Ilford and 220, for film resurgence?

[nokia2010]

Never thought of that. I thought filmpack = one single sheet that can be loaded and unloaded on light. The more I study he past, the more I find that people where more advanced then I thought.
Well, I do apologize for people on this forum for that I look ingorant, but acces to information in Romania was limited and even today is pretty limited. After the falling of communism there was no interest for publishing certian stuff, acces to tech was limited (either because you can't find or either because of money) so most people don't know stuff and a lot of parents/educators or other people for reason of not knowing or not beeing intrested didn't know about stuff. For long I dind't know that books or other publications in different domanins (not only photography) existed... I could see only some stuff at second hand book sellers. Only in the internet era I found out about some things...

 

[Bikerider]

The only people who can answer the question originally asked is Ilford . Asking here is only inviting suppositions theories and figments of imaginations.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

When film packs were introduced (in the 1920s), they were a significant step forward from glass plates and single (or double) sheet film holders. Load your camera once, and get up to sixteen exposures in rapid succession, plus it was possible (for an experienced darkroom worker) to "rob the pack" -- remove exposed frames for processing while leaving unexposed film still in place for future use (this is more or less possible with 35mm or 70mm, but surely not with 120 or 220). Film pack wasn't "standard" in any way, however, except to its own standard. A 4x5 pack film was larger than 4x5 sheet film (so needed special equipment), on thinner base than 120 (to be flexible enough to pull around a 180 degree bend inside the pack when the tab was pulled after exposure), and the paper on the tabs and backing had to meet most of the same standards as 120 backing (it was in contact with the emulsion in the pack, both before and after exposure, and had to at least prevent print-through from what might be a gross overexposure to the next frame).

What I've read was that Kodak continued to produce, package, and sell pack film until the two women who'd been hand assembling the packs since the 1950s retired. At that point (in the early 2000s) it was no longer cost effective to train replacements for them, with film sales on the wane. Film pack was big in the press camera era -- an experienced press photographer could zip off sixteen frames with a Speed Graphic in very little more than a minute, and swap packs in thirty seconds or so to ready another sixteen frames. Once press photographers had all switched to smaller film, film packs became a niche item.

Donald, excellent summary of the benefits of the film pack. For the OP, here are some pictures of a Graflex film pack in operation:

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2020/09/testing-gaf-vesapan-45-film-packs-in.html

 

[Donald Qualls]

I thought filmpack = one single sheet that can be loaded and unloaded on light.

That's a Readyload or Quickload (Kodak and Fuji names for the same thing). Or Type 55 Polaroid, with an instant positive and reusable negative. All obsolete.

 

[Arthurwg]

China could do it, probably will at some point, They can make anything, and cheaply.

 

[Donald Qualls]

China could do it, probably will at some point, They can make anything, and cheaply.

Shaghai apparently has recently offered 220 -- by hand rolling with recut 120 paper for the leader and tail. There's a thread around showing the film damage that resulted (short version: scratches and fogging). Unless it's machine rolled, this isn't likely to improve, and unless there's some saving over buying twice as many 120 rolls, few will even want it -- as noted many times before, the only gain if 220 costs more than twice as much as 120 is a saving on reloads, and then only if you have hardware that can handle 220.

 

[Prest_400]

Well, if somebody didn't mentioned it, I never knew that a topic (thread) about 220 film extists.
This topic amazes me... isn't the 220 just a double lenghth 120 film? Dosen't is uses the same size backing paper as a 120 film?

Never thought of that. I thought filmpack = one single sheet that can be loaded and unloaded on light. The more I study he past, the more I find that people where more advanced then I thought.
Well, I do apologize for people on this forum for that I look ingorant, but acces to information in Romania was limited and even today is pretty limited. After the falling of communism there was no interest for publishing certian stuff, acces to tech was limited (either because you can't find or either because of money) so most people don't know stuff and a lot of parents/educators or other people for reason of not knowing or not beeing intrested didn't know about stuff. For long I dind't know that books or other publications in different domanins (not only photography) existed... I could see only some stuff at second hand book sellers. Only in the internet era I found out about some things...

