Ilford and 220, for film resurgence?

[eli griggs]

I've used both yellow and blue masking tape and painters tape and have yet to have a single roll come loose from the spool.

I suppose there is some economy in using the cut off ends of a roll on a spool, as the anchor point for a lenght of new film, especially if loading short rolls, but if I were to go to the trouble of using those tails, I might as well also used processed leaders, for taking up the first 2-4 winding of the camera lever, which all together might save, what?, 20% on a roll of 24 frames.

20% is no a bad savings especially when you consider just doing it as needed for testing cameras, etc, plus you will instantly know these rolls from the cans, by the clear leaders.

The bulk loader can aid in lining up the tail section and you can then slip the cassette over the film in a darkroom, and trim, leaving just a bit outside the cassette, for the leader.

A 10% - 20% savings on short rolls might even help offset the price of Tri-X enough to keep that in the bag as well, after all, it is the wasted, unexposed film in the tail and leader from a typical bulk loaded roll that kills the economy of a short roll, which is why, many, including myself, have stuck to the long roll format when bulk loading.

I have some short rolls to make up for testing a 'new' camera or two, so I do believe I will give this a shot, though your mileage may vary.

This might also be a better way to keep cameras in circulation, if you have even a modest number waiting their turns, on the shelves.

By-the-way, anyone given up on bulk-loading, please, feel free to send my your loaders and short rolls, even the old ones!

IMO.

 

[MattKing]

By-the-way, anyone given up on bulk-loading, please, feel free to send my your loaders and short rolls, even the old ones!

That's funny, I was trying to think of a way to send a few extra feet of film to a few people, to help them stop worrying about saving a frame or two each roll!

 

[Henning Serger]

The marketing advantage during the film era was to provide a product a competitor didn't.

Well, in "theory" right, but in reality not: Because all of the major 120 film manufacturers (Kodak, Fuji, Agfa, Ilford) also offered 220 film.
Therefore no real marketing advantage.

Or the possibility to charge more for the convenience of more shots/roll.

But how many photographers would today pay a higher price for one 220 instead of two 120 films? As someone who is also doing market research in the photo market as part of my daily job I ensure you: Only a few, and definitely not enough for Ilford to justify the enourmous investments needed. Please don't forget: Even the companies with much much higher former demand for 220 - Kodak and Fujifilm - had meanwhile stopped 220 because of too low demand.

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.

But in the past we had a completely different situation: No digital imaging. And a huge professional film market with a very healthy market for portrait, fashion and advertizing, in which many profs benefitted from 220 films.

With that said, in the digital era, there is unlikely to be any advantage of 220 to a film producer.

Exactly. At least not in the short and mid-term. Maybe in the long-term (10 years), if the film revival continues in a sustainable and strong way. In that case the niche for 220 could perhaps be big enough again.
But in the current situation, and the next coming years, our brave Knights of Knutsford from Ilford have more than enough big challenges to manage (Covid-19 crisis including sub-optimal UK government crisis management, the Brexit which will have significant negative impacts on them as a company which exports 90% of their production, and lots of that to the EU).
Ilford has to make priorities, And new 220 would definitely be the wrong one.
And I am saying that as someone who have liked shooting 220, as max. 15 pictures from my Mamiyas often feels limiting in many of my shooting situations (despite using several magazines).

Best regards,
Henning

 

[PFGS]

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.

What style of loaders do you use? I gave up on Watson-style in favor of Lloyd-style because I found them much less wasteful of long fogged tails, with the manageable risk of film-scratching grime in the felt trap. But either way, I think bulk loading is totally worth the savings. I just save it for when I'm in the mood for end-of-the-day, kids are in bed busy work that doesn't involve a screen or the book I'm too tired for.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've never even handled a Lloyd style. I now own four Watson style (one a genuine Watson in Bakelite, from the 1960s, with 1960s vintage slow film inside), though I haven't found the ones I was using fifteen years ago (still stored from my move). If I'm loading four or five cassettes at once, I'll do it in the darkroom, and do the cassette spool handling in the dark, then turn the light back on while the loader lid is closed. "What's the point of a daylight loader if you have to use it in the dark?" I can use it entirely in a lit room -- I just don't always, and when I do the cassette start (or the whole process) in the dark it's still easier (with the clicks) to get the right amount of film in the cassette.

