Ilford and 220, for film resurgence?

[BradS]

Me three

Me four.

 

[ic-racer]

Wow, why all the 127 criticism? It was my first rollfilm format i ever developed. It was a few years before I could ever afford a 35mm camera. I used a Patterson tank and got that particular one because the reel had a 127 setting.
I used an Ansco Cadet Reflex. It was 12 years before I got my first Rolleiflex TLR.

 

[Hunter_Compton]

The subject of a coating to replace backing paper got me thinking. This would be necessary for any film format using a window and numbers for film advance, but turning back to the original subject of 220, is backing paper really necessary?

Since all cameras set up for 220 have automatic film advance, you don't have a window that could potentially expose the film. Thus, 220 only has backing paper as the leader and tail end. Now, film stock is already opaque, so you don't really need backing paper at all. If you cut a 60mm wide length of film as long as a roll of 220 with a tongue cut into the leader and tail, you would now have a 220 equivalent, no backing paper needed. The film at the beginning and end of the roll would lightproof the center, as with 8mm & 16mm motion picture film.

Now the disadvantage is that this would require more film stock than would 2 rolls of 120. Additionally, I don't think this is commercially viable either as it would require a manufacturer to set up a competing production line with their own product.

 

[MattKing]

Much like 120 backing paper, the leader and trailer are actually of varying thickness, with the centre being thicker than the sides.
This, in combination with the spool, is what prevents stray light coming in through the side via light piping.
Any backside coating would have to be able to have the same ability.
If you don't have a leader or trailer, I expect light piping would cause serious problems - particularly when loading and unloading the camera.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The subject of a coating to replace backing paper got me thinking. This would be necessary for any film format using a window and numbers for film advance, but turning back to the original subject of 220, is backing paper really necessary?

Since all cameras set up for 220 have automatic film advance, you don't have a window that could potentially expose the film. Thus, 220 only has backing paper as the leader and tail end. Now, film stock is already opaque, so you don't really need backing paper at all. If you cut a 60mm wide length of film as long as a roll of 220 with a tongue cut into the leader and tail, you would now have a 220 equivalent, no backing paper needed. The film at the beginning and end of the roll would lightproof the center, as with 8mm & 16mm motion picture film.

Now the disadvantage is that this would require more film stock than would 2 rolls of 120. Additionally, I don't think this is commercially viable either as it would require a manufacturer to set up a competing production line with their own product.

If it was as easy as you think would it have the professional film engineers figured that out scalded ago? What makes you think that you are so much smarter than they were? Really?

 

[Hunter_Compton]

If it was as easy as you think would it have the professional film engineers figured that out scalded ago? What makes you think that you are so much smarter than they were? Really?

Hey, there's no need to get belligerent. The OP sought solutions, we mostly came down on him, and I happened to have a thought in the process that might be relevant.

Furthermore, I never claimed that this was an original Idea, and cited a few examples of how it had been used previously. But, to clarify, the idea of using the film itself as a leader is an old idea, used in most motion picture rolls, as with the roll of regular 8mm movie film shown below. The film is not provided with any other shielding than the film on the outermost part of the roll, and once enough film has been advanced through the camera, the unexposed part is ready for use.

This is not an idea limited to motion picture stock either, as the Universal Camera Company provided 35mm film in this manner for the original Mercury camera.

(Rick Oleson photo)

I have already stated why this idea was not viable commercially, it utilizes more film stock for non-photographic purposes, presumably increasing cost except in circumstances, like motion picture film, where the leader represents a very small amount of the overall film usage.

I was not advocating this as a method for commercial production, however it would be a way for an amateur to achieve a greater number of images on the same spool size as 120 film, achieving the same goal of 220 film.

As to light piping, the concept does work as shown by the examples above. I would stick with cellulose acetate based film stock though, and avoid anything like polyester, which is particularly known for light piping.

But, as always, I am happy for anyone to try this in reality and prove me wrong.

