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.
Any more info Gerald? Do you know who the APUGers were and how did this come to your attention?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.
Just stick to 120 film and make nice paper weights from 220 magazines
I can practically guarantee that someone in China is gearing up now to make the backing paper.
Kodak films are different in various ways from Ilford films which are different from Foma films etc.If there is only one manufacturer of backing paper, why did they choose to sabotage Kodak and not the other manufacturers?
And I don't think that the mechanism of the problem is well understood even now.
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.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.
It’s just a damn shame there is little or no official information available and we all are still somewhat guessing... and worrying.
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.
... 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.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.
I really believe that it’s a much more complex problem than some imagine it to be.
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.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.
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.
I've no doubt it was available but it must have been a niche.
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.
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.
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?