Is there STILL no hope for 220

[benjiboy]

On personal reflection about 220 film I can't say I miss it, I haven't used it for about 25 years since I gave up the freelance wedding business, although I still have a 220 capable Mamiya C330F camera. 220's demise is pretty predictable for any manufacturer in the digital age as being uneconomical to produce because of the potential lack of sales volume, I
think we just need to be grateful that they still make 120 film.

 

[BrianShaw]

Maybe someone could set up a cottage industry of 120 splicing for those who want 220.

 

[removed account4]

Maybe someone could set up a cottage industry of 120 splicing for those who want 220.

that would be a great idea, but isn't the film stock thinner so it might jamm up the works ?

 

[BrianShaw]

I think 120 and 220 is the same base material. Can't be sure because I never had a need or desire to use 220. a quick check of a film data sheet should answer that question... but I can't put my fingers on one atthe moment. I know for a fact that the 120 film base is different from LF or 35mm films.

 

[MattKing]

120 and 220 are on the same base - at least for the last few films that were manufactured in both lengths.

The differences are:

1) the 220 film is twice the length of the 120. Fairly easy for the manufacturers to deal with, although the costs of setup and take-down of the 220 cutting regime are probably quite high per roll;
2) the edge printing on the 220 is different. Again, fairly easy for the manufacturers to deal with, although the costs of setup and take-down of the 220 edge-printing regime are probably quite high per roll;
3) the paper leaders and trailers for 220 are special purpose purchases, are very expensive per roll, and have extremely high minimum order requirements from the sole supplier. As they have different start marks and other markings, and are different lengths, and require two separate adhesive tapes, the film manufacturers cannot easily re-purpose 120 backing paper;
4) the machines that put together 120 film, backing paper and spools cannot be used to do the same for 220 film. There probably are two remaining, working 220 machines left in the world (Eastman Kodak and Fuji) that will do that, but they may or may not be still functioning. Ilford's machine was long ago worn out. They costed out repair or replacement, and it was totally uneconomic. Hand assembly might be possible, if customers were willing to accept much higher prices and lower quality;
5) the exterior packaging is different between the two sizes. Fairly easy for manufacturers to deal with, although the relatively small volumes probably mean higher costs; and
6) distribution related costs are slightly higher for two different products than for a single product. At the retail end, the retailer incurs higher inventory related costs for two different products than for one.

 

[AgX]

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.

Both formats are converted in the dark.

 

[AgX]

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?

If a there could be a technically smaller machine for whatever process in that industry, it still would have to be made first.

Those costs could likely be larger than its savings. And it would have to be pre-financed anyway.


You can convert films by hand too. But that too has a price tag.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Both formats are converted in the dark.

Yes, the slitting takes place in the dark, but from the pictures of the Ilford 120 packaging machine, it's quite obvious it operates in the daylight with the key components enclosed - http://this-is-sunderland.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/IMG_0898.jpg

And some quick googling suggests the price Harman suggested a replacement 220 machine would cost was in the range of £300k

 

[pentaxuser]

[QUOTE="Lachlan Young,
And some quick googling suggests the price Harman suggested a replacement 220 machine would cost was in the range of £300k[/QUOTE]
Plus presumably the labour cost of operating it. I wonder where this puts the cost of 220 plus a small profit margin?

"In the old days" (of Simon Galley) Ilford might have given an indication of the minimum price required to make 220 viable. This might have drawn a line under the whole thread - or maybe not

Ah the good old days

pentaxuser

 

[AgX]

Yes, the slitting takes place in the dark, but from the pictures of the Ilford 120 packaging machine, it's quite obvious it operates in the daylight with the key components enclosed.

Of course that was what I referred to by saying "in the dark".

And slitting may be done "in light" (your definition) of course too. It depends on the type of machinery used.

 

[adelorenzo]

Here is an idea, roll your own from 65mm motion picture stock:

http://emulsive.org/articles/bulk-loading-120-film-using-65mm-kodak-250d-5207

 

[Xmas]

M

[QUOTE="Lachlan Young,
And some quick googling suggests the price Harman suggested a replacement 220 machine would cost was in the range of £300k

Plus presumably the labour cost of operating it. I wonder where this puts the cost of 220 plus a small profit margin?

"In the old days" (of Simon Galley) Ilford might have given an indication of the minimum price required to make 220 viable. This might have drawn a line under the whole thread - or maybe not

Ah the good old days

pentaxuser[/QUOTE]
- marketing directors are all the same in my experience.

- the problem with 220 is the same as the problem with Kodachrome
-- no one was buying it, if you had nx reels of 1000 feet of 6 cm stock and a finishing machine. You would need to be running the machine five days a week.
So just how busy is Harmans 120 finishing machine?
Earlier this year I bought some of Lomos 100ISO 120 as it was cheap expired dated '12... This is '16!

 

[PittP]

Is there any source for 60mm bulk film (e.g. 100 feet...) as for 135 film?
And may be backing paper separately?
Home rolling of 220 (or any reasonable length) is a no-brainer, and as long as your camera does not have that red window...

 

[Ai Print]

Having largely given up on 220 due to lack of stock, I only have one back left for it and that will take care of about 80 rolls of 220 remaining then it is a doorstop, same goes for my nice Hewes 220 reel.

However, when I go to process my 120, I am very careful to not wreck the backing paper as I save it, started doing it about 200 rolls ago and plan to from here on out.

One never knows if the need for it may arise and I don't see quality backing paper exactly getting cheaper in the future. I once read on here via Simon galley that it is the more expensive part of making 120 film.

 

[AgX]

IlfordPhoto did offer 62mm backing paper long rolls in their "custom" runs, but not the respective films.

