading time after 8/10/12/15/16 frames wasn't money lost. Further, there were some disadvantages -- stainless reels for 120 wouldn't hold 220, and stainless 220 reels required larger than standard tanks, a roll of 220 would need two negative pages -- the latter pretty small, but the former being a significant extra cost even if only on a one-time basis.

Bottom line, there were only ever a rather small number for whom 220 was attractive, so the market was never large. When film tanked in the early 2000s, the extra cost of keeping two kinds of backing paper (three if you count 127, this surely contribute to that format going the rest of the way under), needing a special machine that ran in darkness, and so forth meant 220 became much harder to make a profit on, the margin smaller, and when money is tight, the money people look for the "underperforming" products to cut. The marginal position of 220 and the cost of the special machines to roll (and different paper for leaders and tails vs. 120 backing) is why it won't come back -- and the fact that the few people for whom 220 was attractive don't need it any more than I need a long-roll back for a 35mm SLR, or factory rolled 828 means the manufacturers can't sell it at a premium for other than novelty value (which works fine for Lomography who don't have the infrastructure of coating and cutting to maintain and amortize, not so well for Kodak, Ilford, or Fuji).

My pro labs used to charge less to develop and proof one 220 roll than they would charge to develop and proof two 120 rolls (Vericolour initially, then Portra).
That isn't the case any more.

MattKing said:

My pro labs used to charge less to develop and proof one 220 roll than they would charge to develop and proof two 120 rolls (Vericolour initially, then Portra).
That isn't the case any more.

Click to expand...

I just looked up a document that I had assembled in the 1990's when I was revamping my prices for portrait work of wedding jobs. Half of the labs charged 2x for 220 compared to 120 process and proof, while the other half charges for 220 pricess and proof were LESS THAN 2x the prices for 120. If doing process film only, the prices were simple 2x.

wiltw said:

From 2003 Calumet catalog

1. Fuji NPH 120 Propack = $14.99
2. Fuji NPH 220 Propack = $29.99
3. Kodak Portra400NC 120 Propack = $23.69
4. Kodak Portra400NC 220 Propack = $47.99

#2 not > 2* #1; #4 not > 2^ #3
I am puzzled by the belief that 220 was always significantly greater than 2* 120 cost.

Click to expand...

back when wedding photographers were churning through it, it was proably a bit cheeper, on a per frame basis, and even if even priced with 120 would still be advantageous to a photgrapher who has to take big negatives and not miss any action. that volume of demand will never come back for 220. And once it became MORE expensive to shoot than 120, one really would need a reason to be interested.

Prices, of course, would depend on volume. I have a friend who shot weddings, portraits, with medium format. Kodak gave pro reward points. As long as the user stayed away from grey market film these points added up. My buddy cashed his points in on a Hasselblad 503cx.

I'm super happy with 120. I have a few rolls of 220 in my film fridge, but I won't miss it

The 70mm is just something to try.

mshchem said:

As long as the user stayed away from grey market film these points added up. My buddy cashed his points in on a Hasselblad 503cx..

Click to expand...

and if your business is using that much film, it would be commercial suicide to do anything else but using fresh stock as direct as you can from the factory.

cmacd123 said:

and if your business is using that much film, it would be commercial suicide to do anything else but using fresh stock as direct as you can from the factory.

Click to expand...

Of course, it was not exactly unusual to encounter a professional photographer or two who was incredibly CHEAP, and would try to save every penny possible.
Back in the day, I got to proof some of their work .

Years ago ~2010 220 film, if there was one that I wanted, cost more than twice 120 and more than twice 220, so I passed on the 220 backs and moved on. Now 220 backs are dirt cheap. I am still not moved, but that may change.

NOW IN THE DARK. IT'S EASY WHEN YOU HAVE THE LIGHTS ON

MattKing said:

My pro labs used to charge less to develop and proof one 220 roll than they would charge to develop and proof two 120 rolls (Vericolour initially, then Portra).
That isn't the case any more.

Click to expand...

220 uses less manpower than two 120 rolls, do some savings.

IMO.

Shooting 70mm ELM tests 24 exposure rolls 100 Planar 2 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Here I am test exposing three A70 backs, with the Hasselblad 500EL/M, with the 100mm T* Planar, one of my sharpest Blad lenses. Broncolor C171 Pulso Monolight 1/8 power measured with Broncolor FM2 Incident Flash Meter. Made 1/2 stop bracketed exposures around the calculated median exposures, rating Rollei 400s at EI 100, then original 1981 Plus-X (luscious and amazingly still good) rated at EI 50. Finally Kodak WL Surveillance Film rated at EI 250. To me this film is like a cross between Eastman XX and old Tri-X formulations. I'll bet it pushes really well for higher EI's. 70mm and a motorized camera is great luxury. Hasselblad used to call this combo the EL/70 which you could buy as a package from your local dealer. If you shoot Blad 70mm you should buy an EL/M and try this. The 24 exposure rolls can be developed in my Patterson homemade 70mm spool rack, I will prolly use ADOX Borax Replenished which I know works well with the WL Surveillance. Rollei 400s I have developing in Rollei Supergrain from Freestyle.

Will be good to see the bracketed shots. And I can adjust development if I see fit.

Nice kit and film combos.

I am still looking for an A70 for general use as a main b+w, HP5+ back.

I'm lucky to have pleanty of the A12, A24, mags and a single 4x4cm back as well, however, I do have some 70 mm stuff in a bulk loader which I believe is Tri-X, and Illford still stands true with 70mm film each year.

I wonder why Illford does no make FP4 or Pan F in 70mm?

How many of us would be needed for a bulk order to get either of these in that format?

Cheers.

easy splicing 2 x 120. also adding and altering 120 paper. there is a site explaining 120 paper.
best is cutting 70mm. if cut only on one side one can use in 70mm magazines which have spacing-cog-wheel. RH-50 hasnt. there is a thread about filmslitters. i have all variants for 70mm cut down to 61.5 and 35mm.
i have found a workaround to use 61.5mm on 70mm spools. kodak tested. linhof must be tested. easiest is making 120-70 adapter. must work since there is a 35-120 takeup spool which has perforation clamp inside. but will it also work when using nonperforated film without using tape. thicker linhof spool has slit with clamp inside. no tested yet. my solution is using 70mm spool with 61.5mm spacers not 3d-printed ones.
have found a 3dprinter-company in europe and asked one for usa without reply.
NB: have also found a swiss 3dprinter who made a clamp to use 70mm on jobo 1500. 2500 version is elsewhere.