Ilford and 220, for film resurgence?

[Ian Grant]

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

1912 for 127, so not one of the earliest, 120 1901, 110 1898 (5x4 negatives) and many other formats were introduced that years.

Last year I saw and had an oportunity to buy a Thornton Manufacturing C Tourist 10x8 camera which had a 10x8 roll film back, almost certainly a prototype, would date to 1887/8 before the company became Thornton Pickard. John Thornton was pushed out of the company he'd founed and lived a meagre existence for decades on the Royaties from Patents licenesd by Eastman Koday, film packs and early colour films, etc - an inventor but with no business acumen.

More seriously I'd never buy 220 film and when I worked proffesionally didn't and nor did anyone I knew. I can see the benefits but the local Ilford Proffesional dealer never stocked it on the shelf.

Ian

 

[MattKing]

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

I expect (but do not know for sure) that the production of 220 ended when Eastman Kodak used the last of their in-house produced 220 leaders and trailers/backing paper.
Kodak no longer has the ability to make 120 or 220 backing paper in house.
With volumes being so low, Kodak would have the same or similar minimum order concerns as Harman respecting the remaining third party supplier of those 220 leaders and trailers/backing paper.
The only possibility I could forsee for the return of 220 would be if Kodak, Harman and Fuji (and others?) created a consortium for the confectioning of both 120 and 220 film. That might create the necessary volume to deal with the 220 backing paper/leader and trailer issue.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...110 1898 (5x4 negatives)...

If windmill-tilting 220 fantasizers feel compelled to expend keyboard effort on futile quests, they ought request that HARMAN and equipment manufacturers reintroduce those 110 rolls along with cameras / film backs that accept them. The ones that make 4x5 negatives, not plastic cartridges yielding 13x17mm grain-laded frames.

I hereby commit that, if one of those three-quarter-billion-dollar PowerBall jackpots ever comes my way, I'll personally fund the entire thing. Along with a Jobo 2500-series reel to develop the large rolls.

 

[jtk]

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..

Most of them committed to Canon when they saw 5D2.

 

[Ian Grant]

If windmill-tilting 220 fantasizers feel compelled to expend keyboard effort on futile quests, they ought request that HARMAN and equipment manufacturers reintroduce those 110 rolls along with cameras / film backs that accept them. The ones that make 4x5 negatives, not plastic cartridges yielding 13x17mm grain-laded frames.

I hereby commit that, if one of those three-quarter-billion-dollar PowerBall jackpots ever comes my way, I'll personally fund the entire thing. Along with a Jobo 2500-series reel to develop the large rolls.

Realism Sal

My Alliance Roll Film Manufacruring Co. Ltd 110 is in superb condition made somewhere between 1898 & 1904, B&L shutter & lens sweet as when made, mine's (well actually my wife's she found it !!!) is a rare model some took plates as well. I have to make do with a quarter plate Eastman Kodak 3 I was given 2 months ago in my local pub, 118 film.

There were some fantastic cameras 1898 to WW1 and with modern films they'd be amazing.

Ilford have a plate coatingt line, I've seen a demo, but we could be getting plates (non scientific) if there was some lateral thinking. I live too far away but was an emulsion chemist, my contacts at Ilford have all long retired . . . . . .

Ian

 

[BradS]

Supposing for a moment that any of them had the capital available to them, reviving 220 and 127 would be some of the the very last places I'd ask any of the the film manufacturers to invest. Doing so would seem reckless to me. The total available market for either of these products is vanishingly small.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...My Alliance Roll Film Manufacruring Co. Ltd 110 is in superb condition made somewhere between 1898 & 1904, B&L shutter & lens sweet as when made, mine's (well actually my wife's she found it !!!) is a rare model some took plates as well...

You posted about it in 2014. PHOTRIO's list of your posts only goes back to 2017, so including a link to that thread ("Wife's choice of LF camera") can't be readily accomplished, but Google does get one to an archived thread link

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/wifes-choice-of-lf-camera.113356/print​

that includes a picture of it:

 

[StepheKoontz]

220 isn't something I ever really liked or used much and most cameras that -can- use 220 also have options for using 120. The same isn't true for 127. I bought a bulk roll of 46mm film stock (HP5+) and am rolling my own using cut down 120 backing paper right now. I'd be happy if they just made FP4+ also avail in this size and also in other than once a year format. I really enjoy shooting with my baby TLR and it's a great way to shoot square in a smaller package.

 

[Ian Grant]

You posted about it in 2014. PHOTRIO's list of your posts only goes back to 2017, so including a link to that thread ("Wife's choice of LF camera") can't be readily accomplished, but Google does get one to an archived thread link

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/wifes-choice-of-lf-camera.113356/print​

that includes a picture of it:

View attachment 242766

A deceptive picture Sal as it's a rather large folding camera It's in or apartment in Turkey it needs a comparison image with a 120/620 equivalent.

Good to see we have rather common views. I was surprised to see or rather hear Chris Cuomo refer to his brother Andrew, the kind of leadership really needed at this time.

Ian

 

[Cholentpot]

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.

I hand rolled my own 220. It wasn't too bad and it ran clean through my M645. Main issue I have with 220 is I home develop. I get 4 rolls of 220 out of a C-41 kit. No thanks. For B&W I'd do it but I don't have any 120 bulk in b&w.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

 

[Luckless]

I would buy and shoot 220 for many of my projects if it could be cost-comparable to two rolls of 120, but it isn't a great priority.

