Kentmere film "?" Maybe Mr. Galley will know.

[Chazzy]

I think you are wrong! Simon already told us that the 220 cutting machinery was out of order and the market is not strong enough to build another one. So, as Kentmere films and papers are coated in the Mobberley plant, don't expect film in 220 in this plant. Am I wrong, Simon?

Aurelien, I wasn't making a prediction that Ilford would resume production of 220. I'm quite aware that they won't, which is why I've stopped buying Ilford film. I merely pointed out that I would be more impressed with an emulsion that I could use in both 220 and sheet film. I don't want to use different emulsions in different formats--I want to standardize on one emulsion that I can use both ways. And the only emulsion which meets that requirement is Tri-X 320. Life is confusing enough without messing around with films that are offered in 135 only.

 

[PhotoJim]

As much as I'd like to see more 220 film available, even Kodak, which has 220 production machinery readily available, only deigns to produce one black-and-white emulsion in that format. Fuji chooses to produce none of its black-and-white films in 220. I think that speaks volumes about the market for black-and-white 220 film, even if it doesn't match my particular wants.

I for one will give this film a try and gladly so. Even if I end up not purchasing a lot of it, I hope it succeeds because Ilford deserves success for being willing to grow its presence in the silver photography market.

 

[wogster]

Dear Aurelien,

You are quite correct, we have explained in great detail why 220 will not be made again here on the Mobberley site.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

For those of us who are newer here, anyone recall when this was explained in detail, I wouldn't mind reading the info, looking for Ilford and 220 produces a lot of hits.

 

[AgX]

I can't speak for Ilford but but in general there is seemingly a shortage of type 220 rolfilm converting machines.

 

[MattKing]

Simon:

Don't say never!

Some day, someone might come up with an idea that would make a 220 finishing machine possible, and affordable!

Matt

P.S. then maybe you could lease the use of it to Kodak, at some profitable rate, for Plus-X

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear All,

I would love to make 220 film again....the cost to replace our machine was in excess of £ 300,000 ! : For our quality standards ( which we will not compromise ) and also Health & Safety it must be fully automated, other smaller companies in the past used to use semi automated or even hand finished lines for 120 and occasionally 220 but thats not possible for us.

We do look for pre-owned finishing equipment, and always keep our eyes open for a 220 solution, but lets be honest, most redundant equipment is sent for scrap rather then be sold to a potential competitor, thats life...

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

 

[Aurelien]

Simon, just a question you may already answer, I don't know.

When Agfaphoto closed its doors, you bought a part of their equipment, no? The machinery to write on the films, as I heard. Why didn't you buy the 220 machinery? Too expensive? Too old? Not so sophisticated?

Thanks for all Simon

 

[kraker]

We do look for pre-owned finishing equipment, and always keep our eyes open for a 220 solution, but lets be honest, most redundant equipment is sent for scrap rather then be sold to a potential competitor, thats life...

Next time I clean out a room in our house, I'll be sure to look out for 220 film finishing machines. I'll let you know if I encounter one.

:munch:

 

[TobiasK]

If £300,000 was the price for a 220 finishing machine it would probably be cheaper for Ilford to buy an extra 120 camera back or body for all black and white 220 users!

 

[Steve Smith]

If you remember a couple of years ago, Ilford were thinking about introducing Delta 25. They decided against it as its sales would impact on the sales of Pan F.

I think the same would be true of 220. If people bought 220 then sales of 120 would reduce making 120 a less cost effective product.



Steve.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Aurelian,

Its true, we bought the newest 35mm finishing lines when AGFA Photo sadly closed down and they have been rebuilt here at Mobberley ( and truly awesome they are, a credit to German engineering ) we also have two older AGFA finishing lines ( we always used the AGFA system of closed cassette loading) sadly AGFA Photo had already ceased the manufacture of all 120 film at least a year before the company failed and no medium format finishing equipment was at AGFA Photo, presumably scrapped when they ceased doing 120 as far as I am aware they had not done 220 for years.

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Aurelien]

Thanks Simon. Thanks to you, the analog world is more transparent

 

[Chazzy]

If you remember a couple of years ago, Ilford were thinking about introducing Delta 25. They decided against it as its sales would impact on the sales of Pan F.

I think the same would be true of 220. If people bought 220 then sales of 120 would reduce making 120 a less cost effective product.



Steve.

In my case, I just dropped Ilford and went to Kodak for 220. I was not going to buy extra 120 backs and spend the extra time loading them, just so that I could continue with Ilford films.

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

If you're using backs with 120, there is a minimal difference in the amount of time you'll spend loading as opposed to loading 35mm bodies for a big shoot.

Yes, if you do it in advance you'll need more backs.