 

[PFGS]

I've never even handled a Lloyd style. I now own four Watson style (one a genuine Watson in Bakelite, from the 1960s, with 1960s vintage slow film inside), though I haven't found the ones I was using fifteen years ago (still stored from my move). If I'm loading four or five cassettes at once, I'll do it in the darkroom, and do the cassette spool handling in the dark, then turn the light back on while the loader lid is closed. "What's the point of a daylight loader if you have to use it in the dark?" I can use it entirely in a lit room -- I just don't always, and when I do the cassette start (or the whole process) in the dark it's still easier (with the clicks) to get the right amount of film in the cassette.

Well, If you ever consider picking up a Lloyd, the main thing to look out for besides dirty felt is that many people overtightened the large film chamber cover's screw and after sitting that way for long, the whole thing warps its way to light-leaks.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Unlikely I'll ever switch (like telling a Ford driver what to watch out for if they ever buy a Chevy), but thanks for the warning.

 

[PFGS]

Unlikely I'll ever switch (like telling a Ford driver what to watch out for if they ever buy a Chevy), but thanks for the warning.

Ah, see? I'm a Honda driver; if Toyota looks better next time, one soullessly perfected Japanese driving appliance is much like another.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Heh. My first car (in 1976) was a white Ford sedan; the one I have now, which might possibly be the last (if I can manage to quit driving 23,000 miles a year to and from work before I wear it out) is a (much smaller) white Ford sedan. In between, there have been lots of colors, but more than half of all the cars I've owned have been Ford (or Mercury, which back then was Ford with different sheet metal). Every 35mm SLR I own is M42. Phones, TVs, computers, I jump around (or, in the latter case, build my own), but for some things, you find a fit and stick with it.

 

[wyofilm]

Well, in "theory" right, but in reality not: Because all of the major 120 film manufacturers (Kodak, Fuji, Agfa, Ilford) also offered 220 film.
Therefore no real marketing advantage.

As a marketer, I'm sure you are aware that once company produces a successful (and profitable product) many (all) competitors are compelled to offer a like product to keep up. This gives company 'A' a brief period of time to profit on their success before their advantage evaporates when the late comers catch up. Once profits evaporate through new competition, the reverse can be true. Reduced losses come from the company who first abandons the 'new' product (in this case 220 roll film).

You are right: 220 ain't coming back.

 

[grat]

220 to me has always seemed like a large number of trade-offs for what is essentially convenience.

I'd be more interested in a 120/620 compatible spool-- perhaps a slightly thinner core, and a breakaway ring on each end. Ideally with the post / hole from the Fuji film spool and leader, to make winding a bit simpler.

There are a huge number of very nice 620 cameras out there that I avoid simply because re-spooling is tedious.

 

[Nokton48]

I have little reason for new 220 for a couple of reasons.

When the products were being closed out in the marketplace, I loaded up, I've got quite a bit of 220 Plus-X, HP5+. It should be good for a while.

Also I shoot 70mm (just got 50' of fresh HP5+ from B&H) sometimes I load a 70mm cassette with 24 exposures. This I can develop in a modified JOBO reel in a 2500 Multitank 5 or 6 along with 35mm and 120 at the same time

Yes it's a bit pricey for bulk film but it is fresh stock.

 

[iakustov]

I keep ~150 rolls of 220 Velvia 100 in my fridge, it should last me at least several years. With two 220 rolls in a Paterson tank I can achieve the "maximum yield" per 1 litre of Tetenal E6 stock (according to their recommendation).

 

[Ernst-Jan]

I keep ~150 rolls of 220 Velvia 100 in my fridge, it should last me at least several years.

If you keep them in the fridge - rather than putting it in a camera - it well be enough for ever Sometimes I find 15 frames with my M645 quite a lot, the 12 I can take with the C330 feels like a perfect number!

 

[Luckless]

Sometimes I find 15 frames with my M645 quite a lot, the 12 I can take with the C330 feels like a perfect number!

I also find 12 is usually a pretty good number. Unless it isn't...

I've gone so far as to start toying around with designs for the tools to cut roll film into small sheets, and have lightweight film carriers, similar to the internal holders on a Grafmatic Film Magazine.

I'm still working on a good daylight changing system that lets me dump the 'spent' film and reliably top off the magazine as needed, and I'm on the fence for handling the film for development, but I'm rather liking the idea of a 6x6 or 6x7 camera where the rolls are always just as short as I need them, and I can push or pull any given frame with ease.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Upgrade to 6x9 and a Graflok back and you can buy a 2x3 Grafmatic and not have to invent the stuff yourself. You can still buy 2x3 film (not many emulsion choices, but it's out there), and a Yankee Agitank will accept both 6.5x9 and 2x3 (as well as 3x4, 9x12, and 4x5). Grafmatics have dark slides, you just need one for each increment of six film sheets. I've though of getting a Grafmatic (or two, or three) to mount on my RB67. I'll see how the Graflex 22 film magazine works out before I decide.

