Ilford and 220, for film resurgence?

[Sirius Glass]

220 film stands about as much chance of a comeback as Kodachrome, in the current climate I'm just thankful that film of any format is still being manufactured.

It is more likely that George Eastman will rise from the dead after all there years.

 

[eli griggs]

I, and other users of Hasselblad film cameras, in particular the 500 CM series, rarely find situations that outstrip the abilities of our photographic ambitions in 6cm x 6cm l, 6cm x4.5cm and 4 CM x 4cm medium format photography and that is most often the number one reason why those of us that have fully embraced that still vital system and use them.

If we do no have a certain lens, back or other accessories, just as other slr shooters experience, that's just normal, but having built our kit over the years, when we want/need a particular addition for our 'works' we have excellent odds that we can find what we require was made, is available and still bares the quality of photographic excellences that the equipment is framed for and realitive slow shutter speeds, apautures, and work form, in most cases, do no mean we are burdened but rather, willing to work with to make the best photographs each of us are capable of.

I've worked in the past, on some of the alternative systems others here prefer, as a freelance assistant and photographer and having owned a new two body 500cm system and a nice set of lenses, mostly cfi models, and other goodies, recognized the difficulties the other brands had, in comparison to those more expensive Swedish kit.

Hasselblad analog bodies, lens, viewfinders, backs and other kit works great and that's the only reason (neverminding collectors and fashionistas) to own them!

IMO.

 

[Donald Qualls]

220 film stands about as much chance of a comeback as Kodachrome,

With Shanghai confectioning new film in 220, the "no machines to roll it" argument becomes "not cost effective to pay for toll confectioning." Then they trot out "would cost too much for a minimum order of backing" -- which again apparently didn't stop Shanghai (who presumably own their own backing production).

The only sensible reasons not to bring back 220 in a couple popular emulsions (say, TMX and TMY2, or FP4+ and HP5+) are economic -- there wouldn't be enough demand (with the primary market, professional photographers, long since transitioned to digital) to pay for the (seemingly fairly modest) development costs to put the same emulsion cut the same width on the same spools with different edge numbers and backing (plus a different box, of course). Maybe a few more years into the "film resurgence". Or maybe Shanghai will find it doesn't make sense for them over a slightly longer term.

 

[MattKing]

Don't forget the likelihood that the material and ink used by Shanghai for backing paper/leaders and tails would lead to wrapper offset issues with the existing Kodak/Ilford/Fuji emulsions.

 

[Donald Qualls]

likelihood that the material and ink used by Shanghai for backing paper/leaders and tails would lead to wrapper offset issues with the existing Kodak/Ilford/Fuji emulsions.

It would surely need careful testing, but even if it fails, 220 is perfect for this -- only the tail paper will be in contact with emulsion prior to exposure (and they already recommend prompt processing after exposure). Just lengthen the film enough for one more turn on the nearly empty spool, and all the offset will be on the unused trailer.

 

[Sirius Glass]

With Shanghai confectioning new film in 220, the "no machines to roll it" argument becomes "not cost effective to pay for toll confectioning." Then they trot out "would cost too much for a minimum order of backing" -- which again apparently didn't stop Shanghai (who presumably own their own backing production).

The only sensible reasons not to bring back 220 in a couple popular emulsions (say, TMX and TMY2, or FP4+ and HP5+) are economic -- there wouldn't be enough demand (with the primary market, professional photographers, long since transitioned to digital) to pay for the (seemingly fairly modest) development costs to put the same emulsion cut the same width on the same spools with different edge numbers and backing (plus a different box, of course). Maybe a few more years into the "film resurgence". Or maybe Shanghai will find it doesn't make sense for them over a slightly longer term.

When 220 was introduced film makers did everything they could to expand the market. This was while film was the only way to make photographs. Fifty years of pushing did not expand the 220 market. Now with digital photography dominating, what makes you think that your proselytizing hopes and prayers will accomplish the super nova miracle needed to make 220 film wildly popular? It ain't gonna happen in this universe. Please put down your lance, get off your horse and stop attacking the windmills. Besides windmills are an endangered species which cannot reproduce on their own, much like clay pigeons.

 

[Donald Qualls]

@Sirius Glass , if you don't like to hear about other people's pipe dreams, perhaps you shouldn't read this thread. Go find a pipe of your own instead.

BTW, while 220 was produced for almost fifty years (introduced 1965, last production around 2012, not counting Shanghai bringing it back), the last ten years of that was a time when film manufacturers were trying to figure out when to turn out the lights and how to do it without giving pink slips to the upper management.

 

[ic-racer]

For whatever reason the Tmax emulsions were never offered in 220. When ever I needed 220, I had to use either Plus-X or Tri-X.

