Is there STILL no hope for 220

[Christiaan Phleger]

Has all hope evaporated of a 220 film solution? Ilford? Kentmere? Anyone?

 

[LJH]

Yes.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Yes.

 

[chuck94022]

To me, 220 is a PITA anyway. More chance of light leaks. If you're shooting something like a New Mamiya 6, which doesn't have swappable backs, you're also limited to your film choice for longer. It's actually convenient, in my opinion, to be able to swap films after no more than 12 shots.

 

[Ian Grant]

I've shot 120 for years, since the late 1960's and never wanted to use 220. Most other professionals I knew didn't either, and in fact it wasn't ever that widely available here in the UK, it was around but you rarely saw it on dealers shelves.

So no hope.

Ian

 

[jim appleyard]

220 b/w was nice IF you shot a lot. For color, it still works as there are still wedding pros and studios using film, but for b/w 220, not so much.

If it were made, I'd buy some, but Kodak isn't going to make it. Ilford might if it wasn't so expensive to fix the coating machine needed to make it.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

“Una salus victis nullam sperare salutem" - Virgil
The only hope for the doomed, is not to hope.
Brush up your Startrek, start using it now.

 

[flavio81]

Has all hope evaporated of a 220 film solution? Ilford? Kentmere? Anyone?

Ferrania can package 220 if they want. Ok, same for all the other manufacturers, but there are manufacturers that are better able to cope with small scale productions than others.

OTOH i bought some 220 Portra and then i found that my lab will charge me double for developing the negative, so where's the benefit?

 

[Luckless]

Ferrania can package 220 if they want. Ok, same for all the other manufacturers, but there are manufacturers that are better able to cope with small scale productions than others.

OTOH i bought some 220 Portra and then i found that my lab will charge me double for developing the negative, so where's the benefit?

Personally I wouldn't mind shooting 220 for a few projects, and developing it myself. Having to stop less often to swap film would make things easier in some ways. In general I feel that 120 is 'more than enough' for a single roll of 6x6, but there are those few times where it would be nice to be able to pull out a few rolls of 220 instead, and have fewer spools in total to deal with.

 

[Sirius Glass]

From the start 220 was doomed to be as extinct as the Dodo. There was never a wide choice of emulsion for it.

 

[AgX]

Has all hope evaporated of a 220 film solution? Ilford? Kentmere? Anyone?

Ilford and Kentmere are two brands of the same manufacturer (Harman).

 

[Prest_400]

Ferrania can package 220 if they want. Ok, same for all the other manufacturers, but there are manufacturers that are better able to cope with small scale productions than others.

OTOH i bought some 220 Portra and then i found that my lab will charge me double for developing the negative, so where's the benefit?

I assumed so also given them saying that they salvaged machinery for all practical formats. Maybe they make an occasional 220 batch once they've been running nicely for a while.
220 seems quite nice for trips and such where reloading often may be not so desirable. For a Fuji 6x9 when you have just 8 frames, 220 and 400 speed film can be interesting. I was about to get some 220 160NS off Japan which economically was cheaper than Portra 160 (my lab charges just an extra Euro for 220!) but for once I may jsut standardise on Portra. Anyways I clicked with the 8 frame 120 zeitgeist and also agree about the added flexibility of products, 36exp in 35mm was too much for me!

 

[railwayman3]

Ferrania can package 220 if they want. Ok, same for all the other manufacturers, but there are manufacturers that are better able to cope with small scale productions than others.

It's not just a case that Ferrania or anyone else can just package it "if they want". From previous postings on here, and, IIRC, comments by Simon on an Ilford factory visit, their 220 machine is worn out and requires replacement. I may be wrong, but a suggested cost of £300,000 for the manufacture of a new machine sticks in my mind?. Then it's not only the manufacture, it's new supplies of different backing paper and printing of inner and outer packaging, distribution and publicity that 220 is again available, before a single roll is sold. We have no idea of the state of Fuji or Ferrania's 220 machines, or even if they still exist, and they would also have the same costs before a single roll reached a user's camera.

So, sadly, no way.....

 

[JonPorter]

A somewhat related reason for the decline of 220 may be that 120 film inserts and backs are fairly inexpensive nowadays. I've acquired enough inserts for my Bronicas and Mamiya that I often don't have to reload for a day of shooting.

 

[AgX]

The better multyexposure alternative to type 120 is type 70mm.

 

[wy2l]

It would seen that sales of a new 220 product would just decrease sales of existing 120 film.
I don't see where 220 would bring in any new users.

 

[destroya]

i like having 220 when im out shooting landscapes with my pentax 67. fewer film changes is a good thing.

 

[Luckless]

It would seen that sales of a new 220 product would just decrease sales of existing 120 film.
I don't see where 220 would bring in any new users.

220 halves your packaging costs, and shipping volume. Not really sure what it does for your overall shipping weights as I have no idea how the difference in film vs backing paper really is.

220 doesn't strictly need to bring in new users, it just needs to be able to encourage existing ones to shoot more, and be less conservative with their shots. When you know you only have 'a few shots', then you naturally are far more conservative in whether or not you press that shutter button.

