Return of 220 film?

pentaxuser · Sep 24, 2020

BrianShaw said:
I seem to want to believe that everyone is on-board with my notion of workplace ethics. Obviously I’m living in a fantasy world!

Maybe an idealist's world, Brian. Both the U.S. and U.K. have first world economies but in the last few years, we in the U.K. have seen the rise of the "zero hours contract" You get paid only for the hours you work at as low a wage as possible. There is no guarantee of hours, no company sick pay or holiday pay etc
May be the U.S. has similar practices? Ultimately and left unfettered to its own devices, capitalism is truly "red in tooth and claw" When the worker lamb lies down with the capitalist lion only one of them gets up in the morning as the saying goes

pentaxuser

Sirius Glass · Sep 24, 2020

miha said:
I know and have read all about the issue kodak had/has with the backing paper, even about the truck full of kodak film left in the sun story. The explanation you offered above seems plausible but was never confirmed by kodak to my knowledge. Anyway I dont know why you are bring this up? We are talking about a 220 type that might be available again according to a FB post. Kodak failed, ilford failed and so did fuji,.fine we know the reasons as presented by some who advocated they know the industry. However the reality is that Shaghai proved them wrong (if we are to believe the FB post) That's all there is to it.

Yes, it is imperative that Kodak, Ilford and Fuji must bend to your cherished wishes and drive themselves into bankruptcy as quickly as possible just to satisfy your demand!

Andrew O'Neill · Sep 24, 2020

I have to admit, I've never used 220 film, even though my RB67 can take it. I'm quite happy with 120. I like to get through a roll as quickly as possible.

TheGreatGasMaskMan · Sep 24, 2020

Sirius Glass said:
Yes, it is imperative that Kodak, Ilford and Fuji must bend to your cherished wishes and drive themselves into bankruptcy as quickly as possible just to satisfy your demand!

Meanwhile everyone here complains about how expensive it is and refuses to buy any.

pentaxuser · Sep 24, 2020

Sirius Glass said:
Yes, it is imperative that Kodak, Ilford and Fuji must bend to your cherished wishes and drive themselves into bankruptcy as quickly as possible just to satisfy your demand!

You've quoted Miha's reply but whose demand is this? Not Miha's surely? Is he asking that these three companies you mention drive themselves into bankruptcy to satisfy his demand. His demand for what?

It looked as if he was saying that if the opening post is to be believed, Shanghai may have found a way to produce 220. Then foc followed up and gave reasons why Shanghai's circumstances might bear no resemblance to the quite different positions that Kodak, Fuji and Ilford find themselves in and how Shanghai might accomplish what allegedly what the original post suggest it is doing, namely producing 220 film.

I fail to see the how Miha's posts indicate that he wishes to force the above three companies into bankruptcy but I stand ready to have this connection explained to me.

pentaxuser

ic-racer · Sep 24, 2020

I'm not on facebook, is there an email address for the seller? Still interested in testing and using the film. My new camera (built in 2020) takes either 120 and 220 with the same film back. It does appear that the film channel does not change; the 120/220 function is electronic only.

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Sep 24, 2020

ic-racer said:
I'm not on facebook, is there an email address for the seller? Still interested in testing and using the film.

He's on Instagram if that can be of help to you: https://www.instagram.com/pierre506_zhou/

mshchem · Sep 25, 2020

pentaxuser said:
Maybe an idealist's world, Brian. Both the U.S. and U.K. have first world economies but in the last few years, we in the U.K. have seen the rise of the "zero hours contract" You get paid only for the hours you work at as low a wage as possible. There is no guarantee of hours, no company sick pay or holiday pay etc
May be the U.S. has similar practices? Ultimately and left unfettered to its own devices, capitalism is truly "red in tooth and claw" When the worker lamb lies down with the capitalist lion only one of them gets up in the morning as the saying goes

pentaxuser

Over here the self employed are referred to, a new interpretation of the term gig. In my youth a gig was something like a few days of a band "getting a gig" to play music. Today it's used to refer to millions of people who work on their own, not through an agency, as temporary or contract workers. Mostly young no benefits provided by employers or any level of government.