 

[Sirius Glass]

@Sirius Glass , if you don't like to hear about other people's pipe dreams, perhaps you shouldn't read this thread. Go find a pipe of your own instead.

BTW, while 220 was produced for almost fifty years (introduced 1965, last production around 2012, not counting Shanghai bringing it back), the last ten years of that was a time when film manufacturers were trying to figure out when to turn out the lights and how to do it without giving pink slips to the upper management.

Speaking of pipe dreams, what are you smoking? Would you care to share it with me? By the way, I am tired of piece part body replacements and I am now seeking a full body replacement with only one recovery and one rehabilitation. Any suggestions?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Any suggestions?

Might want to look into that head transplant program the Chinese were working on with an Italian (?) surgeon. You'd get the body of a condemned Chinese criminal, but if you survive, all of you but your head would be young and reasonably healthy. Disclaimer: whether you'd ever feel anything below your neck again depends on an only partially tested hypothesis.

 

[eli griggs]

Addressing the ink used for roll film paper backing, has anyone heard of attempts to modify inkjet jet printers to spray a denser black for backing and, for example, white or yellow ink for printing up numbering for whatever format you need on a run of paper backing?

What qualities of 'plain paper' or vinyl or other polymer backing would be needed to print these special inks onto?

Why can no an existing makers inkjet printer be used to do this job?

Kodak has announced that they are hiring again and I just saw an Ilford ad promoting the fact that they are over the COVID era and producing again, so why no ask them to introduce 220 back into our analog lives again?

Also, how about one or both of them compounding an inkjet backing ink, as a bulk item, as I suggest, for an existing series of printers, in self-service reusable ink reserves?

Today and tomorrow our tech runs quickly forward of the old era of the full on, full service products and films, of the past Golden age of analog photography, and I ask, in light of that and the rapid reexpansion of analog photography, albeit a smaller, pricer market, will we just sit on our hands and perpetrate a neo-troglodyte fueled "...failure of imagination... " , simply because to do so is easier, less expensive or are afraid to push photographic tech forward?

Think about it.

Cheers to all!

 

[europanorama]

i will cut 70mm or use spliced 120 in 70mm mags, yes only one sided perforated possible in most magazines. there is a UP-HBV-A70- solution.or use spliced 120 for 220-use. easy transforming 120 paper. have mamiya RB 70-67-vacuum mag altered for 61.5mm on donor-side only. if counter doesnt work one need not open back at end if more thinnner film can be exposed in 70mm cartridges. have working ideas for 70-120-spool-transformation- simple shim or 3dprinted. have 2 rakurs 67 longrollmags. need special rakurs-camera or adaptation and special spools. since it hasnt the same loading mechanisme like the above RB 70mm mag.have workaround made with altered original 120 and 3dprinted 35-120-takeup-spool. took time but is easy to cut out a V-shape gap.

cinestills announced 220-400 aka 250D

 

[Donald Qualls]

Kodak has announced that they are hiring again and I just saw an Ilford ad promoting the fact that they are over the COVID era and producing again, so why no ask them to introduce 220 back into our analog lives again?

Some time ago both Kodak and Ilford were on record saying their 220 rolling machines were worn out and the market didn't support the cost of rebuilding or replacing them. Pretty sure it still doesn't. Shanghai operates in a different economic environment (much lower labor costs, on a global-relative basis) and may be partially or completely hand-rolling their GP3 in either or both 120 and 220 (eight year olds work cheap) (they're also producing 127, and it wouldn't shock me if one day soon they re-introduce 828 including the one perf per frame).

 

[BrianShaw]

… the market didn't support the cost… Pretty sure it still doesn't.

Isn’t that what Serious was saying?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Isn’t that what Serious was saying?

No, he was saying I was smoking something (probably illegal, at least at a Federal level). He may have used that to dismiss my suggestion that Shanghai could toll confection 220 for Kodak, Ilford, etc., however.

 

[Nokton48]

My Stash of 220 Film by Nokton48, on Flickr

I LIKE Shanghai 220 a good decent IMO retro emulsion. Not expensive compared to other emulsions, we are lucky to have it available. Old school formulation runs good through my Mamiflexes and Blads

Why So Serious? LOL

220 Shanghai twenty rolls. by Nokton48, on Flickr

 

[Donald Qualls]

I haven't processed it yet, but the one roll of Shanghai GP3 220 I've shot so far ran as well as my (needs a little TLC) RH20 back would handle. I need to get my Mamiya 220 back put back together (with the replacement dark slide lock spring) and try it with that, which (with 35 mm) works perfectly. Sure wish I could get a good 320-400 film in 220, I prefer faster most of the time (because I'm more of a hand held shooter, and the RB67 doesn't have very fast lens options).

