Is there STILL no hope for 220

msage said:

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.

Click to expand...

Not having a single care about whether a given composition is truly worth the frame spent to capture it would be lovely. The reality of the matter however is that photography has to exist within a budget, and the priority level given over to my film photography means that its budget isn't exactly sizeable in my case. With digital, it costs me effectively nothing to capture photos, and the difference between taking six shots or six hundred is minuscule at best. But in film? Well, that is a difference of what? $50 or more, plus development...

For a number of shots that I passed up it was because I knew there was a specific location somewhere else that I wanted to photograph. The outing was a quiet little photo walk in the cold, and there was no intention, plan, or any remote desire to be fiddling with swapping film once I left the house. That I could take photos on the little trip was a bonus to the trip, but not the primary goal of it, and having 220 rolls on the market would make my life easier.

But to skip back to the topic of whether taking a given photo is 'wasteful' or not, I would have to say that the bar of what is 'worth the frame' changes with the tools you are using and the costs. If tripping that shutter is going to tie up a lot of money in materials, then most of us are going to be far more careful and take the time to be far more sure of ourselves before letting that shutter open. Then compare that to dealing with all digital gear, where more than once I've gotten into a conversation with someone who was interested in the gear, and the camera has been pointed off into a random direction without thought or care while the shutter is held down for no other reason than to demonstrate the size of the file buffer. The more it directly costs you to press a shutter button, then the higher you raise the bar on what is truly worth a photo. With my digital camera gear I could walk around and snap a photo at every step on one of my walks, assuming I brought along all my largest memory cards, but that bar of 'what is a good photo' is still far higher than that. (There have been dozens of times where I've left the house specifically with the intention of taking photos, but still ended up at home without having snapped a single frame even when it was digital and wouldn't have cost me anything but a moment's time.)

And somewhat on the flip side to the care and caution before taking a photo I have to say that I've found that some photographers gain far too much 'confidence' in their work and build far too high of an opinion in the images they capture. Some of the blandest and most boring photo work I've ever seen was from a rather unfriendly fellow who would make a point of ridiculing myself and a few other sports photographers with claims that he could do in one photo what we took hundreds for, and that we merely 'sprayed and prayed' while machine gunning shots. Seems like it is a fine line to walk and an easy trap to catch yourself in. But I figure that if I ever get to the point that I am pleased with the majority of photos I take, let alone all of them, then I will know I'm doing something 'wrong', as it means I'm no longer expanding and pushing my own boundaries.



But to get back more on topic of hope for 220? I'm sure not holding my breath for something like Delta 100 in 220 rolls priced competitively compared to a pair of rolls of 120, but the market clearly isn't as 'dead' as many here seem to believe given that myself and others still want to buy the stuff for specific projects. Rather it is unprofitable in the eyes of the current players in the market. A rather subtle difference if still extremely important. And it isn't a product you need to truly mass produce and have hundreds of rolls sitting on store shelves in every single city in the world. It is a product that could do just fine run in relatively small batches that are sent in large bulk orders a few times a year to select regional online retailers, and the next batch isn't run till someone rings up and says a regional stash is getting low.

The question is: Which manufacturer and which retailers are willing to team up and solve the problem of production of the stuff?

The only sure fire way to never see a roll of 220 sold at retail is for everyone to stop asking for it to ever be sold at retail again.

I pass up many, many shots because a look in the viewfinder doesn't satisfy me. In large format it's not at all uncommon for me (and other large format shooters from what I hear) to set up the camera, try compositions, maybe some camera movements even start metering, study some more, maybe move the tripod a bit, and after spending a half hour or so doing this decide it just doesn't work and move along to the next attempt.

But I rarely, and only when I've severely miscalculared my film needs, ever pass up a shot that I think would work except that I am saving film and think there might be a yet better one around the curve down the trail.

A market that is unprofitable is basically dead, at least when you are talking about something that's as investment intensive as roll film to produce. I'd like to see it, sure. Any increase in film choices is a good thing. I just don't think it's a realistic hope. There's far more chance of, say, getting Adox to produce a new film for some need people can articulate, or getting Harman to make Pan F+ or Delta 3200 in sheets, both of which have been mentioned. Heck I think there's even a better chance of getting a true deep infrared film again like IR820. Simon had said that Harman could easily do that but didn't think there was enough demand. He presented it to the then-board who looked into it and decided there wasn't. But it's known technology that requires no new machinery, just different sensitizers. I bet Adox could do that if the market were there. But the stuff doesn't keep well so the market needs to be there to justify making runs of it.

Luckless' post raises a number of questions: What kind of batch production in terms of numbers would be needed to make it worthwhile for a producer to re-instate 220 and how much would each 220 cost? I am assuming you think that the current big film producers, Kodak and Fuji for colour and Ilford for B&W, would be the producers or do you think a new producer such as Ferrania would be able to start production of 220?

What has your research told you in terms of answers to these questions? Can you share it with us?

