I think it is best that this thread is closed. I will make my request to the moderators.
Thank you,
Jamusu.
I understand the distinction. My guess is that the sales
numbers reflect the low demand for 220 film, not the low
demand for TXP. Why? Because, if you are a B+W shooter
of 220-format film, TXP is (was) your only film. The
differences between 400TX and TXP are not so great as to
make the emulsion the deciding factor in whether the shoot
TXP 220 -- it's the format that's driving (or, more likely,
inhibiting) sales of the film.
And there are a lot of reasons for that. Most cameras
will not accept 220 film. Most processing setups expect
120 film. A 220 roll is eight feet long -- cumbersome to
handle, hard to hang to dry. The culture of MF photography
revolves around a four-foot strip of film: Twelve squares.
It does not seem likely that 400TX in 220 format would
generate any more sales than TXP in 220 did.
There are so many film formats that made sense that have
been orphaned over the years, with much much larger bases
of users -- 620 and 127 being the most obvious examples.
But browse the list of now-obsolete formats and weep:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format
By contrast, the user base for 220 must be much smaller,
because there are so many fewer cameras that rely on the
availability of 220 film.
The market doesn't really understand the difference between
TXP and 400TX -- the shared name confuses the difference,
and the difference in any event is academic if you're looking
to shoot 220 film in B+W. Asking Kodak to change the emulsion
is a nice idea, but it's not likely to generate more sales of 220.
As John Bowen asked, I have given some thought to his question. After all, I am not insensitive to your wants and needs, nor am I against the petition, I just feel that more participation is needed. Therefore, my thoughts. They explain things more clearly than my previous post.
One master roll of film will make about 15,000 rolls of 220 film or about 1/2 the 35,000 that it will make of 35mm. This film will have to be sold within the expiration date of the film or within about 3 years. To give you a 2 year lifetime in your hands, the film would have to be sold in one year. This gives you 2 years of life minus shipping and shelf time at dealers.
So, assume $10 / roll or greater, and we come up with a return to Kodak of about $150,000. Is this enough to cover labor and materials as well as other costs? IDK, but it comes pretty close to breaking even for them. My information on this is dreadfully out of date though.
Now, lets approach this from another angle. Kodak can make any product in any format including 4x5 or 8x10 Kodachrome if the return warrants it. But, here is the catch. It takes a pilot run of every emulsion and layer before committing to the production run of something "new". So, to do what you want with any product, there is an additional development time and cost that gets tacked on in front of the needs for the final return on investment.
So, I suspect that you can get what you want if you come up with 15,000 firm orders minimum up front if it is an existing product, and probably double that for a "new" product.
Now, this is OTOMH and vapor, but I'll bet it is closer than anyone else not in the business could estimate.
PE
I think there are probably more 220 capable cameras available then you think. As an example, all of the Mamiya 220 and 330 series TLRs are 220 capable. In addition, the Mamiya 645 AF cameras are all 220 capable.
Matt, I think your examples prove my point. The
cameras you mention also shoot 120 film. (Is there
any camera that will be made obsolete by the end
of the 220 format?) And if you total up all of the
220-capable cameras out there (most of which are
probably being used for 120 film anyway), they
cannot amount to more than a few percent of the
many millions of 120 MF cameras in existence.
Sanders, they had 320TXP-120 format. If it were a format issue then they probably would have just dropped it in 220 only.
Petitions do nothing to bring the film back. It is masturbation, and a waste of time.
By the time a film is cut from production, it is usually gone forever, and too late. The window to save it has passed, never to reopen.
We're talking dollars and cents here. Kodak cut that film because it's not profitable. And finding the Kodak rep to chat with does NOTHING...again, NOTHING. Kodak makes decisions on sales not empty petitions.
What can bring back a product is solid firm orders, and the sense that firm orders will continue into the future. A petition will not do that because Kodak nor any company likes to make those types of gambles.
Kodak is not in it for love of film...they're in it for $$, as they should be. They have stockholders to appease, as well as the board.
I would suggest we use the film that we still can buy and in production, and maybe the lesson here is that if you really love a film then use it. A lot!! Buy it and often....vote with your wallet, which is the final and most important "petition".
In the case of 220, colour film sales continue.
Sanders:
I think there are probably more 220 capable cameras available then you think.
As an example, all of the Mamiya 220 and 330 series TLRs are 220 capable. In addition, the Mamiya 645 AF cameras are all 220 capable.
If I read you correctly, I think you are saying that one of the measures of how little popularity there is for 220 is the fact that so little TXP 320 was being sold, even though it had the benefit of being the only emulsion available in that size. That logic might cut both ways. It may be that there would have been much more 220 sold if it had been available in a more popular emulsion.
One minor caveat - If I had prepared the petition, I might have left the choice of films more open-ended. It may be that Kodak would be more receptive to supplying TMY-2 or T-Max in 220 instead of TriX 400.
and the older Mamiya 645's, and the RB and RZ, the Bronicas, the Pentax 67 and 645, the Hasselblads, The Rollei SLR's... most MF cameras made since 220 came out can use it.
I agree.
I think that's a good point.
"older Mamiya 645's", don't they need a 220 insert? Or do the inserts take both 120 and 220?
They need a 220 insert to shoot 220 just as much as they need a 120 insert to shoot 120. You can shoot 120 in the 220 insert, and it comes out fine. Haven't tried it the other way around.
And if you total up all of the
220-capable cameras out there (most of which are
probably being used for 120 film anyway), they
cannot amount to more than a few percent of the
many millions of 120 MF cameras in existence.
There were millions -- millions! -- of 127-format
Brownies and other cameras (Baby Rolleiflexes!)
and they didn't generate enough demand to make
it worthwhile for Kodak to continue to manufacture
127 film. Kodak orphaned millions of its own
Brownie cameras by this decision -- as, again, it
did with the end of 620 film, a format unique to
Kodak cameras. Do you think that the market for
B+W 220 film even comes close to what demand
had been for these now-obsolete films?
"older Mamiya 645's", don't they need a 220 insert? Or do the inserts take both 120 and 220?
I signed. I don't use Kodak films (Ilford4life!), nor do I use 220, but its sad to see any film get pulled.
I do not agree with that. A few percent? Most MF cameras made since 220 was introduced can use 220. Most 120-only cameras have not been made for a long time, and see little use compared to newer ones.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?