Is there STILL no hope for 220

Sometimes it's useful to have just a few frames rather than waste or feel obligated to finish a 24 or 36 exposure roll.

One of these days I'm going to use the built-in knife on my Exaktas.

Luckless said:

You really rather missed my point there. I don't want to carry two rolls of film on a simple photo walk. I don't want the risk of dropping or losing a roll while fiddling with them out in the cold and the wet. (It can be bad enough trying to set up and adjust the camera this time of year.) Or the risk of damaging film while it is stashed away in a pocket rather than securely stored in the nice protective camera (Which is something I need to carry with me anyway to use the camera, and I have no desire to bring yet another piece of gear just to store film in.)

I got to go out on my photowalk, and take photos. I got what I wanted out of my afternoon. However the film maker sold half the film they could have for the day. And it sure doesn't hurt me to buy only half of what I otherwise could have, so I fail to see how this is only my problem and in no way a problem for film companies.


My core point is that the idea that 220 film cannot possibly be viable or marketable is a silly concept. It is by no means a silver bullet and sure fire thing, but if someone were able to offer a very nice emulsion in both 120 and 220 while minimizing their own general costs? Well then they have something they can market aggressively and use to potentially get one up on everyone else who refuses to offer 220.

Click to expand...

You are clearly concerned about or bothered about a lot of things I am not. I never take a camera anywhere at all without a camera bag, for example. So some of this is just differences in style that mean carrying more film doesn't impact my shooting style the way it would yours. I get that. Some may be climate too. I simply don't shoot in the cold and rarely in anything approaching wet. I smile to myself when people talk about cameras that are hard to manipulate with gloves because if it's cold enough to need gloves, #$%^ photography, I'm staying indoors except for brief jaunts from car to building and the reverse. But that's very practical where I life. I understand that it wouldn't be in most of Canada.

And on the other topic, if I could get 35mm film in 24 or 20 exposure loads for the same price per shot as the 36s I'd never buy a 36 again. But again, differences in style and methods. Something like 15-18 would be even better for me much of the time. 12 - 15, which interestingly enough is what I get from my 6x6 TLR and my 645 SLR respectively from 120, is just about perfect for me in medium format, but 35mm is a faster shooting style and I think 18-20 would be usually better. I remember when the standard loads were 20 and 36. I find 36 inconveniently long much of the time as I said but of course YMMV.

Poisson Du Jour said:

No market. Simple as that.

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.

Click to expand...

In other words, we need the same demand and market situation that we had 15-20 years ago, before digital and smartphones...which as you indicate, won't happen. Simply because of convenience for the average user. We, as analog enthusiasts, still believe that this is the best way for us, more satisfying with results more to our liking, but the average family or holiday shooter has "moved on" to what, in their opinion, suits them better.

railwayman3 said:

In other words, we need the same demand and market situation that we had 15-20 years ago, before digital and smartphones...which as you indicate, won't happen. Simply because of convenience for the average user. We, as analog enthusiasts, still believe that this is the best way for us, more satisfying with results more to our liking, but the average family or holiday shooter has "moved on" to what, in their opinion, suits them better.

Click to expand...

Or alternatively, low finishing costs that currently are not there due to the specificity of the backing paper leader/trail and machinery. That's probably why Kodak's last Portra 220 was not the price of 2x120. Curiously, Fuji's 220 prices seemed to be around the twice 120 mark.

Also, someone that would finance the production of a batch. Approach a company with a custom order. Cinestill seems to take this approach towards the customized 500T and someone could approach a manufacturer with the money in front and taking the risk of distribution. That if the machinery is still around.

Prest_400 said:

Or alternatively, low finishing costs that currently are not there due to the specificity of the backing paper leader/trail and machinery. That's probably why Kodak's last Portra 220 was not the price of 2x120. Curiously, Fuji's 220 prices seemed to be around the twice 120 mark.

Also, someone that would finance the production of a batch. Approach a company with a custom order. Cinestill seems to take this approach towards the customized 500T and someone could approach a manufacturer with the money in front and taking the risk of distribution. That if the machinery is still around.

Click to expand...

You do not understand what Cinestill is doing. They buy regular unmodified Eastman film and then CINESTILL removes the remjet coating. So no custom orders or anything else. Indeed companies like Kodak and others hate companies like Cinestill that remarket their films for non-approved use. Hate them. Why because when something goes wrong the original manufacturer gets the blame.

I don't know why no one understands, IT IS THE BOTTOM LINE. Manufacturers aren't ignorant. They have done the necessary profit calculations and decided they will not make any money selling 220 film.

Gerald C Koch said:

I don't know why no one understands, IT IS THE BOTTOM LINE.

Click to expand...

In all fairness, many of us understand.

