Ilford and 220, for film resurgence?

[eli griggs]

I worked for Kodak and I get very tired of seeing comments that the engineers and chemists were stupid and did not know how to do there job. When the industry was in good health, work by all film and camera manufacturers continued to improve the products and use. When the film industry started the long slide down, those people worked hard to develop and implement innovative ideas to expand and extend the film industry.

No one here is saying the engineers and chemist are stupid, but, when in general did the "long side" begin and when did it start the long rebound we are seeing from many parts of the world.

More importantly, when was it decided that the rebound had plateaued or even reached its apex recovery?

Decisions taken between the late '90s and early' teens' of this century, would have, in many cases been stop action order to both researchers, the self same engineers and chemists, still working for the companies and I do no see where a company that remained viable, would have wanted much less welcomed new research into some of the issues we are speaking to.

Since that period, people like our own P.E. did such work on their own, but the tools we have today are much different in use, than the traditional production of photographic films used just eight years ago.

Materials for Inkjets, as well as the tool it self, robotics, darkroom, clean environments and 3-D printing all are accelerating the abilities to both print and handle large and small volumes of light sensitive materials, just look at those companies producing both inkjet and 3-D printed solar cells with technology already several years old, if you do no believe me.

A huge part of the argument against trying is the costs of ramping up, but, perhaps these same producers of solar cells, might be interested in using some of their material production, and expand, with experienced partners, such as Ilford, Kodak, Fuji, Forma, etc?

No, engineers and chemists are no stupid, but neither are being paid and equipped with the sort of tools, to explore these new avenues, or are they?

So, pl;ease, do no take umbrage if some of us still bring up the possibility of possibilities, this is after all, conversation.

IMO.

 

[guangong]

I wonder how many of the 220 critics enjoy loading their Rolleiflex cameras with the pistol grip in the field every 12 shots. I need to carry two TLRs now that 220 is no longer available.
It is also funny how over in the Darkroom section people complain about difficulty getting the two 12 exposure rolls both on the Jobo processig reel.

Odd, but I never felt limited to only 12 frames to a roll, and I have been using my Rollei since about 1970. Very easy and fast to reload a Rollei. Why would anyone want to carry two Rolleis? One reason I use a Rollei is for the simplicity and little baggage. If I want to lug around a lot of stuff I use my Hasselblad.

 

[Helge]

There are plenty of cameras that takes magazine backs and there is always the possibility of “just” having multiple cameras.
Deferring reloading or making an assistant do it.

Sure 220 would be “nice”, but 120 benefits from the backing paper in more ways than just being able to show numbers on red window cameras.
(T-Max backing paper gate aside) It makes for a far better protected and robust package, before, under and after shooting.

 

[Helge]

I worked for Kodak and I get very tired of seeing comments that the engineers and chemists were stupid and did not know how to do there job. When the industry was in good health, work by all film and camera manufacturers continued to improve the products and use. When the film industry started the long slide down, those people worked hard to develop and implement innovative ideas to expand and extend the film industry.

That’s an interesting and probably endless discussion.

There can be no doubt, to anyone who is even remotely acquainted with the industry and history and implementation of the technology, that Kodak had some of the finest brains ever working in house.

What can be questioned is why, when they had had ample warning, by videotape shaving the Super 8 market down to almost nothing over night in the 80s, that they didn’t see the writing on the wall and actually do something drastic‽

The problem was not the basic technology. Kodak had some of the best sensor tech on the planet for a long time.
And there where many projects to radically improve films QE and turnover time, that never got off the ground in time.

Similar things went on at another imaging giant: Xerox.
They invented and had working all of the technology you and I are using right now, only mostly though, theirs was better thought out and implemented - in the 70’s.

I’d love to hear some reasoning from someone who was there.

 

[jtk]

There are probably more 3x4 Graflex cameras looking for love, and more able to justify it. Not to mention 616.

 

[railwayman3]

If, as Ilford suggested, a new 220 packing machine would cost £300,000 (probably more by now), and the cost were amortised at £1 per film, that's 300,000 films which would have to be sold before the cost were recovered ! Add in the cost of special backing paper (and holding a huge stock to meet minimum order quantity), new packing and printing (individual film boxes and outer wholesale packing), staff training, warehouse space, advertising and distribution costs, a bit of profit for Ilford and a bit for the dealer, sales tax, and a few other overheads.

What would be a fair retail price for the film compared with two 120 films? And ask yourself if YOU would pay it regularly, compared with the cost of two 120 films, just to save a little effort to reload your Rolleiflex ?

(And, of course, we'd like to be able to choose from a couple of speeds of B&W, a couple of speeds of C-41, and ideally some slide film.)

 

[Sirius Glass]

That’s an interesting and probably endless discussion.