 

[Nokton48]

I haven't processed it yet, but the one roll of Shanghai GP3 220 I've shot so far ran as well as my (needs a little TLC) RH20 back would handle. I need to get my Mamiya 220 back put back together (with the replacement dark slide lock spring) and try it with that, which (with 35 mm) works perfectly. Sure wish I could get a good 320-400 film in 220, I prefer faster most of the time (because I'm more of a hand held shooter, and the RB67 doesn't have very fast lens options).

I just shot some 35mm HP5+ and I processed it in HC-110 "B" for 28 minutes at 68F in a Paterson Big Tank Unicolor Uniroller for spinning. I shot in near-dark conditions F1.2 MC Rokkor lens processed as 3200 ASA. Negs have a boatload of detail, I love it. So this will go as my new high speed go-to, it's bulletproof and cuts the mustard. And this film comes in 70mm too so you can load eighteen exposures into a 70mm cartridge and shoot in a Graflex 6x7cm RH50. So really no need for 220, it's already here if you can do the legwork. HP5+ is spensive in 70mm but worth every red cent to me. In fact I need to get some more, B&H was stocking it for a while, then they closed it out. Shooting at 1600EI the results are pretty fabulous and not too expensive. So go do it

 

[Donald Qualls]

Ilford cuts 70 mm only during their annual custom cut event (they used to call it the ULF special sale, but now they offer 70 mm and 46 mm unperfed as well as sheet sizes). That said, two or three fifty foot rolls should keep most medium format shooters busy for at least a year.

Sadly, the 70 mm hardware (backs and cassettes, loaders and developing reels) are much harder to come by than 220 backs (which need no cassettes, and the film fits all 35mm/120 convertible developing reels). Mamiya, for instance, made a 70 mm film back for the RB67, but I've only ever seen one for sale (and I think one RH50), though admittedly I haven't been shopping specifically for 70 mm hardware -- yet the 120 backs seem to fall on my head; they're everywhere, and 220 backs are only uncommon by comparison.

 

[MattKing]

Addressing the ink used for roll film paper backing, has anyone heard of attempts to modify inkjet jet printers to spray a denser black for backing and, for example, white or yellow ink for printing up numbering for whatever format you need on a run of paper backing?

What qualities of 'plain paper' or vinyl or other polymer backing would be needed to print these special inks onto?

Why can no an existing makers inkjet printer be used to do this job?

Wrapper offset guaranteed!
Even with with 220 - although only on part of the roll.
And a run of backing paper is huge - the minimum order quantities make it immensely expensive.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Addressing the ink used for roll film paper backing, has anyone heard of attempts to modify inkjet jet printers to spray a denser black for backing and, for example, white or yellow ink for printing up numbering for whatever format you need on a run of paper backing?

What qualities of 'plain paper' or vinyl or other polymer backing would be needed to print these special inks onto?

Why can no an existing makers inkjet printer be used to do this job?

Kodak has announced that they are hiring again and I just saw an Ilford ad promoting the fact that they are over the COVID era and producing again, so why no ask them to introduce 220 back into our analog lives again?

Also, how about one or both of them compounding an inkjet backing ink, as a bulk item, as I suggest, for an existing series of printers, in self-service reusable ink reserves?

Today and tomorrow our tech runs quickly forward of the old era of the full on, full service products and films, of the past Golden age of analog photography, and I ask, in light of that and the rapid reexpansion of analog photography, albeit a smaller, pricer market, will we just sit on our hands and perpetrate a neo-troglodyte fueled "...failure of imagination... " , simply because to do so is easier, less expensive or are afraid to push photographic tech forward?

Think about it.

Cheers to all!

I doubt that ink jet will work for high speed production.

With the film industry rebounding why would you doom it by having them loose money producing 220 film that will not sell?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Isn’t that what Serious was saying?

In a word? "Yep"

 

[Sirius Glass]

My Stash of 220 Film by Nokton48, on Flickr

I LIKE Shanghai 220 a good decent IMO retro emulsion. Not expensive compared to other emulsions, we are lucky to have it available. Old school formulation runs good through my Mamiflexes and Blads

Why So Serious? LOL

220 Shanghai twenty rolls. by Nokton48, on Flickr

Great! You cornered the market and kept the hoarders away. Can I see you some under water swamp land?

 

[lxdude]

Addressing the ink used for roll film paper backing, has anyone heard of attempts to modify inkjet jet printers to spray a denser black for backing and, for example, white or yellow ink for printing up numbering for whatever format you need on a run of paper backing?

I don't see a reason to use black inkjet. It's overkill for the purpose. A roller or spray nozzle setup would be less complex, cheaper, faster, and more reliable.
Maybe inkjet for numbering, etc., but I think a roller would be simpler and faster.

 

[Nokton48]

Great! You cornered the market and kept the hoarders away. Can I see you some under water swamp land?

Nope I've used up all my money with all this 220 film