David Brown said:

In all fairness, many of us understand.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but posters on this and several other threads don't seem to get it. It's not only this thread but the same questions being asked over and over. Sorry to tar everyone with the same brush.

Gerald C Koch said:

I don't know why no one understands, IT IS THE BOTTOM LINE. Manufacturers aren't ignorant. They have done the necessary profit calculations and decided they will not make any money selling 220 film.

Click to expand...

That's it, nothing more. nothing less. Simple economics.

And. if they don't have a working 220 machine, that cost would have to come into their calculations.

Sometimes, (as in any manufacturing) a smaller scale maker may be able do things more profitably than a big player, but exactly the same principles of profit calculations apply.

Gerald C Koch said:

Perhaps, but posters on this and several other threads don't seem to get it. It's not only this thread but the same questions being asked over and over. Sorry to tar everyone with the same brush.

Click to expand...

I know, Gerald. I understand your frustration.

Having read all the posts, I wonder what Riding Waves has concluded in terms of there being any hope?

pentaxuser

railwayman3 said:

In other words, we need the same demand and market situation that we had 15-20 years ago, before digital and smartphones...which as you indicate, won't happen. Simply because of convenience for the average user. We, as analog enthusiasts, still believe that this is the best way for us, more satisfying with results more to our liking, but the average family or holiday shooter has "moved on" to what, in their opinion, suits them better.

Click to expand...

Yeah, those days way back when, that's when film ruled. It does not now. That's the problem. Convenience. And speed. Film in whatever format you can think of, has lost out to the mainstream population, though it remains popular with those who were born and bred into it, enthusiastic and skilled with it, rather than latter day saints and sinners shooting porn, sexting and sticking their Samsungs in people's faces. Film is not convenient for the vast majority of people who want to photograph ("snap", then), well or otherwise. And it certainly is not fast. Retailers plug the speed and ease of use of smartphone cameras aggressively over other features, and indeed from those I have played with, the cameras are amazing (more features than all my cameras!). This instantaneous sharing ability across all social media platforms is the underlying driving force. I don't think we will ever, ever get back to the solid film market of 15-20 years ago. The best we can do is continue to buy and use film as best as we know, and if you can't beat the rest of 'em, join 'em. 'scuse me while I take a Samsung snap of the downpour outside my door...

pentaxuser said:

Having read all the posts, I wonder what Riding Waves has concluded in terms of there being any hope?

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Yes. Let him speak.

Even when 220 was being manufactured there was not much demand for it. Users were mainly wedding photographers. Now just about all wedding photos are digital.

I have three backs for my 2x3 Century Graphic, and one of them says 220 on it (I don't have it in front of me; it's a Singer Graflex but I don't remember the model #). But I've run 120 through it many times, with no leaks and nicely flat images. I just assumed if the back said 220 it would take 120 as well. Have I just had a great run of beginner's luck?

Poisson Du Jour said:

Yeah, those days way back when, that's when film ruled. It does not now. That's the problem. Convenience. And speed. Film in whatever format you can think of, has lost out to the mainstream population, though it remains popular with those who were born and bred into it, enthusiastic and skilled with it, rather than latter day saints and sinners shooting porn, sexting and sticking their Samsungs in people's faces. Film is not convenient for the vast majority of people who want to photograph ("snap", then), well or otherwise. And it certainly is not fast. Retailers plug the speed and ease of use of smartphone cameras aggressively over other features, and indeed from those I have played with, the cameras are amazing (more features than all my cameras!). This instantaneous sharing ability across all social media platforms is the underlying driving force. I don't think we will ever, ever get back to the solid film market of 15-20 years ago. The best we can do is continue to buy and use film as best as we know, and if you can't beat the rest of 'em, join 'em. 'scuse me while I take a Samsung snap of the downpour outside my door...

Click to expand...

Yes, precisely so.

I may have sounded like I don't like or wouldn't want 220, and that's not really so. If it were readily available at even roughly twice 120 price in emulsions I use I would probably keep a few rolls on hand, and buy a bunch for some travel and such. But it isn't and I don't let it bother me. It's not just that the mass market, and not just millennials and young people but anyone wanting vacation or family memory snapshots, think digital is better for their needs, it really is, and vastly so. Most of us will even admit that and even the ones who won't admit it have to know it somewhere beneath their crusty retro-grouch exteriors. And again don't get me wrong - I don't (yet anyway) own a digital camera other than my (excellent though) iPhone 6 and a 13 year old 3MP Nikon, and I own and use lots of film cameras. I love film. Digital is on the level of doing my laundry, something that I will do at need and don't find particularly onerous but certainly don't look forward to with excitement. Film is a niche market for, as you say, "those who were born and bred into it, enthusiastic and skilled with it" as well as those who find it suits their artistic intent for various reasons, both members of those groups and those new to it.

