Is anyone making 220 film?

[Sirius Glass]

It may have been that 220 film wasn't marketed as well in the UK, my cameras were/are capable of using it. I would have used it if readily available off my dealers or labs shelf particularly in my Mamiya 645s.

Ian

As a UK photographer (strictly amateur) since the late 70s, the first time I heard of 220 was sometime after 2010. I finally realised why my Kiev 6C has an adjustable pressure plate for 120/220. Never heard of the format, never saw it in a shop , never came across anyone using it. Even the people who taught me photography at school never mentioned it....we covered 135, 120, 126, 127 and 110 (though only 135 was used there). I never read about it in any books on photography either. So I am thinking it was a very small niche here.

That said, I would use the occasional roll if it was available, especially in my favourite B&W films. I seem to recall Dave Bias of Film Ferrania saying that there are considerable differences between producing 120 and 220....and just because a company can do 120 doesn't mean they can also do 220. It's not on their radar as far as I know.

It was not marketed well anywhere on Earth.

 

[pentaxuser]

APUGERS have contacted THE ONE REMAINING MAKER OF BACKING PAPER -- the will not sell to individuals. So unless you have a stash of used paper you are SOL.

Any more info Gerald? Do you know who the APUGers were and how did this come to your attention?

It shouldn't be all down to Gerald of course so any of the APUGers who were refused sale please feel free to respond as well. Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Fin]

Just stick to 120 film and make nice paper weights from 220 magazines

It depends what camera/back you have, but one of my SQ-A backs is a 220 and after a bit of tweaking it works fine for 120. I removed the pressure plate, bent the flat metal spring a bit to make it a bit less erm, springy, then put it back together. The film loads up exactly the same and goes through it with no problems. I just have to remember to stop after the 12th shot, cover the lens and fire a few blank shots.

I don't know about other cameras, but in the SQ-A (and probably the ETR) the top roller in the back turns and operates a pin that tells the camera body to cock the shutter, so once the backing paper end has passed this, the winder operates continuously.

 

[Wallendo]

If there is only one manufacturer of backing paper, why did they choose to sabotage Kodak and not the other manufacturers?

I remember Simon Galley's quote on the matter, but suspect he was talking about only one manufacturer of the type backing Ilford used. In my experience, the backing papers used by Kodak, Ilford, and Foma appear quite different.

 

[Nodda Duma]

I can practically guarantee that someone in China is gearing up now to make the backing paper.

I won’t believe it unless a specific company could be named. If it were true, I’d be interested in a supply of the stuff.

 

[MattKing]

If there is only one manufacturer of backing paper, why did they choose to sabotage Kodak and not the other manufacturers?

Kodak films are different in various ways from Ilford films which are different from Foma films etc.
The problem wasn't with the backing paper and ink itself, it was with the reaction between the Kodak film and the backing paper and the ink.
Until relatively recently Kodak had been making and printing its own backing paper, and was able to assure its compatibility with its films. After that production ceased, they still had a large amount of inventory, which lasted for a long time.
When they ran out, they had to source printed backing paper from the third party that still makes it. Apparently, while that backing paper met their requirements, the film didn't like it. The film surprised everybody by reacting with the new backing paper in unexpected ways, and in ways that the Ilford and Foma and (any others) don't.
And I don't think that the mechanism of the problem is well understood even now. They've made changes, and those changes appear to be effective.

 

[BrianShaw]

That’s the most coherent and believable assessment I’ve read on this topic, MattKing. Interestingly, the need to be concerned about interaction between backing paper and film was acknowledged as far back as 1918 by Kodak.

 

[RattyMouse]

And I don't think that the mechanism of the problem is well understood even now.

I find it hard to believe that the old Kodak did not study and understand the nature of this problem, back when they had an enormous staff of scientists. Today's Kodak is largely depleted of this talent and so would be at a significant disadvantage. However, the knowledge gained during the past 50+ years of film R & D should have guided today's team to a quicker solution.

 

[BrianShaw]

I find it hard to believe that the old Kodak did not study and understand the nature of this problem, back when they had an enormous staff of scientists. Today's Kodak is largely depleted of this talent and so would be at a significant disadvantage. However, the knowledge gained during the past 50+ years of film R & D should have guided today's team to a quicker solution.

Obviously they d/did understand both the problem and how to prevent its occupancy. Kodak published detailed information on the backing paper design and transfer was considered in those designs. To say that Kodak probably did not do extensive studies to determine root cause in this specific situation may be more accurate. It must be true, as you say, that they still understand enough about this interaction to quickly put a corrective measure in place. It’s just a damn shame there is little or no official information available and we all are still somewhat guessing... and worrying.

 

[RattyMouse]

It’s just a damn shame there is little or no official information available and we all are still somewhat guessing... and worrying.

Yes. Very true. A big shame.

 

[Nodda Duma]

I find it hard to believe that the old Kodak did not study and understand the nature of this problem, back when they had an enormous staff of scientists. Today's Kodak is largely depleted of this talent and so would be at a significant disadvantage. However, the knowledge gained during the past 50+ years of film R & D should have guided today's team to a quicker solution.

The materials are not the same as they were in the past, so the old information was probably mostly valid but not for the specifics of the film they have had issues with. Loss of corporate knowledge is another, related problem. Having witnessed the massive effort required by the US Navy (with relatively infinite resources) to retain corporate knowledge as a prior generation of scientists and engineers went into retirement and still only being "mostly" successful, it's easy to imagine that Kodak would not have been in a position to do the same as they experienced a precipitous loss of revenue and the chaos of bankruptcy.

