Is there going to be 220 available again ... one day?

[Deleted member 88956]

Film appears to be gaining ground in demand department and production is up. So the question is: will the 220 ever make it back to the market? I'm guessing demand would have to be not just higher but with consistent upward trend, and ... calls for 220 loud enough. While in general I still used 120 most of the time, 220 had its place too (not talking studio high pace shooting).

Perhaps holding onto some 220 holders is not such a bad idea, or ... stock up on a few that are currently still priced to sell?

 

[Ian Grant]

Highly unlikely. It was a very small niche market and despite using MF for over 50 yrars I never used it and when we processed B&W for a local pro lab never saw it either.

Ian

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Highly unlikely. It was a very small niche market and despite using MF for over 50 yrars I never used it and when we processed B&W for a local pro lab never saw it either.

Ian

Interesting. When I had a darkroom gig with St. Louis wedding photographer, 220 was pretty much every day cup of coffee. And I did buy 220 for my own low volume shooting too also knowing I was not alone. Even if I still used 120 most of the time I would not by crying if I had this choice again.

 

[Luckless]

Personally I would love rolls of 220 for field work, especially in winter.

Sadly those of us who actually want 220 seem to be a very small and fairly quiet minority, so I'm not expecting to see any made as standard stock anytime soon.

I am however slowly stockpiling backing paper and 120 spools. At some point I may track down a bulk roll of film and rig up jigs for making my own 220, but it is very low on my priority lists... [But if I do get around to it, and it works, I'll be sure to document my efforts and post somewhere on here for others to follow.]

 

[abruzzi]

I think 220 would be great for 6x7, 6x8, and 6x9, but for 6x4.5 I’d be just as frustrated with 220 as I am with 36 exposure rolls of 35mm. 6x6, 24 exposures, would be borderline for me. I hate going out, shooting 15-18 shots, then realizing that I’ve still got half the roll to go.

(35mm half frame would drive me batty.)

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

There are a bunch of very high end wedding people who still shoot film and they would kill for more 220 Portras. If Kodak can make it happen they should do it, but I suspect it's a long shot. Still, it was a long shot to see Ektachrome come back and here it is.

 

[abruzzi]

It’s the same film though, right? Making 200 would just be about sourcing different paper, and a different packaging machine (and cutting longer strips of film, obviously.)

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I think 220 would be great for 6x7, 6x8, and 6x9, but for 6x4.5 I’d be just as frustrated with 220 as I am with 36 exposure rolls of 35mm. 6x6, 24 exposures, would be borderline for me. I hate going out, shooting 15-18 shots, then realizing that I’ve still got half the roll to go.

(35mm half frame would drive me batty.)

This is true and 220 does not fit the bill. I just had a roll of 120 developed that set in film back some 6 months. Two distinct bumps form sitting on rollers at same point for too long. Nothing seems to be helping. But when a project surely takes the whole 220 it would be nice.

A lot of things happened in film market over last few years that many dd not see coming 10 years ago.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

It’s the same film though, right? Making 200 would just be about sourcing different paper, and a different packaging machine (and cutting longer strips of film, obviously.)

It is the same film. It's all about the machines that assemble the 220 film. Something happened with those, not sure if I recall what it was. Also 220 at the end was more than double the cost of a 120 roll which made it even harder to justify unless you're one of those wedding shooters who relied on 32 frames per roll in a Contax 645. Hopefully with the price hike they can re-invest in a machine that could do it but I doubt it's high on their priority list. I think they need to invest in things that enable film shooters, which is more and better chemistry, film processing solutions, and even scanners for labs.

 

[K-G]

Some years ago I wrote a question to ADOX ( Germany ) if it would be possible for them to pack 220 black and white film.
This is the answer.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/conversations/re-b-w-120-220-type-film-in-bulk-rolls.241029/

Karl-Gustaf

 

[MattKing]

This 2006 thread from Simon R Galley (at that time one of the owners and directors of Harman Technology Ltd.) sets out in detail why the problems with obtaining and assembling the backing paper leaders and tails make the return of 220 unlikely in the extreme:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ly-from-ilford-photo-harman-technology.18206/

 

[MattKing]

Some years ago I wrote a question to ADOX ( Germany ) if it would be possible for them to pack 220 black and white film.
This is the answer.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/conversations/re-b-w-120-220-type-film-in-bulk-rolls.241029/

Karl-Gustaf

We can't read the link, because it is inside a private conversation.
If you feel that ADOX are willing to have your conversation be public, can you copy and paste the contents?

 

[Deleted member 88956]

It is the same film. It's all about the machines that assemble the 220 film. Something happened with those, not sure if I recall what it was. Also 220 at the end was more than double the cost of a 120 roll which made it even harder to justify unless you're one of those wedding shooters who relied on 32 frames per roll in a Contax 645. Hopefully with the price hike they can re-invest in a machine that could do it but I doubt it's high on their priority list. I think they need to invest in things that enable film shooters, which is more and better chemistry, film processing solutions, and even scanners for labs.