There can be no doubt, to anyone who is even remotely acquainted with the industry and history and implementation of the technology, that Kodak had some of the finest brains ever working in house.

What can be questioned is why, when they had had ample warning, by videotape shaving the Super 8 market down to almost nothing over night in the 80s, that they didn’t see the writing on the wall and actually do something drastic‽

The problem was not the basic technology. Kodak had some of the best sensor tech on the planet for a long time.
And there where many projects to radically improve films QE and turnover time, that never got off the ground in time.

Similar things went on at another imaging giant: Xerox.
They invented and had working all of the technology you and I are using right now, only mostly though, theirs was better thought out and implemented - in the 70’s.

I’d love to hear some reasoning from someone who was there.

Kodak, Xerox and others even though employees warned management many times suffered from myopius huberis with the super cocky self pride chromosome.

 

[StepheKoontz]

A question, can 120 film be used in a 220 back and just stop shooting at 12 exposures?

 

[Sirius Glass]

A question, can 120 film be used in a 220 back and just stop shooting at 12 exposures?

Which film back?

 

[MattKing]

A question, can 120 film be used in a 220 back and just stop shooting at 12 exposures?

Yes - assuming you are shooting 6x6.
Mamiya USA used to run its own users group forum which contained lots of useful information, including the advice that 120 film could be used in 220 backs, at the risk of causing premature wear on the backs.
My sense is that was oriented to high volume professional use.
That "just stop shooting at 12 exposures" might be easier than you think.

 

[Helge]

Kodak, Xerox and others even though employees warned management many times suffered from myopius huberis with the super cocky self price chromosome.

What’s “cocky self price chromosome”?

Yeah, they had warnings. But some of the same execs not heeding the warnings had green lit all that research too, anticipating change and new technology.

Xerox PARC was a major lab and must have cost a fortune to run (but payed off literally billion fold over the years, though only a nano sliver of it to the original investors).
Kodak must have had similar research groups.
It’s not like similar things hadn’t happened with other tech companies before.
So they could have anticipated it.
What is really the mechanisms, that makes a big company so immobile and stiff?

Two of the only one to have dodged the bullet, by having skunk works, pirate groups is Sony and Apple (at least according to popular myth).

 

[Sal Santamaura]

If, as Ilford suggested, a new 220 packing machine would cost £300,000 (probably more by now), and the cost were amortised at £1 per film, that's 300,000 films which would have to be sold before the cost were recovered ! Add in the cost of special backing paper (and holding a huge stock to meet minimum order quantity), new packing and printing (individual film boxes and outer wholesale packing), staff training, warehouse space, advertising and distribution costs, a bit of profit for Ilford and a bit for the dealer, sales tax, and a few other overheads.

What would be a fair retail price for the film compared with two 120 films? And ask yourself if YOU would pay it regularly, compared with the cost of two 120 films, just to save a little effort to reload your Rolleiflex ?

(And, of course, we'd like to be able to choose from a couple of speeds of B&W, a couple of speeds of C-41, and ideally some slide film.)

Missing from this analysis is the lost revenue that HARMAN would suffer because photographers who purchase 220 aren't purchasing the 120 they were before a fantasy 220 revival.

 

[railwayman3]

Missing from this analysis is the lost revenue that HARMAN would suffer because photographers who purchase 220 aren't purchasing the 120 they were before a fantasy 220 revival.

Very good point, something obvious which I missed.

 

[jtk]

Kodak, Xerox and others even though employees warned management many times suffered from myopius huberis with the super cocky self pride chromosome.

The brightest minds went to CA early in EKs death spiral. Those that went to Xerox watched brighter minds leveraging each other's brighter minds at Google and Apple, tinkering with blockchain...some retiring as 30 year old billionaires. They never even heard of Rochester.

 

[Helge]

The brightest minds went to CA early in EKs death spiral. Those that went to Xerox watched brighter minds leveraging each other's brighter minds at Google and Apple, tinkering with blockchain...some retiring as 30 year old billionaires. They never even heard of Rochester.

What’s CA?
All the exciting stuff happened looong before Google and blockchain.
Most of today’s technology is just coasting on fumes, repacking technology and riding on the coattails of Moore’s Law.
You bet EK heard of PARC, and visa versa.
Technologies such a as E-ink, CMOS sensors and laserprinting was invented at PARC and had high relevance to EK.
Ever heard of Gary Starkweather (who died this December)?

 

[jtk]

What’s CA?
All the exciting stuff happened looong before Google and blockchain.
Most of today’s technology is just coasting on fumes, repacking technology and riding on the coattails of Moore’s Law.
You bet EK heard of PARC, and visa versa.
Technologies such a as E-ink, CMOS sensors and laserprinting was invented at PARC and had high relevance to EK.
Ever heard of Gary Starkweather (who died this December)?