No fault about knowing things recently. I have been around this forum and only knew about the existence of film packs since last year, whereas I did know about grafmatics (6 shot film holders for ordinary sheet film).
220 seems quite a nice format for the larger medium format (6x6+) in situations such as travel, where it is convenient to avoid reloading so often. I still have a propack of Fuji 160NS in 220 that I froze in expectation of some trip to Asia that has not happened. Anecdotically it is interesting that in 2015-16, 220 was quite available from Fuji in Japan at about 2x120 price whereas Kodak discontinued 220 Portra back in 2014 or so and it was more the double price of 120.
Some cameras, usually not the interchangeable back SLRs, have the functonality of shooting both 120/220 at the switch/flip of the pressure plate and counter mechanism. That is quite convenient.

Aside of the manufacturing equipment requirements which make it unfeasible, it would be wonderful to have some of the most popular 120 films in 220. A B&W like HP5 and Portra 400 for example.

 

[nokia2010]

But does anyone still makes filmpacks today?

 

[mshchem]

Dear Ilford, don't fiddle with 220. There's no market worthy of the effort and investment. Also, I still have Tri-X TXP 320 film packs in the deep freeze. I hate the stuff, flimsy, doesn't fit standard hangers, There's a reason this stuff went extinct.

I would rather have a Hasselblad with 3 different backs with 3 different films. 220 is just too damn long

MHOFWIW YMMV.

 

[mshchem]

But does anyone still makes filmpacks today?

No, but you can find Grafmatic holders that you can load with 6 sheets of your choice of films. Available for 2x3 and 4x5 inch cameras.

 

[nokia2010]

But for smaller size no?

 

[Lachlan Young]

What I've read was that Kodak continued to produce, package, and sell pack film until the two women who'd been hand assembling the packs since the 1950s retired. At that point (in the early 2000s) it was no longer cost effective to train replacements for them, with film sales on the wane.

It was the 1980's that saw the end of film pack, in part because of the challenges/ operator risks/ wastage in assembly, but also because of the advent of Quickload/ Readyload which also gave the benefit of offering the much stronger/ dimensionally stable sheet film base in a less challenging to manufacture package. Bob Shanebrook's 'Making Kodak Film' has the entire story of why Film Pack was withdrawn.

 

[nokia2010]

So for some entushiast like me, less option. I guess 2 x 3" is 9 x 12 or 9 x 13 c.m.

 

[Huss]

Shaghai apparently has recently offered 220 -- by hand rolling with recut 120 paper for the leader and tail. There's a thread around showing the film damage that resulted (short version: scratches and fogging). Unless it's machine rolled, this isn't likely to improve, and unless there's some saving over buying twice as many 120 rolls, few will even want it -- as noted many times before, the only gain if 220 costs more than twice as much as 120 is a saving on reloads, and then only if you have hardware that can handle 220.

No fogging, just scratches.

 

[Lachlan Young]

So for some entushiast like me, less option. I guess 2 x 3" is 9 x 12 or 9 x 13 c.m.

2.25x3.25" and 6.5x9cm were the US & European equivalents. Both used standardised holders of identical external dimensions, but the film is differently sized (won't fit in the wrong holder). Similar deal with 4x5"/ 9x12cm, 5x7"/13x18cm/ half plate and 8x10"/18x24cm.

220 is just too damn long

I think a lot of the 220 demands come from people who've never had to handle all 5ft plus of a roll of 220 when wet.

 

[Luckless]

Fourteen exposures before having to swap backs...

Seriously, a film pack loads sixteen exposures into a package about the same size as a double dark slide film holder. Load the pack holder, pull the first tab and tear it off, you're ready to expose. After each exposure, pull the lowest numbered tab visible and tear it off. When you run out of tabs, all the film is protected behind the spring plate in the film pack, so you can open the pack holder, take out the exposed pack, and load another. The film pack holder generally has its own dark slide, as well, so you can take it off the camera without fogging a frame.

