• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Ilford and 220, for film resurgence?

Your metal roller the length of a 120 is 620. Indispensable if you want to use 120 film in certain Kodak cameras (620 was originally Kodak's lock-in format -- same film as 120 but the spool was smaller, so the Kodak cameras would only take 620 film).

Yashica had a 135 adapter for at least one of their models (the 635); as I recall, it was standard 24x36 frame (it adjusted the film advance as well as masking the film gate). Made a nice portrait camera that way. Rollei made one of those too, for one version or another of Rolleiflex or Rolleicord. Handy for travelers, as it was often easier to get 135 film than 120, almost always cheaper, and you could fit more exposures in a small bag by using the compact 35 mm film.
 
It does run counter to simple cropping, but, the adage of, "never say never" is always more pragmatic, n'est pas?
 
Reading through all this about how the backing issue would be so bad for a 220 roll, but for the most part of the roll the film never sees the backing. I would think anyone dedicated to concocting 220 rolls could leave the ink off the area the emulsion would contact and avoid ink problems. A small outfit might roll a few to sell and get by with it. Big companies not so much.
 
And there is the rub - the small company's unit cost would be astronomical, because you can't buy small quantities of the paper, and you would have to hand assemble the leader plus film plus trailer packages.
You could probably get the film itself at relatively reasonable cost.
 
The thing about that is you wouldnt have to have such special paper, just has to be opaque enough to load and unload the film.
 
glbeas said:
The thing about that is you wouldnt have to have such special paper, just has to be opaque enough to load and unload the film.
Click to expand...
Along with having to be the special shape - thicker in the middle, tapering very, very slightly to the edge, in order to combine with the spool to block light leaks.
Plus a few other special characteristics that allow the film to be stored tightly wrapped in it for a couple of years at a time, without accelerating change in the emulsion.
It isn't run of the mill paper!
 
Helge said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think it's just due to marketing failure or lack of business acumen. Xerox's computing stuff was totally advanced, and some things like their Smalltalk or Lisp environments are still in a sense advanced even for year 2020.

However marketing an ultra-expensive computer with capabilities no one knew before isn't easy.

Apple itself failed twice trying to market a product that didn't even do all the things the Xerox Alto did. They failed horribly with the Lisa and then failed again (saleswise) with the early Macintosh.
 
The alternative name of the Alto was “The Interim DynaBook”.
It was always the aim to fold the concept down to something that could be easily put in the back of a cheap flat screen.
A concept nearer to that goal was the Xerox NoteTaker.
The first portable computer to be used on a passenger airline.
They where pretty damn close to an affordable machine by 1980 if they had held back a bit on the portability part.
Here’s the plan: http://bitsavers.org/pdf/xerox/notetaker/memos/19780306_NoteTaker_I_Project_Plan.pdf
 
I took the useful parts of a bunch of 220 Bronica backs, then threw away the remains. I never used 220, as I didn't shoot commercial work. I would tell Ilford and the rest to not use precious capital on resurrecting something that will not sell in sufficient quantities to be profitable. It would come in handy in my 6x9 and 6x17 Fuji cameras. .
 

Exactly.
Simon Galley have explained it to us in detail on our Ilford factory tour. Massive investments would be needed, and Ilford would probably never see a ROI, which means in fact making losses.
And it would not be additional business, but replacement business: One 220 film sold means two 120 films less sold. The 220 sales would cut into the 120 film sales.
Another important point:
The most important market for 220 film in the past has been professional fashion photography in colour. Not in BW.

Lachlan Young said:
A 127 spooler would likely be no cheaper than a 120 equivalent to build new
Click to expand...

That, and in addition the market for 127 film is even much smaller than the small "niche in the niche of a niche" market for 220 BW film.

Best regards,
Henning
 
mshchem said:
I would tell Ilford and the rest to not use precious capital on resurrecting something that will not sell in sufficient quantities to be profitable.
Click to expand...

Right. And 220 would only slow me down in hoping from one film stock to another. It's like a LIFETIME to get through 36 exposures in 135 film
 
Henning Serger said:
And it would not be additional business, but replacement business: One 220 film sold means two 120 films less sold
Click to expand...

This has to be one of the most salient point in this thread. The only business that would benefit is that of selling 220 film backs on eBay.
 
Henning Serger said:
And it would not be additional business, but replacement business: One 220 film sold means two 120 films less sold. The 220 sales would cut into the 120 film sales.
Click to expand...
The marketing advantage during the film era was to provide a product a competitor didn't. Or the possibility to charge more for the convenience of more shots/roll. Therefore, while the statement that there would be no additional business might be true, it doesn't necessarily follow that there wouldn't be a financial advantage for the film producer. Were it otherwise, there never would have been 220 film.