 

[MattKing]

I think the motion picture example is interesting, but I would note that the sides on the motion picture spools were designed with this in mind - and all the cameras depend on their being no change yo those spools.
The 120/220 spools have sides that are relatively quite small, and I expect that if one had as much film serving as leader on a 120 or 220 spool as one uses on a motion picture spool, the rolls would have to have a lot fewer frames, and the frame counters would need to be changed.
That 100+ year old designed backing paper is quite amazing stuff.

 

[Hunter_Compton]

I think the motion picture example is interesting, but I would note that the sides on the motion picture spools were designed with this in mind - and all the cameras depend on their being no change yo those spools.
The 120/220 spools have sides that are relatively quite small, and I expect that if one had as much film serving as leader on a 120 or 220 spool as one uses on a motion picture spool, the rolls would have to have a lot fewer frames, and the frame counters would need to be changed.
That 100+ year old designed backing paper is quite amazing stuff.

It really doesn't take much film to act as a leader. If you look at the mercury as an example (which also has to deal with the added example of sprocket holes overlapping) it calls for the film to be advanced 10 frames before a picture can be taken, once the film has been loaded. The image size on a Mercury CC is 24x19mm, so that's 190mm of film advancement minimum. On a spool that is about 80mm in circumference, that gives 2.4 turns abound the spool in the outer layer.

 

[guangong]

Even in the old days I only shot a few rolls of 220. The reason is that shooting MF is much more studied and 10 to 12 exposures is just about right. Both 35 mm and Minox began with 50 exposure rolls, but shooting 50 pictures at one time compared to 36 just seems to be to much. 36 works with 35 mm because we work in a more casual mood with the smaller film and camera.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Not to mention, these days, where can you get a 35 mm film reel and daylight tank that will accommodate 50 exposures? That'd be, what, about a seven foot strip (36 is five feet)? Three or four more turns on the reel at the outside, that'd add an inch, roughly, to the diameter of the tank.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Wow, I missed this thread when it was fresh, and just went back and read the first page. I see a couple reasoning errors.

First, apparently, Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford have sources of 120 backing, and only the back-side printing need be changed to cut the leader and tail off a full 120 to make a 220 roll. Splicing and rolling in darkroom conditions, failed/worn out machinery to do so are a much more convincing argument, but if you have access to 62mm film stock, rolling your own 220 shouldn't be any harder than rolling 620, either in a changing tent or a darkroom. I wouldn't bother, compared to shooting two rolls of 120, even if I had a huge roll of 62mm film in the freezer -- because I can roll 120 more easily than I can roll 220 -- but it's not impractical, just doesn't make much sense unless you have a 220 camera/roll holder that isn't duplicated by a 120 and won't correctly handle 120 film for some reason.

Also, I'd note that Rera is producing new 127 that, based on YouTube videos, appears to be machine rolled. Presumably they've got one of the old, still-working 127 rolling machines. Again, however, backing paper isn't hard to produce; for 4x4, you can use a full length 120 backing cut to width preserving the 6x4.5 track (I know, I've done it); you'll get extra space between frames compared to original 127, but you'll also get a longer roll, 16 frames instead of 12, and yes, it does fit on original 127 spools (I've done it). For the other 127 formats, 4x6 and 3x4, you'd have to print the additional track numbers onto the backing -- but if you're cutting 120 backing anyway, running the strips through an high speed ink jet printer is an almost trivial addition, though I doubt there's enough demand for 127 to pay off the capital expenditure in a reasonable period of time.

Cutting 120 backing even works for 828 (again, I've done it). The 6x4.5 track comes in again (828 was only ever 28x40 mm, AFAIK, due to the single perf camera trigger that Kodak reused for 126). If you're cutting 120, you have to wind the resulting 828 on the spool backward to get the edge marking on the edge that should have the perfs (so it's not in frame), hence the frame window counts down, not up, but it does work, and again, you get 16 frames and they fit on the spool that originally held 8 or 12. Still practical to cut backing from 120 stock for commercial purposes, I'd think, and with the ability to control where the edge marking goes you wouldn't need to count backward from 16 -- most Bantam cameras will work without the one perf per frame.