I use 220 for all my color, but actually prefer 120 B&W because people tend to want less of it for the work I do (i.e. only specialized applications).


Simon, I know your company hasn't offered it in a while, but, hypothetically, could you cut 70mm sizes with say a 10,000 foot (6,096m) minimum order?

 

[tim_walls]

In my case, I just dropped Ilford and went to Kodak for 220. I was not going to buy extra 120 backs and spend the extra time loading them, just so that I could continue with Ilford films.

You can please some of the people, some of the time.

I'm sure Ilford are aware that some people will refuse to use anything other than 220, and were aware that those customers would be lost to them when they stopped 220. They were probably also aware that they were a vanishingly small number, and while it was extremely sad to lose them the long term interests of the company were better served by 'staying profitable' than 'catering to every niche'.


Ilford's loss is of course Kodak's gain, and that's a positive thing. Perhaps we need to come to terms with the fact that one company with the resources to cater to every possible niche is a thing of the past, and in the future we will have to deal with multiple suppliers each of whom corners a particular part of the market.

I hope for your sake that Kodak continues to believe 220 is profitable enough for them to remain one of those suppliers.

 

[tim_walls]

Thanks Simon. Thanks to you, the analog world is more transparent

No, I think you'll find that's the old 'fix before developer' mistake again

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear FilmIs4Ever,

Hypothetically yes we could ...Perforated or unperforated ?

Simon.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Wouldn't packaged 70mm film require its own production line?

Tom.

 

[Chazzy]

Dear FilmIs4Ever,

Hypothetically yes we could ...Perforated or unperforated ?

Simon.

The Linhof Cine-Rollex back requires perforated. I think some other backs require the same.

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

Dear FilmIs4Ever,

Hypothetically yes we could ...Perforated or unperforated ?

Simon.

Hi Simon.

I use both, but I can make do with perf'ed along one edge, or unperf'ed if need be.

I would think, if you offered 70mm stock, that would solve (some) of the issues that people who want 220 have, especially with low prices on Hassy' & RB backs these days. I think Efke and Foma are/were making 70mm, so there still seems to be demand.

You can coat it on the same base as 35mm, and cut it from the same master roll (2 widths instead of one with 35), no?

Of course, I certainly don't get the volume to shoot that much myself. Unfortunately, a lot of my work demands color these days. I always take B&W film along when I shoot a wedding, but unfortunately, a lot of times it stays in the bag. People LOVE making B&Ws out of color pictures though :confused:

However, with Hasselblad and RB backs being so cheap these days, that would seem the logical solution to the complaints of users that want 220.

I'd be willing to go in on a few hundred feet now that Kodak has gotten unreasonable with a lot of their special orders. I think they've upped their orders for Tri-X 70mm over 1,000 100-foot units now. Crazy!

I'd love to offer B&W for school pictures as an option, or maybe a '50s themed prom or something. Just swap out the color back and slap on a B&W one.

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

One other thing: While both Hasselblad and RB holders have sprocket advances, they actually work fine without them. You can just file them down. I think it is more for frame counting than actual advance.

I even tested a back once for fogging and just threw in old unperforated film (an RB back) and it advanced fine anyway! There was a little pitting, understandably, but it didn't cause any pressure fog or extend into the image area.

 

[jimgalli]

Long as everyone is speculating and crystal ball looking, how long before Freestyle in LA comes out with a new 100 and 400 from England in 120 and 4X5 8X10. Just dreaming out loud of course Why should Kodak get all the biz?

 

[Matt5791]

I always take B&W film along when I shoot a wedding, but unfortunately, a lot of times it stays in the bag. People LOVE making B&Ws out of color pictures though :confused:

I always make myself shoot B&W at weddings at the same time as colour, and I rarely have anyone asking for conversions. I shoot with two Nikon 25mm and Hasselblad with 2 or 3 backs, one always loaded with B&W.

Try it and see.

I'm just building an album where the couple have only chosen 4 colour shots

All Ilford HP5.

 

[mongo141]

Long as everyone is speculating and crystal ball looking, how long before Freestyle in LA comes out with a new 100 and 400 from England in 120 and 4X5 8X10. Just dreaming out loud of course Why should Kodak get all the biz?

Photo Warehouse, www.ultrafineonline.com is already doing just that. Page 3 in the last catalog.

 

[PhotoJim]

Long as everyone is speculating and crystal ball looking, how long before Freestyle in LA comes out with a new 100 and 400 from England in 120 and 4X5 8X10. Just dreaming out loud of course Why should Kodak get all the biz?

Ilford has stated publicly quite a few times that it doesn't sell film to third parties to be rebranded. Even in this case, the Kentmere films are different emulsions, sold only under the Kentmere name.