It may be that you think that there is enough potential 220 customers to get the market to its critical mass. If so where is the evidence and if there are enough potential 220 users why were they not buying enough to keep the 220 run going?


pentaxuser

Probably the only hope for 220 rests in the backing paper manufacturer's hands. If they had some reason to produce and sell smaller quantities of the leaders and trailers at reasonable prices, there would be a much greater chance that the film manufacturers would seek out some sort of more economical way to bring 220 back.

Well hi there I'm the OP. 4 pages of discussion all of it as always thoughtful and well reasoned. From everyone's perspective its a done deal; dead and gone.
But, as J said once, "Hey Old Guys".....
Film use is exploding with the youth. My apprentice shoots way more film per week than me and is desperately eager in his desire and use of every single different film emulsion he can get his hands on, he even talked me out of one of my few remaining rolls of Panatomic-X in 120. He buys and uses everything available new and combs the junk stores for outdated film. He's attempted to get ahold of my last pro-pack of TXP320 in 220 but that's not going to happen. You want numbers? Go call Jonathan Canalas at the Find Lab or Richards photo lab and see if they'll pick up the phone and tell you how many wedding shooters are using their services and how many rolls each of those shooters will do over the summer.
My own perspective still can see the advantages of 220, and those advantages don't go away despite everyone's overwhelming concrete solid evidence that it'll never happen. Ok sure; backing paper. Is everyone so CERTAIN that the length of the standard 120 backing paper is nowhere near the length of the top and tail of the 220 roll (but wait!! it'll take TWO pieces of tape!!! WON'T WORK I hear you say). Oh and its REALLY impossible to cut 220 since its like, 2 times the length=science fiction maybe next century. And forget that it'll use 1/2 Half the packaging for twice the film! Thats as CRAZY as selling 6 beers in a package for one price!! Who could even Carry that let alone buy it?
Really I am so glad I brought this topic up; Its like everyone is convinced (CONVINCED) that nobody could possibly want a 36 exposure roll of 35mm film and we should be content with 20 exposure rolls.
Well I'm just as convinced that a 5000 roll 220 run of HP5 or Tri-x would sell out world wide. Think about it this way; Since the last run of TXP320 in 220 size how many rolls are still available for sale worldwide? oh um..."reduced demand"....

Even theoretically, a 5,000 roll run of your favourite film in 220 format is still not a valid, profitable global market (that is to say, the market is not confined to one geographic place). Talk in terms of millions, where we were 20+ years ago (read Roger Cole's earlier post that sums up the changing (and permanently changed) dynamics very well). The best thing to do is use 220 to your heart's content. Of the last sentence, if you are that convinced, why don't you approach Kodak and get the definitive answer? Get the answer straight from the horse's mouth.

I'm trying to remember what Simon Galley posted about minimum order requirements for the 220 leaders and trailers from what I understand to be the single remaining paper manufacturer capable of supplying them.

I believe that it was something like ten years supply.

The film is easy to make. The cost of making the film is not high. The costs and difficulty of assembling it into a 220 package is what gets in the way.

Something as small as a 5000 roll order would probably have to be hand assembled.

And without having access to the custom manufactured leaders and trailers, the quality may be inconsistent.

I understand the supply chain and market demand issues. I get that. Really I do. But that doesn't stop me from wishing that I can get any film in 220 for my own specific reasons. I have a Mamiya 645 and RB67 but have no desire to haul either system around the world. Driving distance is not an issue for these cameras. I have multiple 120 backs for each and am happy to use them. Interchangeable backs are awesome. Get two backs, load one with color and the other with black and white and use the right material for the scene and your vision. Take one of these big ol' heavy system cameras with multiple backs and a tripod and look out, gonna have some fun.

Traveling by plane is an issue for me with these larger systems. Traveling light and low-volume is important to me for international travel. Even the M645 is too much volume and weight for me. When I travel by plane, I take my Fuji GA645 because it is small and makes quality images. 15 shots per roll (I have the earlier, 15-shot GA645) is just ok for me. Actually it is just fine for me but not for my traveling companions. "Hey, wait up guys, gotta change rolls." Yes I use this camera as snapshooter, but what great snapshots it makes! Using 220 with the GA645 puts the shot count pretty close to a 35mm film camera with a 36-exposure cassette. 220 is more convenient for me in supporting international travel.

I developed my last two rolls of 220 Porta 400 today, barring any hiding in the freezer or the few rolls of well-expired Fuji 400H I have in the fridge. They were really my first and last as I just started developing C-41 at home and they were my first rolls of 220 I developed. I read this thread prior to doing so and was slightly scared by the comments basically saying that 220 was too long and perhaps difficult to fit in the drying cabinet. I didn't find them any longer than 36-exposure 35mm film. As far as loading on the reels, that was only slightly different than 120. The first roll I loaded caused me a little difficulty as I wasn't sure what to expect with respect to the leader and trailer. The second roll was no issue. As a home developer, they really are not scary.

I'm sorry to see 220 go. I will miss it for its convenience for me for international travel. I just hope we don't lose any more color emulsions, either C-41 or E6. When we have no more color emulsions, I will likely stop carrying a film camera on trips requiring a plane.

Regards,
Rob

Heck, get an ETRs. Don't those give 16 shots on a roll of 120? Some 645 cameras like mine give 15 but a few do 16. That gets you half of the jump from 12 to 24 right there with existing films. And modern films are so good 645 can give superb results.