If there were ten times as many of us shooting vintage and antique cameras, however, this still wouldn't make economic sense in terms of return on investment unless there was surviving equipment that could be repaired economically -- and for 828 there surely isn't; that format's been gone for almost forty years; even if there's equipment that escaped the scrap heap, it's probably too corroded, rubber parts too brittle, etc. The alternative would be the "fireworks factory" method -- contract with a Chinese country school to employ their student for the hand work. Ethical and quality control problems, obviously, but I can't say with complete confidence this isn't how Rera is doing their 127 (probably not -- once again, their film, at least on video, looks machine rolled).

 

[ic-racer]

if you have access to 62mm film stock,.

Anyone?? I'd love a link, or source. Nothing comes up with Google. Is this special order from Ilford.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Anyone?? I'd love a link, or source. Nothing comes up with Google. Is this special order from Ilford.

From my reading, it has been -- they've cut 62mm and 46mm stocks as part of their periodic ULF special cutting. Whether those are on roll film base or the heavier sheet film base, I don't know, but I can't see they'd be much use if they were too stiff to roll through the camera or too thick to get a full roll onto the spool.

 

[MattKing]

First, apparently, Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford have sources of 120 backing, and only the back-side printing need be changed to cut the leader and tail off a full 120 to make a 220 roll.

That "back side printing" change is more of a challenge than you might think.
Kodak had immense problems - that took many months to fix - with just that back side printing on 120 when they ran out of their huge inventory of backing paper that they had historically manufactured in house. Complaints of damage from wrapper offset came from around the world, and the problem was extremely different to solve.
The inks used in commercial printing processes now are very different than traditional inks.
The third party who does their 120 backing paper manufacturing and printing has very high minimum order requirements, so that change in printing is going to run right up against that problem.

 

[BradS]

Why anybody would want 220 revived at this point is way beyond my ability to comprehend. Even in its heyday, it was not a big seller. What's the business case for bringing it back now?

No, I'd much rather Ilford and the others concentrate on doing what they're doing and doing it well....staying (or in the case of Kodak, getting) financially healthy.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Wrapper offset. Forgot about that.

So, what's needed is an on-the-fly ink that won't diffuse into the gelatin or outgas in a way that can fog the emulsion. Or an overcoat for the back side of the paper -- like, say, a polyurethane lacquer like what comes in spray cans at the big box store. Or an alternative supplier.

Is that same third party doing the backing for every other 120 stock on Earth? Foma? Relabeled Foma for Freestyle (.EDU Ultra)? Adox? Relabeled Adox for Adorama (Ultrafine)? Shanghai? JCH? G3?

Someone, somewhere, is printing 120 (and, for Rera, 127) backing paper, and I haven't hear about wrapper offset problems with all those other films. I'd bet they're not all getting it from the the same third party that services Kodak...

 

[eli griggs]

Just because some things are well beyond our individual "ability to comprehend" this does no mean that those of us whom see a use for a thing, are somehow "wrong", only that some of us do no understand the thing from the POV of those whom do see potential.

For example, a very strong and suitably thick backing "tape" of opaque plastic, could replace actual paper, leads and tails, and be painted/printed on with modern inks or even thinner liquid plastic embossing 'inks', so as to continue the multi-format use of 62mm films.

No one knows before hand how well or no a readily available 127 or 220 film, will perform, until the market has those films in the market place, so, I do no accept that we should no try to get it reconsidered in both techknowledge and the Boardroom, the effort to try.

Re-reasoning your production and product line should be considered an asset, in today's World Economy where there may be new markets coming into their own, that have yet to be offered or have available, products other peoples may want to buy and use.

IMO.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Hey, there's no need to get belligerent.

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.

