Petition for 220 film

[Nick Zentena]

My message just got added to the middle of the thread not the end. :rolleyes:

 

[Dave Parker]

Yes, I'd say it shows that not all 220 users here feel the need to enter into a debate because of a simple announcement that those who wish to do so may go to a certain URL and sign a petition for the product. I think it also shows that several thousand 120 users have the decency and good will not to attack traditional photographic products others use, just because they don't see the need for them personally.

Personally, I only see the need for one kind of ground glass, but that's just me . . .

Okay Chazzy,

Have at it, throw rocks if you want, I am not saying I don't support them, I am saying it will take a heck of a committment, looking at the economic side of things is all.

Personally, I have not seen any attacks here, just some realistic postings about the economics and reality of the situation.

And really, when it comes down to it, I have the right to post my opinion as the next guy, I am sorry you don't agree with it, you have the right to your opnion as well, and I don't agree with it, that is the way it works.

Also, there is really only one type of ground glass, that is glass that is frosted on one side in order to resolve an image on it to provide focusing. This can be achieved a couple of different ways, grinding, sand blasting and acid etching.

Now there are a few different types of enhanced viewing screens consisting of plastics, wax an other various items. Now these are really not ground glass.

Myself personally Also think there is only a need for one type of ground glass! LOL

Dave

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Fuji would seem like the most likely supplier of B&W 220. They offer a fairly wide selection of color films, neg and slide in 220. I didn't notice whether Acros or Neopan 400 is available in 220 at B&H, but do they make it for the Japanese market? If they do, it might just be a matter of finding a distributor willing to handle it in other parts of the world.

Another attraction of 220 that I don't think has been mentioned here, is that it is potentially sharper than 120, because it lacks the paper backing. (Zeiss did some testing along these lines some years ago, though the results are not without controversy).

Would I use 220 if more of it were available? Well, my Bronicas have switchable 12/24 backs, so if I were traveling more with my Bronicas these days, I'd shoot TXP in 220, because I like TXP and it would be convenient, but truth be told, I usually travel with 4x5" or larger, and I'm not using the Bronicas as much as I used to. I wish my 6x17 back took 220, but it relies on the red window. My Perkeo II and Superb are both 120 cameras, and I don't have any 220 backs for my Linhofs, though I suppose that if more B&W films were available in 220, I might be tempted to get one. They aren't a rarity on the used market, but they aren't very common either. If I were to sign the petition, I probably couldn't account for more than 15 rolls a year, if that.

 

[Daniel Lawton]

I agree. I never expected that the announcement of a petition on behalf of a traditional photographic product, particularly on this website, would result in a rush of people desiring to kill the product instead of saving it.

I guess I must reiterate that I have no desire to see any product killed off but rather I want a healthy film industry. It's not negativity nor is it my desire to be rude to the author of this thread. There will always be a niche product with a small customer base but that doesn't necessarily mean a company will be able to financially support it. I don't think a petition is necessary since the 220 film that is available is apparently selling like bathing suits in the middle of January, and that tells Ilford, Kodak and Fuji all they need to know. If manufacturers were to invest capital on diversifying and increasing 220 production only to have 75% of it expire on store shelves, how would that help the film using community as a whole? Apparently this isn't something you can just make a little bit of and then sell it sporadically. It would cost a substantial amount of money from the film companies and despite a loyal following who may sign a petition, I doubt there are enough consumers out there to make it worth while. All the emulsions are available in 120 and I think we should focus on preserving what is left before we call for a company like Ilford to invest in possible lame duck products in the economically hostile digital era. Its tough enough to keep the current products from becoming extinct. Lets try and stop the loss of papers and complete emulsions all together before we try to preserve an extra few frames on a 120 roll. If you want to influence the manufacturers, all of you should buy all the 220 you can get. If this doesn't send them a message then its because there just isn't any demand.