I have been saving up spools and backing paper from my 120, on the off chance that eventually I can buy suitable bulk rolls of film to spool my own 220s without too much faffing about. However, given my backlog of film to develop, I'm not sure how likely I am to actually get around to setting up jigs for cutting down the backing paper and spooling stuff... Guess we'll see.

... 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.

I can totally understand the premium cost for producing a slower moving SKU on buying the film, but I'm kind of surprised that processing costs were more than double 120. From a logistical standpoint it seems like processing from 220 would be easier and preferable from a business standpoint.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the answers all to the Kodak question. None of this surprises me but I thought it advisable to ask such questions and get answers to assist eli in his deliberations on this plea of his which was initially only directed at Harman.

It would certainly look like a lost cause based on what I have been told which in turn would seem to be based on reasonable evidence

pentaxuser

 

[Pioneer]

I still shoot a couple of rolls of 220 color film every now and then to remind myself why I don't really like it. I still have a few boxes of 160 ISO Fuji color film in 220 that holds up relatively well in developing though it is pretty outdated by now. It provides some gorgeous prints even now. I still keep one Pentax 645 back around that will handle 220 just to be able to shoot it occasionally.

Though I have some, and do shoot it, I seriously doubt I would buy much, if any, if someone did start making it again. I don't shoot any film for production purposes and 220 was invented for professional photographers who needed to be able to run large amounts of 120 color film. As already mentioned those photographers have already moved to the dark side and it is seriously doubtful that they would begin using film again even if 220 was available.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

Wasn't Kodak one of the last or maybe the last company to abandon the production of 220?

I am pretty sure that Fuji Pro 160 NS exp 08/2018 is the most recent 220 film you are able to find.

 

[railwayman3]

Took lots of 120 film back in-the-day, and still use that size when I'm doing relaxed pictorial work. I used 220 a few times, more out of curiosity than anything, but the film cost and processing gave no saving (per shot) compared with 120.

 

[eli griggs]

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.

What about the backing on the Polaroid 100 series film, backing the negative?

It might even be that such a backing on 220 and 127 format films, bulk or rolls might be an option, or simply a opaque, thin film behind the film itself.

I'm just this moment looking at the blackened negative from a Polapan 100 film I shot a few hours ago, and it looks pretty darn opaque and black to me, certainly good enough to endure the rigors of a properly loaded and unloaded roll.

As to the paper for the front and back ends of the 220 rolls, Ilford is already buying the paper for the 120 stuff, so simply use this, and if it comes per-printed and trimmed, just buy it in raw rolls, or printed only, and trim it in house.

They certainly have the machinery they need, as it would, in the case of 220, simply require a resizing of lengths and separate tongue and tail runs.

That last bit did no sound nice.

There is a solution to every process that does no depend on the rare and difficult to handle material, it only takes thought and foresight for possibilities.

IMO.

 

[MattKing]

As to the paper for the front and back ends of the 220 rolls, Ilford is already buying the paper for the 120 stuff, so simply use this, and if it comes per-printed and trimmed, just buy it in raw rolls, or printed only, and trim it in house.

It is the combination of the really quite complex paper and the very complex printing that forces Harman et all to deal with the one remaining supplier who can produce material with the qualities required, and which makes it so expensive, with such huge minimum orders.
Cutting it to size is probably relatively trivial in comparison.

 

[eli griggs]

I agree that as there is only one supplier, there is an monopoly that require competition to lower prices, but, for example, Ilford was able to adapt their film to the removable black 'backing' of the old Polaroid films, and use the unused coating machines they may still have waiting for better days, it would pay them back hugely to experiment in house, or obtain a license from Polaroid, to make their own coating using the old patents, which very well maybe out of date and in the public domain.

The thin Polymer film, for backing, if Ilford did no coat their films with the Polaroid stuff, could be the entire roll of film backing used, just printed on the tongue and tail as the paper is now.

The world is full of manufacturers who can make such thin films, and the UK will be needing more manufacturers post Brexit, and funding might come from the Govenrment in the form of loans or guarantees of loans, to get the ball rolling.

Until I win 'the big one' people should continue to make considerations of possible solutions and simply allow a bad situation, for us and Ilford, etc, to continue, unchallenged.

IMO.

 

[pentaxuser]

Some interesting thoughts there, eli, in your conversation with Matt. It would be interesting to see what Ilford, Kodak or Fuji has to say if you were to put those thoughts to them. After all it is those companies you have to convince to make things happen, not Matt or indeed anyone else here on Photrio

A note to Ilford at least might be very useful as the first step in trying to persuade that company consider a revival of 220

pentaxuser

 

[Arthurwg]

I love 220. Hanging on to my A24 Hasselblad back awaiting that day.

 

[eli griggs]

Some interesting thoughts there, eli, in your conversation with Matt. It would be interesting to see what Ilford, Kodak or Fuji has to say if you were to put those thoughts to them. After all it is those companies you have to convince to make things happen, not Matt or indeed anyone else here on Photrio

A note to Ilford at least might be very useful as the first step in trying to persuade that company consider a revival of 220

pentaxuser

Has anyone here have contacts in mind, so I can get to the person who will pass it on to be considered?

Cheers.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I prefer the shorter, 120 rolls.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I prefer the shorter, 120 rolls.

Me too

 

[BrianShaw]

Me too

Me three