I agree there is a lot more on priority list ahead getting 220 out. Once we see more films re-introduced and market stabilizes then perhaps? Whatever I have in 220 backs I'll keep, but probably not invest in any.more ... for now.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

This 2006 thread from Simon R Galley (at that time one of the owners and directors of Harman Technology Ltd.) sets out in detail why the problems with obtaining and assembling the backing paper leaders and tails make the return of 220 unlikely in the extreme:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ly-from-ilford-photo-harman-technology.18206/

Thanks Matt for this one. Surely that conversation took place at a time when film shooters were still fighting back digital insurgence, but quite an interesting response from Harman, lots of stuff becomes clearer. I actually never thought 220 was apparently more of the pain in the neck to pack.

Given we're 14 ears removed from that though, perhaps we are also 14 years closer to a new commercially viable solution. Of course there is always Kickstarter - no, thank you.

 

[MattKing]

In those 14 years, the potential sources of backing paper have been greatly reduced - thus Kodak's horrible problems in the last few years with wrapper offset issues.
The minimum order quantities of suppliers - not just for backing paper, for all sorts of constituent parts - are a major problem for all the remaining film manufacturers, because they are a huge drain on their limited capital resources.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

In those 14 years, the potential sources of backing paper have been greatly reduced - thus Kodak's horrible problems in the last few years with wrapper offset issues.
The minimum order quantities of suppliers - not just for backing paper, for all sorts of constituent parts - are a major problem for all the remaining film manufacturers, because they are a huge drain on their limited capital resources.

To that I will only say, if demand grows so will resources ... what makes money brings money.

 

[Agulliver]

220 film isn't easy to make. And the market is likely very small. Heck, I've been shooting medium format since 1977 and I hadn't even heard of 220 film - much less seen any - until 2005. i do have one camera capable of using both 120 and 220, so I'd likely buy perhaps 3-4 rolls per year. I'd certainly like it as an option, but the problems of manufacturing it are well documented and not something that any company is likely to overcome at a cost that it can recoup. We're more likely to see 127 from Ferrania.

 

[Ariston]

I saw an interview with one of the Ferrania guys who said they hoped to announce a new format this year that people wouldn't expect. Could just as well be 110 or something else, though.

 

[mshchem]

No way. There's more of a market for 127 and 620 than 220, all of the 620 is respooled 120.
I was never big on 220, too long. Of course I never was a working photographer.

 

[summicron1]

ilford has looked into this question and says the infrastructure to make the stuff would cost too much for the market.

So: No.

 

[Sirius Glass]

tIt is highly unlikely due to technical problems, obtaining the needed paper, and marketing problems from the start. I seriously considered 220 but found that many of the films I wanted in 220 were not available from Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford. That was a major complaint when 220 was introduced and the choices of 220 film only got worse as time moved ahead.

Next one roll of 220 cost more to buy that two rolls of 120. WTF?? Same thing for processing WTF?? WTF?? Talk about your basic shot one self in the head marketing scheme!

 

[MattKing]

220 was advantageous when there were volumes - the labs were set up for it, the volumes permitted savings when the film was being sold.
A commercial Dip and Dunk lab with the right equipment and experienced staff could develop it for less, and make more money on the proofs.
Take the volume away, and you enter into the world of special handling, which means higher costs.
Unfortunately, it isn't a matter of just increasing the volume gradually in order to bring it back. The film manufacturers are now low volume customers for those who make the constituent parts. Where before Kodak (and others) could dictate production according to their needs, Kodak (and others) must now line up in the queue to get their orders filled, and the minimum order requirements mean that Kodak (and others) must be very careful in their orders, because if they order more than they can use promptly, the carrying charges will severely damage them.
In addition, many of the suppliers have similar problems - their equipment and processes are not suited to small orders and flexible response to demand.

 

[destroya]

I have a stash of 220 film, but I try to save it for if and when I ever take an overseas vacation, or when i go into the field with my 6x17 pano camera. I went last year to italy and it was very nice to bring 220 rolls, hence less 120 rolls to take. I home develop so to me its not a big deal with development. it was nice getting 24 shots of astia and velvia 50 in my mamiya 6. wound up shooting close to 40 220 rolls. no chance of bringing that many (80+) 120 rolls with me

john

 

[BAC1967]

I think 220 would be great for 6x7, 6x8, and 6x9, but for 6x4.5 I’d be just as frustrated with 220 as I am with 36 exposure rolls of 35mm. 6x6, 24 exposures, would be borderline for me. I hate going out, shooting 15-18 shots, then realizing that I’ve still got half the roll to go.

(35mm half frame would drive me batty.)

I totally agree. It takes me a year to shoot a roll of film in my ViewMaster camera, 72 stereo pairs.

 

[mshchem]

I read on Wikipedia that when the prototype model of the original Pentax 6x7 debuted in 1965, it was dubbed the Pentax 220, that must have been an exciting time. I do so love film. I can live with what we have. I hope we can keep all the current producers alive and kicking for a long time to come.