 

[Dave Parker]

I agree Daniel,

If we look at this in the big picture, as I heard the machine to produce 220 film costs in excess of 1 million dollars...now lets break down possible income, based on just the members on this wesite, if all of the members were to commit to purchase 5 rolls of 220 film over the next 12 months, that at wholesale would sell for say $3.00 that would be an income of $150K return on just the investment in the machine, that does not take into account the man power you have to pay for, let alone the upkeep, electicity and the numerable other problems that come along over the course of a production run, that is 50 thousands rolls of film! at on average is 30 shots per roll...

It is not I don't support the effort, but in order for a company to make money, and after all, that is the reason for being in business, they would have to sell a few million rolls of this film!..

I, As Daniel, don't want to see anything go away, but have to look at the big picture, I would rather have something to shoot that a factory puts its heart into, than not have anything at all..

Not a bash against keeping a traditional product on the market and not a negative, just a reality, even in it heyday, the 220 format was never the most popular selling film, and now that the times have changed.

I just hope we keep having something to shoot in our medium format cameras..

Dave

 

[Brac]

Fuji would seem like the most likely supplier of B&W 220. They offer a fairly wide selection of color films, neg and slide in 220. I didn't notice whether Acros or Neopan 400 is available in 220 at B&H, but do they make it for the Japanese market? If they do, it might just be a matter of finding a distributor willing to handle it in other parts of the world.

Just on a point of information, Fuji did at one point make Neopan 400 in 220 as it was listed in their UK professional catalogue but hasn't been listed for several years. I've no idea if it's still available in Japan. Konica still do some colour neg professional films in 220 but they don't seem to be on the UK market but are listed on the English part of their main website.

 

[Petzi]

To some extent, 220 film IS a kind of chicken-egg problem. People cannot find 220 film in their suppliers' price lists, so they don't use it (even though they could or would.) This results in low demand, and discontinuation of the product...

I buy my Fuji 220 roll film from Robert White in the UK, and they gladly supply me with that because I buy it in entire cartons (100 rolls), but it is not even listed on their web page, I learned that they sell it because I asked about it.

 

[Petzi]

If Ilford are still making excuses about the legendary broken machine, I hope that you approach Foma and the other eastern european suppliers.

Last I heard, Ilford are not making excuses about a broken 220 machine, instead they are saying that their machine to make 220 film is scrapped.

So we better not rely on Ilford. I would like to see some Fuji Acros in 220. Perhaps some Neopan 400 also for my Mamiya 7.

Besides, it is not only about the machine, you need the leader paper also which appears to be pretty hard to obtain for film manufacturers. Last I heard, it may even be problematic to make 120 film in the future, because of the paper.

 

[mikebarger]

looks like about 85 have signed, and of those a little over sixty are stating interest in less than 100 rolls.

Leaves about 20- 25 interested in more than 100 rolls. Doesn't seem like to much interest, or much incentive.

Mike

 

[Petzi]

So what. Some photographers don't want their names published. Many have not heard of this effort. Many are not even online.

 

[Dave Parker]

So what. Some photographers don't want their names published. Many have not heard of this effort. Many are not even online.

Well, if it is an online petition and they are not online???

then where do we go from there?

Still for the uproar that was surrounding this issue, 85 don't seem to be to many people...if they all committed to 10 rolls a year, that is only 850 rolls, and if they committed to 100 rolls, that is only 8500 rolls...

wish it could be, but probably won't.

Dave

 

[Petzi]

All I wanted to say is that only a fraction of the people interested in this film will ever sign the petition and there are several reasons why they won't.

 

[Brac]

Now that Konica-Minolta are moving out of the film manufacturing business perhaps there
is an opportunity for Ilford to negotiate the acquisition of their 220 film making machine - judging by how rare Konica 220 film is, I doubt if it's had much use!

 

[Daniel Lawton]

Why would a film photographer not want his/her name associated with saving a film they are in desperate need of or enthusiastic about? If this was a petition to save Tri-X/ FP4 or MF film all together you'd probably have quite a few responses. I just think most film users realize the times we live in and don't expect manufacturers to make a large financial commitment to a potential flop when there exists an nearly identical alternative (120 film).

 

[Papa Tango]

Pinch me when its over...