Looking back at journal for the outing with my last roll of film, I photographed the following frames:
1. "textured ice" - it was a neat looking pattern and I liked how the light was playing off it.
2. "textured ice" - A similar shot to the first, but a slight recomposition and settings adjustment. (I was testing a new camera, so I may as well take photos that I could compare and try to spot technical/mechanical issues with, right?)
3-6. Shots of a fox that surprised me and came right up near me. Even if they were perfect, how often do I get the chance for a fox to be remotely visible in a frame shot with a mere 80mm lens?
7. "Ice and reeds" - Again playing with texture and contrast.
8. "Reed wall" - I was more than halfway through the roll now, so I passed on two similar compositions, as I didn't bring a second roll with me and there were a few spots farther on I wanted to photograph.
9. "A single fluff" - I was wandering along the banks of some frozen marsh area in a park, debating which shots I liked the most. I really liked the overall texture and such that the remains of the cattails had, and wandered back and forth between I think four different ones that stood in isolation. I was getting near the end of the roll, I really liked the effect of at least half a dozen composition choices, but I didn't want to fill the rest of the roll with them and had to pick just one.
10. "Stone and roots - botched" - One of the photos I had in mind when I left the house, but I realized as soon as I hit the shutter that I hadn't properly adjusted my settings. (Not only that, but I also managed to botch my notes, as I somehow have 250 for an aperture setting... Might print whatever comes of that frame and stick a title like "The real botch Job" or something on it.)
11. "Stone and roots" - The right settings this time, with a minor recomposition of the first shot because I changed my mind about a few things. I was still debating which composition I truly wanted, and considered taking a second shot and choose later... but I only had the one photo left.
12. "Cloud texture" - This last one was hard. It was the last photo of the day, the sun was setting, and I'm still really inexperienced with black and white film. I have no idea if any of the previous frames 'work', as I hadn't yet even seen a single photo out of this camera, and for all I know it was actually leaking light like a sieve, but I still didn't want to 'waste' the very last frame. I wandered around until I decided that I was truly about to run out of light before much longer, and I settled on some interesting looking cloud texture that had been shifting for the last few hours that since I had headed out for my walk.

In all, had I loaded a roll of 220, I most likely would have shot the entire roll, but I passed on at least 14 frames that I would have taken if I had them ready and waiting in the camera, but instead they were left behind because I was 'nearly out of film'.

And on my way back to the house? Well the clouds shifted a little more, and formed a texture that would have been far better than the one that I had settled for in the end.


At the time I owned 36 blank frames of 120 film waiting to be exposed, but I left 2 rolls at home because I "didn't want to be wasteful" and photograph that many rolls at a time. (And I don't like the idea of leaving half spent rolls in the camera.) And because the companies selling me black and white film only wanted to sell me them in sets of 12 rather than 24? Well, I took 12 and left more than that behind.

 

[destroya]

i'm sure there are production aspects i know nothing about. but I remember Simon mentioning in a thread that the most expensive cost in 120 film was the backing paper. 220 has none, so if someone who knows the production aspects, whats the real issue with 220?

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

i'm sure there are production aspects i know nothing about. but I remember Simon mentioning in a thread that the most expensive cost in 120 film was the backing paper. 220 has none, so if someone who knows the production aspects, whats the real issue with 220?

No market. Simple as that. Isn't it curious that enthusiasm or interest for a product only picks up when a product's discontinuation is announced (Fuji is but one manufacturer that has scant few emulsions available in 220), but it will not save it in the long term, simply because market drivers are not there what with this seismic shift to digital (which is waning) and even more, the whack that has taken place as people go about photography (even very serious photography) with a smartphone. If you think about it, there is a whole generation out there who don't know what 120 or 220 film is, much less what sort of cameras use it. What is needed (for all manufacturers) is a market take-up of millions and millions of units (of film) to cover all of their production costs and profit, and that market is not a few hundred enthusiasts who may buy one or two rolls of 220 occasionally (when and where they can find it). Film in any format must have a market take up of millions and millions of units, consistently, to remain viable now and into the future. Tell me what you see out there now.

 

[MattKing]

i'm sure there are production aspects i know nothing about. but I remember Simon mentioning in a thread that the most expensive cost in 120 film was the backing paper. 220 has none, so if someone who knows the production aspects, whats the real issue with 220?

Actually, 220 has two different pieces of backing paper - the leader and the trailer - and those two pieces are different, require separate manufacture, and are subject to the same minimum quantity order restrictions that the paper manufacturer imposes. Simon had indicated that those minimum quantities were prohibitive, given projected sales, even if they could afford the really large cost of rehabilitating the custom machinery necessary to attach those leaders and trailers to the film and wind the entire package on to the spools.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Why bother? 120 backs are cheap and plentiful. I like having 12 frames to a roll, not worrying that if I do something stupid (which I, of course, will never do) that I'll lose 24 frames.

Plus, changing the roll is often the time where you slow down a bit and think about what you're doing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Changing rolls of film slowing you down? That is one reason why the rest of us buy spare film backs. Just swap exposed back with the loaded back, how fast is that?

 

[paul ron]

but ill be sure to hang on to a couple 220 backs anyway the market goes.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The 220 backs make great bookends, doorstops, ship ballast, jettys and artificial islands. If you think that the 220 film market will ever improve, I have some Florida swamp land and a bridge in New York to sell you. Also a Nigerian prince wants to transfer money through your personal checking account.