With that said, in the digital era, there is unlikely to be any advantage of 220 to a film producer.
 
wyofilm said:
Right. And 220 would only slow me down in hoping from one film stock to another. It's like a LIFETIME to get through 36 exposures in 135 film
Click to expand...
You Said it! I wish we could still get 20 exposure rolls of Tri-X. Oh Ilford could include in their annual special order. 20 exposure rolls of FP4, same price as retail 36exp rolls. Minimum order 1000 rolls, in a loose package in a big cardboard box.
 
Ilford already sells 12, 20, and 24 exposure FP4+, HP5+, and even Pan F (for that matter, six or eight or any other arbitrary length up to about 40 in standard cassettes). You must provide some basic equipment -- a bulk loader and at least one reloadable cassette. AFAIK, all of Ilford's 35mm film offerings are available in bulk rolls.
 
I gave up bulk loading years ago. Waste of time. In the day 20 and 36 was standard. Then manufacturers started offering "free extra 4 exposures" then it went to 27. Now we've standardized at 24. Kodachrome used to be sold in 36exp and 18 exposure, half rolls. I really don't care I don't shoot enough 35mm black and white these days. I'm a 120 film shooter and very happy with the 120 size. Even when shooting 4 exposure 6x17. I have a couple 220 pro-packs of Portra in the fridge. I think fall colors with the 617 make nice contact prints.
 
For me, bulk loading is far from a waste. With most film stocks, I can save around 20% vs. buying preloaded cassettes. Once I get my confidence up enough to start the loader in the dark again, I can avoid the two- to three-frame fogged tail (only have the inch or so that's unavoidable for the tail sticking out of the loader light trap). As others have noted before me, I also have the option to load shorter rolls (there's some waste, since the leader and tail are the same for six frames as they would be for thirty-six, but it's nice for testing, if nothing else).

My next XP2 Super purchase will probably be a bulk roll. I like the film, and saving a dollar or more on each cassette is worth the time, for me.
 
Donald Qualls said:
(there's some waste, since the leader and tail are the same for six frames as they would be for thirty-six, but it's nice for testing, if nothing else).
Click to expand...

Can't remember if it was a poster here, but I do remember seeing someone that was splicing reusable leaders onto their bulk load shorts to keep their film economy up.

Not sure how truly practical it really is, after designing and making an alignment jig, and I'm not sure how much trust I would put in different tapes to do the job for me. [Would bog standard 3M scotch tape be safe enough? I guess it might not be too bad if you're using the rolls quickly enough, but it doesn't sound like something I would want sitting for awhile, or left in a hot camera bag during the summer.]
 
I saw an interesting tip on another forum to save wasted frames on the leader when bulk loading. I think it came from PentaxPete who is also known here.

After you have wound on the desired number of frames to your reloadable cassette, cut off the film but do NOT pull out 3 inches or so in order to trim the
leader on the reloaded film. Instead you need to source some waste film to be trimmed up as a leader and then butt joined with tape to the film poking out of the cassette.

If you do it well you might gain another 3 - 4 frames which would have been exposed in loading the film with the camera back open.

I'm going to give it a go. I have plenty of 5 - 6 frame strips from old negs than can be sacrificed for this.

EDit: ninjaed by Luckless

Reply to Luckless. A lot of folk attempt to reload commercial cassettes by taping the bulk film to the stub of film
that remains after the minilab has done its job. I haven't tried this as I have heaps of reloadable cassettes.

I think that a butt join on the leader will be strong enough. Once 3 or 4 frames have been wound onto the takeup
spool all should be fine.
 
Last edited:
I'm still holding on to my A24 Hasselblad back in hopes of a miracle. But let's forget Ilford. Can't China do it?
 
If you're going to splice on leader to be used in a sprocket-equipped camera, you need to get the hole spacing right. I'd recommend a Griswold or similar 35mm cine film splicer. The one I have has pins to ensure the sprocket holes are the right distance apart, as well as a shear blade to make square cuts in both film ends and clamps to hold the ends secure while you use film splicing presstape.

I bought mine to put leaders on 35mm for use in a 220 back on my RB67, but splicing for sprocket drive (or sprocket counter) is what the device was actually made to do.
 
Back in the 70's, 80's, when I was still bulk loading I used 3M electrical tape, it never failed. I think this day I would try some paper based surgical tape. In the days of Leica fancy metal cassettes that would open when closing the back, Kodak sold pre cut bulk rolls so you could easily load your fancy cassettes in the dark. Leica made a little in the dark winder for loading cassettes.
 
[QUOTE="Donald Qualls, post: 2311919, member: 4594"AFAIK, all of Ilford's 35mm film offerings are available in bulk rolls.[/QUOTE]
Except, I think, D3200 and the new Ortho 80 Plus At least I could find no mention of it on the IlfordPhoto site

pentaxuser
 
when I bulk load I have always just used Masking tape. sometimes even the store brand from Home hardware. YMMV but the worst problem I have had was some film that had been sitting for too long making it hard to remove the tape for developing. ended up just cutting the film off the spool. I do make sure to have the tape evenly on both sides of the film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register