Gerald C Koch said:

Even when 220 was being manufactured there was not much demand for it. Users were mainly wedding photographers. Now just about all wedding photos are digital.

Click to expand...

This too.

Rather than bemoaning the loss of 220 I am supremely pleased that the array of 120 we have is still available, as well as superb sheet films and 35mm. Yes, there are many we've lost I'd love to have back. I would really, really hate to lose E6 and really hope Film Ferrania gets production going and does well as that seems the only real hope for it longer term. Kodachrome is lost forever and fondly remembered, and Kodak E6 emulsions had a range of traits offering very different choices than what's left from Fuji. But we have the best C41 films ever made right now. The Portras are great general purpose and portrait films and Ektar 100 is absolutely amazing for photos that suit it. TMY-2 is quite possibly the overall finest black and white film ever made, and there are just an amazing, when you think about it in context of what digital has done to film in general, selection of other black and white films from Pan F+ and Acros, both very different from anything else on the market, to solid affordable and very conventional Foma 100 and 400 (the 200 is a different animal and unique too) and even Adox CMS II specifically designed and marketed to mimic a lost film. Heck, much as I'd also like to have a deep infrared film like HIE back, or a slower but fairly deep one like Efke IR820, we still do have two near infrared films available, the Rollie and Ilford SFX. Then there is the very under appreciated C41 black and white XP2+.

I am way, way more pleased that these films are readily available in 120 than I am bothered that they are not available in 220.

It all kind of reminds me of the guy who was on the beach with his family when a huge wave came up and swept his son out to sea. He starts praying fervently for God to return his beloved son. After a couple minutes of this another huge wave strikes and deposits his son back at his feet, very much alive and unharmed. He then instantly looks up at the sky and starts yelling, "the hat! God, you forgot his hat!"

Gerald C Koch said:

Even when 220 was being manufactured there was not much demand for it. Users were mainly wedding photographers. Now just about all wedding photos are digital.

Click to expand...

I'm not even sure it was on the shelves in common photo shops here.

Roger Cole said:

[...]
It all kind of reminds me of the guy who was on the beach with his family when a huge wave came up and swept his son out to sea. He starts praying fervantly for God to return his beloved son. After a couple minutes of this another huge wave strike and deposits his son back at his feet, very much alive and unharmed. He then instantly looks up at the sky and starts yelling, "the hat! God, you forgot his hat!"

Click to expand...

Even when 220 was being manufactured there was not much demand for it. Users were mainly wedding photographers. Now just about all wedding photos are digital

Click to expand...

That's the key right there. Back in the 90's when I was doing a fair share of weddings/portraits/family reunions and using two Pentax 6x7 bodies there's no backs to swap out-only cameras. You get thought with one 220 roll, pass the camera to an assistant who gives you a fresh body loaded with another 220 roll while he reloads the other. You might say they are your "backs" for the Pentax system. I can imagine what a PITA it would have been had only 120 been available. In the heat of doing a wedding you do not want 120 film with just 10 exposures.

Well yes that would be a PITA. But that's also why, if I were shooting weddings in those days, I would have preferred a camera with interchangeable backs, or at least quick-loading inserts.

Here you go, if 36 or even 24 is too many I've got these 8-exposure rolls of 35mm.

Now that is (most of the time) TOO short!

It all depends on "the mission" as we say in aviation, as if middle aged guys flying to the beach for the weekend have to use terminology that makes them feel like they're part of Top Gun. But still it's a wortwhile idea - if I go back to New Orleans for Mardis Gras I will probably do what I did before, load one camera body with Provia 400X (while I still have some ) and one with a 100 speed slide film and head out to parades wishing I had more like 360 exposures of each before reloading. Walking out to the park on a nice Saturday with my dog, eight shots might indeed be just right but 12-15 is better. Fortunately my Yashicamat (12) and M645 (15) fit that perfectly.

I don't understand why they don't just start making Kodachrome in 220 again.
Surely its easy enough to do in your garage with a 3D printer and a chemistry set, and there'd be a gigantic market and everyone involved would make millions.

Yes and Kodak HIE as well, surely?

pentaxuser

Luckless said:

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.

Click to expand...

Interesting comments, I have never thought photographing anything as "wasteful". To advance as a photographer you need to shoot a lot not worry about the possible photograph "around the bend" so I will pass up photograph what is in front of me. Always carry 2-3 times more film then what you think you will need.

I have found that carrying THAT much more film when traveling, even for a weekend, results in taking and returning with a large soft cooler pack full of film! But most of the time the reason I take a lot more film on trips than I use is because I am not sure how much time I will spend in various lighting so I take a variety of types to cover different needs and usually bring back 2/3s of it! Different matter when going out locally for a couple of hours and I agree. I always have another roll, at least. (Or with 4x5 I take six holders, 12 sheets, and that's more than I will typically expose in two outings.)