 

[jrhilton]

220 was definitely available in the UK but not in your average high-street convenience shops. You had to go to a dedicated camera shop to buy it. Also almost any photography "how to" book that detailed the various different types of cameras available in any level of detail would make reference to it.

I last bought some in the very very early 2000's. By then it was generally 5 pack only with FP4+/Tri-X and Portra being the easiest to get hold of here in the UK.

 

[BrianShaw]

The materials are not the same as they were in the past, so the old information was probably mostly valid but not for the specifics of the film they have had issues with. Loss of corporate knowledge is another, related problem. Having witnessed the massive effort required by the US Navy (with relatively infinite resources) to retain corporate knowledge as a prior generation of scientists and engineers went into retirement and still only being "mostly" successful, it's easy to imagine that Kodak would not have been in a position to do the same as they experienced a precipitous loss of revenue and the chaos of bankruptcy.

... and it also could be changes (reduction) in their control of the “new” supplier and their material/process control, as well as a reduction in acceptance testing by Kodak in the current era. There’s a lot of possible reasons.

I really believe that it’s a much more complex problem than some imagine it to be.

The problem you mention in USN is a DOD-wide problem yet they still maintain much better than”mostly” successful. The definition of “success” is fluid which makes that a difficult metric.

 

[RattyMouse]

I really believe that it’s a much more complex problem than some imagine it to be.

And some here greatly underestimate the ability of scientists to solve complex problems. This happens every day at chemical companies across the country. At my own company we had a CEO who was involved in molecular design for bio-medical purposes. When he came to our company, one that makes industrial lubricants for manufacturing, he thought our formulations and processes were infinitely more complex and difficult. Yet with a team of dedicated scientists we solve extremely difficult problems that our products face at customers all the time. We have 1/1000th the resources of Kodak.

 

[Nodda Duma]

All truths. In the end, they had a problem and they were able to fix it.

 

[MattKing]

I find it hard to believe that the old Kodak did not study and understand the nature of this problem, back when they had an enormous staff of scientists. Today's Kodak is largely depleted of this talent and so would be at a significant disadvantage. However, the knowledge gained during the past 50+ years of film R & D should have guided today's team to a quicker solution.

Most likely the problem is due to the changes in the inks used by modern printers - which is somewhat ironic given the fact that Kodak is now mostly a printing support company.
That enormous staff of scientists were gone before the newer inks (soy based, as I understand it) became available.

 

[wjlapier]

I purchased some Pro160NS in 220 last year. I don't see it available anymore. Amazon Japan has Velvia 100 in 220.

Someone mentioned using a slitter. If you want fresh black and white in 220 I think you're only left with slitting Ilford 70mm or Rollei 70mm. The slitter I just purchased can cut the perforated edges of the Rollei 70mm film I have. The problem I'm working on is rolling the film onto backing paper--I save mine from 120 and 220. I don't have a darkroom--just a changing bag. To be honest, I don't care to slit the Rollei film. I have a 70mm back for my RB67 for that film. I do have a bunch of other film in 70mm I'm thinking of slitting down to 120/220.

 

[Agulliver]

220 was definitely available in the UK but not in your average high-street convenience shops. You had to go to a dedicated camera shop to buy it. Also almost any photography "how to" book that detailed the various different types of cameras available in any level of detail would make reference to it.

I last bought some in the very very early 2000's. By then it was generally 5 pack only with FP4+/Tri-X and Portra being the easiest to get hold of here in the UK.

All I can say is that it wasn't on offer in the camera shops I frequented in Letchworth, Stevenage and Luton. Nor was it covered in the (admittedly basic) school course I did or in the books I read as a child....nor in the more advanced books such as the Ilford Manual and books on available light photography and setting up B&W and colour darkrooms.

I've no doubt it was available but it must have been a niche.

 

[jrhilton]

I've no doubt it was available but it must have been a niche.

Absolutely, I would agree it was a niche in the UK.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've still got about 20 rolls of TXP220 in the freezer, and I'm planning to take some of it traveling this summer. I've got a Linhof 220 6x7 insert that I can use in a 2x3" or 4x5" rollfilm back until I can't get film for it anymore. I've also got 120 inserts, so only that one insert will become obsolete. I can also shoot 220 in my Sinar Zoom II back, but it takes 120, so it will have a life after 220.

 

[MattKing]

A 220 roll is quite long. It may be that in some markets a 220 roll would be looked on with dismay by the labs that processed film, due to the fact that their dip and dunk machines were rather small for them.. At least some of the influence on whether or not 220 was prevalent in the market would have been whether it enjoyed preferential pricing for processing.

 

[Ian Grant]

APUGERS have contacted THE ONE REMAINING MAKER OF BACKING PAPER -- the will not sell to individuals. So unless you have a stash of used paper you are SOL.

120 Roll FilmBacking paper is available in 100ft lengths from Ilford as part of their ULF order, I think it was introduced either lastb year or thwe tear before after posts here.

A 220 roll is quite long. It may be that in some markets a 220 roll would be looked on with dismay by the labs that processed film, due to the fact that their dip and dunk machines were rather small for them.. At least some of the influence on whether or not 220 was prevalent in the market would have been whether it enjoyed preferential pricing for processing.

I think you're right Matt, the pro lab I used didn't stock 220 film it may well have been too long for their Dunk Dip machines. I only bought colour film through the lab, my B&W film & paper supplier, a Pro dealer - Leeds Cameras, didn't carry 220 on it's shelves. They kept stocks of Agfa APX100 - 35mm, 120 and 5x4 and 16"x12" Record Rapid later MCC and it was some time before I realised I was the only one buying Agfa materials from them, they just re-ordered after my purchases.

Ian

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

A 220 roll is the same length as 135-36.