 

[Luckless]

I have a 4x5 Pressman, which honestly doesn't get nearly enough attention, but feeding it is not fun for the wallet compared to my medium format.

For what I can pick up locally it is nearly $2.5 a shot for the large format, assuming any is in stock, as opposed to $0.75 for 6x6 in 120, which is pretty much always in stock.

Comparing the local prices for 2x3 gets a bit philosophical, as I've never seen it in stock anywhere here. [Beyond that, I don't really care for the ratio...] Which makes justifying a switch to that format for want of a slightly[Questionably?] more convenient version of the 120 6x6 a bit hard to swallow when I don't yet have a camera for it.

And most of the fun of a 6x6 'sheet film' camera would be in making and tuning the thing.

Of course, if a 2x3 of some form comes my way out of someone's closet because they're freeing up space for more linens or something, and I'm the only fool they know still using film, then I'm totally just going to order a few boxes of Aristra off B&H or something, and have my fun.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The only reason I haven't ordered 2x3 film yet is that regular film holders don't hold well on a Graflok back that doesn't have the spring overlay (on 4x5 it would be the ground glass). Mind you, I don't mind 4x5, since I mostly shoot Arista .EDU Ultra, and that's still only about a dollar a sheet if I buy 50 sheet boxes.

 

[europanorama]

120(61.5mm) can easily be stitched to get 220. have seen a 120-cutter to get 127. paper will stay. if we could only get 61.5mm bulk. have seen some avipan 80s-stuff on ebay 4 usd/m. have an alternative to 70-120-spool in 70mm cartridge. not yet 3dprinted but mockup is working. Mamyia RB67/70 back can be transformed into 70/120(61.5mm) donorside only. this magazine has vacuum-option. have one which has insert with broken counter. at end when film has overlenght-e.g. 6.5m for 0.1mm film there is no need to open door to zero counter one can shoot further without intervention. there are thinner films to mount more than 6.5m.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

120(61.5mm) can easily be stitched to get 220. have seen a 120-cutter to get 127. paper will stay. if we could only get 61.5mm bulk. have seen some avipan 80s-stuff on ebay 4 usd/m. have an alternative to 70-120-spool in 70mm cartridge. not yet 3dprinted but mockup is working. Mamyia RB67/70 back can be transformed into 70/120(61.5mm) donorside only. this magazine has vacuum-option. have one which has insert with broken counter. at end when film has overlenght-e.g. 6.5m for 0.1mm film there is no need to open door to zero counter one can shoot further without intervention. there are thinner films to mount more than 6.5m.

Once a year you can get 70mm HP5+ in the ULF programme.

 

[Nokton48]

70mm Film Smorgasboard by Nokton48, on Flickr

Punchinello and 70mm Cheap HP5+ from B&H by Nokton48, on Flickr


System 4 to 70mm MOD 1 by Nokton48, on Flickr

System 4 to 70mm MOD 2 by Nokton48, on Flickr

System 4 to 70mm MOD 3 by Nokton48, on Flickr

System 4 to 70mm MOD 4 by Nokton48, on Flickr

System 4 to 70mm MOD 5 by Nokton48, on Flickr

This is a Patterson System 4 Tank I purchased in the UK from Ebay. I cut down two of the reels so that only the central post and the end cap remained. The rest of the two reels were cut away and thrown out. I used self tapping stainless screws to secure the reels onto the rods squarely and strongly. The result is a trimmed down set of 70mm spaced reels, so I can run two 220 lengths at once. Also I can add a 35mm reel on the end so that helps as I always have a roll or two of 35mm to process.

 

[Nokton48]

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=70mm hp5&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=hist-ma

Attention! Attention!

B&H has 50 foot rolls of type II perfed 70mm HP-5+ for $229.

The link says "in stock".

No savings over 120 but photo firepower!

 

[mshchem]

D6

 

[Nokton48]

A70 70mm Backs loaded 24 exposures each by Nokton48, on Flickr

Yesterday I loaded these four A70 70mm Hasselblad backs with 24 exposures each. A much wider choice of emulsions was available in 70mm versus 220.

 

[Sirius Glass]

A70 70mm Backs loaded 24 exposures each by Nokton48, on Flickr

Yesterday I loaded these four A70 70mm Hasselblad backs with 24 exposures each. A much wider choice of emulsions was available in 70mm versus 220.

I would like to have the 70mm backs and Jobo development system like you do, but I do not shoot enough film to go to the trouble. Also I also shoot Portra 400 which is not available in 70mm perforated format.