FWIW, I too wish 220 would return. I have no problem with the OP's assertion that there is demand out there. I just get frustrated on how difficult it is to bring home to people that the actual manufacture of the film is often the smallest component of its cost - cutting, edge printing, acquiring backing paper, attaching backing paper, spooling, packaging, distributing all add up to more - sometimes much, much more.

Fully agreed; the difference between 80 rolls of 120 and 40 rolls of 220 when traveling is not to be discounted.
Hey I got an idea. Lets everyone SAVE their 120 paper backing as well as we can and then repurpose them. Hey if we can respool 120 onto 127 size spindles we should be able to do this

RidingWaves said:

Fully agreed; the difference between 80 rolls of 120 and 40 rolls of 220 when traveling is not to be discounted.
Hey I got an idea. Lets everyone SAVE their 120 paper backing as well as we can and then repurpose them. Hey if we can respool 120 onto 127 size spindles we should be able to do this

Click to expand...

That is an interesting idea. I knew I should have been saving my spools and backing paper!

Is there any difference in the paper thickness? In other words, are 120 and 220 backing papers identical other than their lengths?

Barring dust issues (and material sourcing issues), why would spooling 220 be any or much worse than spooling 35mm? I'm thinking hand-spooling here, DYI, not commercial.

MattKing said:

FWIW, I too wish 220 would return. I have no problem with the OP's assertion that there is demand out there. I just get frustrated on how difficult it is to bring home to people that the actual manufacture of the film is often the smallest component of its cost - cutting, edge printing, acquiring backing paper, attaching backing paper, spooling, packaging, distributing all add up to more - sometimes much, much more.

Click to expand...

Agreed. And, having seen. on a factory visit, the Ilford machine which cuts, spools and packs 120 film (many films per minute, automatically), I can understand why the cost of a seperate new machine to produce 220 film would also be prohibitive.

Well since obviously the demand for 220 would not be as great as 120 so why would that machine Need to do thousands of rolls per hour; can't there be a smaller volume machine?
I would think the backing paper is exactly the same but since it does not actually BACK the 220 size film its actually a potentially simpler problem; paper/tape/film/tape. The loose edge of the 120 film seems more of a complexity (ask anyone who's respooled 120 on 127 spindles).
I just still cannot see how its impossible using 120 paper maybe even reusing that 'special' tape (anyone else save that and re-use?) cutting the 120 paper in half and using that to respool on to 120 spindles. Or are the 220 spindles "special" as well but I don't think so.

So we can save the backing paper from 120 and reuse. But where will we get film, and is 120 and 220 the same film stock?

If non-paper-backed film were available in long 60mm width rolls (like bulk film), then even a single person could start a small operation cutting that film to 220 lengths and attaching the paper where needed for each roll.

One of the bigger issues I recall with the 220 machine as opposed to the 120 machine is that it has to operate in darkness - only the container of uncut 120 has to be loaded in the dark & the rest takes place in the light which has many advantages with a machine that complex. The backing paper on 120 makes this possible - something which 220 obviously doesn't have.

pdeeh said:

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.

Click to expand...

Make it, and they will come... Really they will... Really... Well, hopefully... Perhaps...

Well now we are getting someplace..
How many rolls of 220 could I get out of a 1000 foot roll 60mm wide? Whats the Imax camera film stock width?

RidingWaves said:

Well now we are getting someplace..
How many rolls of 220 could I get out of a 1000 foot roll 60mm wide? Whats the Imax camera film stock width?

Click to expand...

It's 65mm wide, but perforated. You have to slit the film at both sides exactly along the sprocket holes. And the space between the upper and lower sprocket holes is not wide enough for a use in medium format cameras. That means, that the sprocket holes are inside your picture.
The other problem is the thickness of 65mm film. It's thicker than 120/220 film. Cut the 65mm to the same length like 220 and you will get a thicker roll...

Have fun ;-)

Btw: There is no 65mm BW film anymore. Only Kodak Vision3 Color Negative MP Film is available in 65mm.
That means you have to remove the remjet backing before developing it in ECN-2 Process and scanning it (it's not dedicated to print it chemically onto paper).

Good point; I would think 120 just longer. I was thinking cut down from aerial film; any B&W emulsions left in 9inch?

But,,,, looks too thin. Why not ask for 1000' ft price when the ULF run comes up?

RidingWaves said:

But,,,, looks too thin. Why not ask for 1000' ft price when the ULF run comes up?

Click to expand...

Been there done that... Asked for 50 or 100 foot of 6cm... In black plastic bag & card box... Any film type...

Note I've saved the backing paper...
Answer
No the ULF is for unavailable film sizes - 120 still in shops...

Why don't you want Kodachrome 25 in 220?

220 never sold enough to be viable except for the Ja colour wedding photos.

Buy Fuji 220 now tomorrow it will be history too.

Neither Adox nor Ferranni are going to be able to resurrect the dead...

Well if Bellamy Hunt can get a roll off of AGFA Belgium then I don't see how its not possible to convince someone to sell what I'm looking for.