Clearly if Ilford and Kodak could make a boatload of money, 220 would be on the shelves. I'm so pleased with what Ilford is doing in promoting their products to inexperienced folks that want to give analog a go. Tetenal has introduced new very small kits for color. If Kodak Alaris and Eastman Kodak's still/cine film could be put together by a "white knight" to safeguard those products that would be perfect. No 220 required.

Henning Serger · Sep 25, 2020

MattKing said:
The problem with 220 is not the film, it is the leaders and trailers and the machinery necessary for automating the roll assembly.
Every one of the big film companies can do 220, they just can't sell enough of it to make any money from it because of capital costs to replace worn out equipment and the minimum order requirement of the manufacturers of the paper leaders and trailers.
Even for 120 film, those minimum order requirements are a serious problem. For 220 film, they are close to insurmountable.
IIRC Simon Galley stated that at the best terms available to Ilford the smallest order they could place for the leaders and trailers would force them to buy several years supply. None of the film companies are in a position to tie up that much capital for that long for a product with such (relatively) small sales.

Absolutely correct, Matt.
I've seen 120 format fully automated converting machines running in film factories. Fascinating high-technology, extremely sophisticated.
Therefore I doubt that this 220 film option is made on such a fully automated machine. It is much more likely that it is instead handmade, similar to those offerings in 127 film. And we have to see how good the converting quality is. So far I have not seen any Chinese film which could fully compete in quality with Ilford, Kodak, Fujifilm, Foma, ADOX.

Best regards,
Henning

Henning Serger · Sep 25, 2020

halfaman said:
Find bellow the original statement from Simon Galley in 2006 about 220 film. Some things may have changed along the last 14 years but I don't think the first two points of the statement did.

Some things have indeed changed since then, and the most important thing is the total market volume, which is today even much, much lower compared to the first half of 2006, when Ilford did their calculation, on which Simon's detailed statement was based.
At that time the "digital revolution" was just in its first phase, and global demand for photo film (without instant film) was still more than 1.5 billion (!) films p.a.. So more than 15x bigger than today. And because of that it would be today even much more unlikely that Ilford could generate a ROI in the long term whith an investment in new 220 production capacities.

Best regards,
Henning

Henning Serger · Sep 25, 2020

M-88 said:
There is more than one way to "produce" 220 film and bring it back to market, but I don't see it feasible, because more than half of MF shooters use cameras with frame counting windows.

From my market analyst's point of view I have to disagree on the last part of your sentence: Cameras with frame counting (red) windows in current use are mainly some old folders which are still used, and the Holgas. But that is a minority compared to all the Rolleis, Hasselblads, Mamiyas, Pentax, Fujis, Contax, Zenza Bronicas, Pentacon Six, Kiews, Arax etc. which all have proper frame counters.

Best regards,
Henning

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Sep 25, 2020

Henning Serger said:
So far I have not seen any Chinese film which could fully compete in quality with Ilford, Kodak, Fujifilm, Foma, ADOX.

@Henning Serger: what's your opinion of Shanghai GP3 ISO film in sheet format? There were unconfirmed claims that the film was derived from Plus X. Several people have used the film and found it to be a good film and great value for money. Have you tested this film?

miha · Sep 25, 2020

pentaxuser said:
I fail to see the how Miha's posts indicate that he wishes to force the above three companies into bankruptcy but I stand ready to have this connection explained to me.

pentaxuser

Pentaxuser, me too. However I have no desire to argue on this. The reason being a particular quote by George Bernard Shaw...

Commerre · Sep 25, 2020

That's a Fantastic news.

Henning Serger · Sep 27, 2020

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
@Henning Serger: what's your opinion of Shanghai GP3 ISO film in sheet format? There were unconfirmed claims that the film was derived from Plus X.