 

[markbau]

It should be remembered that back in the golden days of film, 220 was never a huge seller, sure the wedding and product photographers used it but at the lab I worked at in Denver in the 1990's I reckon 220 film accounted for less than a quarter of the medium format film that we processed. I also recall talking to a bloke at Lindahl's, Denver's biggest pro photo shop and he said that he only ordered in enough to satisfy the few regular 220 users. The wedding and product shooters are digital now (yes, a tiny few wedding shooters still use film) so a company would be mad to produce 220 film IMHO.
Forgot to mention, so many of the 220 films I processed had the aforementioned "light piping" caused by people not being meticulous when taking the film out of the camera/back and letting it unroll just a tiny bit. no, let 220 RIP I say.

 

[MattKing]

Re-reasoning your production and product line should be considered an asset, in today's World Economy where there may be new markets coming into their own, that have yet to be offered or have available, products other peoples may want to buy and use.

Totally agree.
And it would be absolutely great if an innovative approach and/or a technological breakthrough could result in the economic production of 220 film.
The challenges I've been referring to in this thread aren't really related to problems with the film itself, or any attitude that if it has been difficult in the past, it can't be done in the future.
Those challenges are essentially challenges of context.
220 film is an adaptation of a standard that is more than 100 years old - the 120 film standard.
Production of the film itself is essentially a trivial exercise for anyone who already produces 120 film. And the film itself is of almost trivial cost compared to all the other costs. It is the challenge of fitting that longer film into that 100+ year old standard that provides the technical challenge.
It is the confectioning of the film - the different edge printing, the replacement of 120 backing paper (with the printing on it) with a 220 leader and 220 trailer (and the printing on them) - and the different steps required relating to marketing and distribution - packaging, updating of manufacturer's datasheets, additional SKUs, additional shipping and inventorying and marketing expenses - which impact how economic the product is.
A technological solution that doesn't solve the economic challenge isn't a solution for the actual problem.
I doubt you would see any 120 film available if there wasn't already in existence high volume, highly efficient machines capable of turning out 120 film at an economic cost.

 

[BradS]

J
....snip....
No one knows before hand how well or no a readily available 127 or 220 film, will perform, until the market has those films in the market place,

This is absolutely false. All financially viable corporations certainly have a very good idea of the market conditions for their products (so too do a handful of specialized analysts for each industry) and are always concerned with increasing revenues and profits - continuously looking for ways to do just that.

If there were a compelling business case for 220 they would produce 220....and as many here have pretty clearly explained there simply is not a viable business case for 220 at this time.

If you think other wise, please do a thought experiment, work some numbers..share it here. Please give it some serious thought....how many potential customers worldwide? how many rolls of 220 would each buy per year, at what retail price? what percentage of the retail price is retained by the manufacturer?

Keep in mind that even here on APUG, there are only a tiny few who have said they'd buy any at all and theose who've said they'd buy some have also said they'd likely not buy more than five rolls per year...where is the business case? Stop fantasizing and think.

 

[ic-racer]

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.

 

[BradS]

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.

Sell the Rolleis and get yerself a Hasselblad with a handful of backs. Give the left over cash to Ilford.

 

[Donald Qualls]

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.

Funny you should mention that. Loading film into a Paterson tank for the first time in 12 years, I just did exactly that.

My old way was to load the first roll, leave it close to the start of the spiral, then start the second and advance it until they touch; slap a strip of masking tape over the join, and just keep walking the film into the reel. Today (possibly because I bought actual 3M Blue Painter's Tape, which is made to come off cleanly even after a long time on the work surface), the tape didn't hold, I had to use the old way, push the first roll all the way to the core and then start the second and walk it on, stopping as soon as the tail was past the ball bearings.

Of course, with different films from different cameras, 220 wouldn't have been any help anyway.

 

[pentaxuser]

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.

I got the impression that the "critics" you mention fall into two camps. Those who have said that they would not use 220 from choice and those who are pointing out the difficulties of resurrecting 220 at a cost that makes the case for its re-establishment viable to the film companies means that the demand would fall a long way short of sufficient

Nobody is saying that 220 is not an asset for some photographers or that it is wrong to want to be able to buy it, are they? Are they critics in the sense that most of us would define critics?

pentaxuser