CA is California. PARC is ancient history. That you don't like digital tech isn't important. That Kodak didn't is sad. Past tense.

 

[Helge]

Oh I like it. But whether or not one does, is like discussing the merits of ones latest cold or the weather.
It’s there and it’s beyond what one person can possibly fully understand or do much about.

PARC might seem ancient to some, but we haven’t advanced qualitatively beyond their work. On the contrary we have diluted some of their best ideas to nothing and crippled and misapprehended some of the others.

 

[eli griggs]

As I recall, at the time Kodak was letting go of a lot of film production, this was done under new investors, wanting it the Software/Digital scene, whom decided on their own to declare film is just about dead and no longer a major focus of the new Kodak.

Early on, they were building small, portable photo printers, that digital file could be downloaded in and a print would shoot out the printers... mouth.

I may be completely off base in my remembrance of what was reported at the time, but I believe Kodak was still profitable, it was just swallowed up by investment groups whom thought they new better than the people whom made, bought or shot their uncouth film related products.

IMO,

 

[eli griggs]

I should add, that the Kodak, and Polaroid scientist, resurchers, did no have the tools that are now being pushed out into the world at an incredible rate.

Maybe the kids over at MIT or Edinburgh could find a way to solve the backing issues, backing films, dissolving backing 'inks, or paper, please.

Does anyone know anyone working in the sciences/engineering departments to contact?

Anyone...

IMO.

 

[MattKing]

As I recall, at the time Kodak was letting go of a lot of film production, this was done under new investors, wanting it the Software/Digital scene, whom decided on their own to declare film is just about dead and no longer a major focus of the new Kodak.

Early on, they were building small, portable photo printers, that digital file could be downloaded in and a print would shoot out the printers... mouth.

I may be completely off base in my remembrance of what was reported at the time, but I believe Kodak was still profitable, it was just swallowed up by investment groups whom thought they new better than the people whom made, bought or shot their uncouth film related products.

IMO,

A portion of Kodak's film business remained profitable - primarily the motion picture film business - but large portions of their business simply nose-dived into un-profitability.
In particular, black and white paper and amateur (Super 8 mainly) movie films became incredibly unprofitable very fast.
In addition, the big movie distributors were actively working toward transitioning to digital projection and distribution, so the writing was on the wall for that part of their business - that transition has now essentially removed the major component of motion picture film revenue (the movie house projection prints).
As people switched to digital, the revenues from the photofinishing market also plummeted. That market had already been under great pricing pressures due to competition.
The medical film and data storage (microfilm) markets also were under assault from the digital transition.
The only product that Eastman Kodak retained which had the potential for the historical margins that Eastman Kodak had historically enjoyed was still films, and those volumes were down tremendously as well.
All of which meant that, as a publicly traded company, the directors had to search for other sources of high profit revenue in order to satisfy the demands of shareholders. Digital photography products really don't satisfy those needs, because most of the margins are razor thin.

 

[eli griggs]

Cheers, Matt.

 

[MattKing]

Cheers, Matt.

Cheers to you eli. If you encounter anyone with an out of the box idea that permits economic use of my 220 film cameras, I'll be support it!

 

[Donald Qualls]

I specifically searched for and purchased a 220 film magazine for my RB67, knowing I'd almost certainly never see another roll of 220 film (only ever handled one in my life -- and I'm no kid!).

I did it because I can use it to shoot 35 mm sprocket panoramic with little effort and with good quality. I'm far from the first to go there, and I'm sure I won't be the last. 3D printed adapters to make the 135 cassettes fit where a 120/220 spool would go, paper or acetate leader so as to not waste a foot of film (roughly four exposures) in loading, cassette-to-cassette path to allow unloading in the light (and a tail like the leader, so the last exposure isn't still in the gate when I unload) -- and a drop-in mask for the viewfinder to aid in framing.

Virtually any 220 film magazine or camera can be set up this way, and any modifications are reversible -- no damage to collector value or to the functioning of the magazine/camera in case the economic world turns on its head and 220 makes a comeback.

 

[eli griggs]

I have a thin, metal roller or two for a folder is about 120 film length, any other time I could rattle of the format without thought (and be correct), that I could use to make a 135 film loader out of, or a combo of hardwood spindles and roll caps. or just buy one on eBay, but I wonder how often I would use it.

I know Hasselblad made a 135 mag at some point and that it is rare, but other than as a 120 film saving tool, and a tool to allow for sprocket images, would I like using it?

I guess the only way to find out is to try to make and use one.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I know Hasselblad made a 135 mag at some point and that it is rare, but other than as a 120 film saving tool, and a tool to allow for sprocket images, would I like using it?

I wondered if I would buy one if available and I decided no. Making the spools for 135 in a 120 or 220 back? Now that would be like choking myself by shoving a spoon down my throat.