IMO, film packs were the best possible way to use a press camera (or a plate camera, for that matter), especially if you have a rangefinder calibrated for the mounted lens. With film packs, 4x5 was faster than red window 120, comparable to lever-advance 120 backs -- but with more than twice the image area of even 6x9 cm 120 film.

Hadn't really given film packs any thought, as I only got into 4x5 recently and any mention of them was about 'dead tech', but had assumed they were more or less another take on the Grafmatic 6 shot magazine.

Finally looked it up and found an old video and action wise that's actually kind of slicker than I would have thought.

 

[mshchem]

2.25x3.25" and 6.5x9cm were the US & European equivalents. Both used standardised holders of identical external dimensions, but the film is differently sized (won't fit in the wrong holder). Similar deal with 4x5"/ 9x12cm, 5x7"/13x18cm/ half plate and 8x10"/18x24cm.



I think a lot of the 220 demands come from people who've never had to handle all 5ft plus of a roll of 220 when wet.

Especially, color film. To quote myself "Slippery'er than snot on a doorknob"

 

[nokia2010]

So do I have the chance to find film packs for something like this? https://www.liveauctioneers.com/en-gb/item/91488649_tropical-deckrullo-stereo-6-x-13-c-1925
or this: https://www.arsenal-photo.com/media...a-dresden-stereolette-cupido-620-camera~4.jpg
Or only sheet film?

 

[Donald Qualls]

I think a lot of the 220 demands come from people who've never had to handle all 5ft plus of a roll of 220 when wet.

Not much if any worse than handling a 135-36. Same length, give or take a couple centimeters, slightly wider. no slicker, and the width mostly makes up for the thinner base.

You want fun in the darkroom, try handling a similar length strip of 16mm, never mind a fifty foot camera roll...

 

[Huss]

2.25x3.25" and 6.5x9cm were the US & European equivalents. Both used standardised holders of identical external dimensions, but the film is differently sized (won't fit in the wrong holder). Similar deal with 4x5"/ 9x12cm, 5x7"/13x18cm/ half plate and 8x10"/18x24cm.



I think a lot of the 220 demands come from people who've never had to handle all 5ft plus of a roll of 220 when wet.

What's the issue? No problem handing my 220 film when I dev it. It's about the same length as 36 exp 35mm. Maybe a bit longer but not something I noticed.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Not much if any worse than handling a 135-36. Same length, give or take a couple centimeters, slightly wider. no slicker, and the width mostly makes up for the thinner base.

You want fun in the darkroom, try handling a similar length strip of 16mm, never mind a fifty foot camera roll...

Even 400ft cans of 16mm aren't particularly scary - unless you are loading/ unloading in makeshift circumstances - 220 is just that bit longer than 135, thinner & drying cabinets weren't always built with 220 in mind, especially not when using Paterson clips. For whatever reason, 220 colour tends to be a bit slipperier than 220 BW.

 

[nokia2010]

Probably I will sound dumb, but if you want to load a filmpack do you at least still find films for that can do that operations described on the YouTube clip?

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Probably I will sound dumb, but if you want to load a filmpack do you at least still find films for that can do that operations described on the YouTube clip?

As far as I know, no manufacturer today makes a film pack , meaning the metal canister in which there are 16 sheets of thin base 4×5 inch film. You can find expired ancient packs on the infamous 'bay.

 

[nokia2010]

But you can insert the films yourself in such a pack.
2 x 3" is more close to 220 then 4 x 5"... but I see in Romania you don't find 2 x 3"

 

[Donald Qualls]

If you were to reload a film pack, you'd have to have the correct size film (film pack is a little oversize for its nominal format, same size as the original glass plates, as I recall -- and if under that size, may not stay flat in the pack shell), as well as having suitable paper for the tabs and paper dark cover. Then you'd need a way to collate the film to the tabs, tape it on in correct alignment, route the tabs around the corner... And you'd have to have actual pack shells that haven't just been tossed when they were emptied, decades ago in most cases. Polaroid pack shells won't work.