 

[Nzoomed]

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.....

Ferrania is your best chance of getting 220.

Its no different than 120 film anyway, except its a longer roll of film with a larger spool.

No need to build a new machine, only replacement parts that need to be fabricated.

Ferrania have all the equipment and they intend on using it if there is enough demand, they want to fill the gap in the market with dead formats.

 

[MattKing]

Nope.

The spool is the same. The difference is that the film is twice as long, there is no backing paper behind the film itself, there is a paper leader and a paper trailer, both of which are made of the same material as the backing paper for 120. There is only one source left for that paper, it is extremely expensive and the minimum order requirements are huge.

The leader and the trailer are different lengths than the 120 backing paper, and are attached in a different manner to the film.

The problem isn't the film. It is the leader and the trailer, and the single purpose machines used for putting them together with the film.

 

[Nzoomed]

Nope.

The spool is the same. The difference is that the film is twice as long, there is no backing paper behind the film itself, there is a paper leader and a paper trailer, both of which are made of the same material as the backing paper for 120. There is only one source left for that paper, it is extremely expensive and the minimum order requirements are huge.

The leader and the trailer are different lengths than the 120 backing paper, and are attached in a different manner to the film.

The problem isn't the film. It is the leader and the trailer, and the single purpose machines used for putting them together with the film.

Yes your right, the backing paper is only at the start and finish.
I never released its the same size spool! Even with the backing paper removed, its still not as thick as the film base itself, and i was sure the photos ive seen of a 220 spool looked larger.
Does that mean that any 120 camera can shoot 220?

I did not think the paper would be much of a big deal TBH, especially since its the same width as 120.

 

[MattKing]

Does that mean that any 120 camera can shoot 220?

No, because most 120 cameras either:

1) have counters and film advance systems that only permit the number of shots that will fit on 120; or
2) have a little window at the back, which will nicely fog the 220 film which has no backing paper to protect it.

By the way, 120 and 220 spools have to be the same, because the feed spool on one roll (220 or 120) becomes the take-up spool for the next.

The leader and trailer papers wouldn't be as much a big deal if every roll was hand assembled. But if you need to buy those leaders and trailers at commercial quantities and use a machine in absolute darkness and have sufficient volume to actually sell the rolls at a decent price, with reasonable profit, then they do become a big deal.

For 120, where volumes are still reasonably high, the backing paper costs the film manufacturers more than it costs them to make the film itself.

With 220, where volumes are far, far lower, the cost of the leaders and trailers would most likely cost the film manufacturers much, much, more than the film itself.

Add in the additional costs for customized edge printing, separate packaging, separate merchandising - you get the idea.

 

[Reinhold]

Back in my "travelin" days I shot well over 2000 rolls of negatives on 220.
Mostly in RB-67, Mamiya 6, Mamiya 7, 612 Horesman backs, and a 617 Fujinon.
Overseas travel meant carrying half as many of rolls.
It meant fewer missed photo opportunities.
It also meant half as many roll changes.
Darkroom time was chopped in half.
Ah, well those days are gone.
I sadly miss 220.
RIP, my trusted friend...

Reinhold

www.classicBWphoto.com
www.re-inventedPhotoEquip.com

 

[Nzoomed]

No, because most 120 cameras either:

1) have counters and film advance systems that only permit the number of shots that will fit on 120; or
2) have a little window at the back, which will nicely fog the 220 film which has no backing paper to protect it.

By the way, 120 and 220 spools have to be the same, because the feed spool on one roll (220 or 120) becomes the take-up spool for the next.

The leader and trailer papers wouldn't be as much a big deal if every roll was hand assembled. But if you need to buy those leaders and trailers at commercial quantities and use a machine in absolute darkness and have sufficient volume to actually sell the rolls at a decent price, with reasonable profit, then they do become a big deal.

For 120, where volumes are still reasonably high, the backing paper costs the film manufacturers more than it costs them to make the film itself.

With 220, where volumes are far, far lower, the cost of the leaders and trailers would most likely cost the film manufacturers much, much, more than the film itself.

Add in the additional costs for customized edge printing, separate packaging, separate merchandising - you get the idea.

Yeah i guess most people are opting for 120, although i can see its advantages, namley more exposures per roll, which seemed popular for wedding photographers etc.

Anyway, its possible we may see a revival in the future, either way, it doesn't affect me because i dont shoot it, although i may look at using medium format in the future.

It looks promising if Film Ferrania will produce 127 film in the future.
I guess there is no real gap in the market for 220 anyway, as i expect that most 220 cameras can shoot 120, even though not can be said for the opposite as you mention.

 

[MattKing]

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see the return of 220, and I certainly see a small market for it.

Unfortunately, it would be prohibitively costly to service that market, because the costs that are specific to 220 are the sort of costs that require consistent, high volumes to permit reasonable prices. And the usage is just too small for that.

 

[PittP]

IlfordPhoto did offer 62mm backing paper long rolls in their "custom" runs, but not the respective films.

Indeed!
In the UK the 30.5m-roll of backing-paper has a price tag over 75 GBP, the length being good for ~19 films 120-type makes the paper only 3,96 GBP/film.
Buy the FP-4 nicely packaged and including the backing paper, and you pay 3,98 GBP.
Who's been taken for a ride there?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

To quote Virgil, "The only hope of the doomed is not to hope." Sort of says it all. Once the major market for this film (wedding photographers) dried up there was no incentive for film makers to keep producing the format.

 

[David Lyga]

Sirius, if you are serious, I would be interested in the New York bridge. (Think of all the revenue I could generate.) - David Lyga