Hello Raghu,
only Kodak itself could derive a film from Plus X. No one else!! Because only Kodak has all the knowledge about the Plus X emulsion and the procedures and machines to manufacturer it (every emulsion is designed to work only on one specific emulsion making and coating machinery).
Plus X has higher resolution, better sharpness and finer grain than GP3. The spectral sensivity is also not identical. They are quite different films.

Best regards,
Henning

TheGreatGasMaskMan · Sep 27, 2020

Henning Serger said:
Hello Raghu,
only Kodak itself could derive a film from Plus X. No one else!! Because only Kodak has all the knowledge about the Plus X emulsion and the procedures and machines to manufacturer it (every emulsion is designed to work only on one specific emulsion making and coating machinery).
Plus X has higher resolution, better sharpness and finer grain than GP3. The spectral sensivity is also not identical. They are quite different films.

Best regards,
Henning

Here's the freestyle photo description for catlabs 80 (aka gp3):

CatLABS X Film 80 is a traditional, slow-speed, fine-grain, high silver content film, designed for a wide array of shooting conditions. Following in the footsteps of Kodak's famous 'Panatomic-X' (which was used in Polaroid's equally famous Type 55 film), CatLABS X Film 80 brings back a classic touch with its unique look. It is an ideal “daylight” film, offering versatility and unique characteristics not found in any other currently made film on the market today.

Agulliver · Sep 28, 2020

"following in the footsteps" really could mean anything. Likelihood is someone at Freestyle reads these forums and sees people asking for a return of Panatomic-X....and realises that by making a vague and legally meaningless comparison they can sell more of it.

TheGreatGasMaskMan · Sep 28, 2020

Agulliver said:
"following in the footsteps" really could mean anything. Likelihood is someone at Freestyle reads these forums and sees people asking for a return of Panatomic-X....and realises that by making a vague and legally meaningless comparison they can sell more of it.

actually, it's Catlabs wording as the same thing appears on their own site. Obviously a marketing ploy, but still a great film.

ic-racer · Sep 28, 2020

Maybe some day we will see this....

BrianShaw · Sep 28, 2020

Probably one of the more likely scenarios!

TheGreatGasMaskMan · Sep 28, 2020

It is available here in the states, if that's what you're getting at

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Sep 28, 2020

Henning Serger said:
Hello Raghu,
only Kodak itself could derive a film from Plus X. No one else!! Because only Kodak has all the knowledge about the Plus X emulsion and the procedures and machines to manufacturer it (every emulsion is designed to work only on one specific emulsion making and coating machinery).
Plus X has higher resolution, better sharpness and finer grain than GP3. The spectral sensivity is also not identical. They are quite different films.

Best regards,
Henning

Hi Henning, thanks for confirming that Shanghai GP3 and Plus X are not the same or related films. Yes, I found it a little bewildering that an unknown factory in China could get hold of Kodak's knowledge had the two films been the same/related. OTOH if GP3 is an indigenous invention then we can hope that there is some R&D going on in China and the future iterations of the film would be even better than what it is today.

MattKing · Sep 28, 2020

I see no problem with a manufacturer evaluating their product, noting similarities with other product from the past that is no longer produced, and referring to those similarities in marketing material.
The real question is: how accurate is the comparison?

Agulliver · Sep 28, 2020

MattKing said:
I see no problem with a manufacturer evaluating their product, noting similarities with other product from the past that is no longer produced, and referring to those similarities in marketing material.
The real question is: how accurate is the comparison?

There's nothing wrong with it per se. The problem is that rumours then start like "Cat Labs 80 is revived Panatomic X" or "Shanghai GP3 is Plus-x"....or everything else is Kentmere....

Wallendo · Sep 28, 2020

I have no doubt that the Chinese could produce a 220 film. I do have doubts about whether or not they could make money off of it. Kodak had to make products in Kodak quantities. Ilford had to make products at Ilford quality. Both expensive processes/

The Chinese could easily make 220 in smaller volumes, with cheaper labor costs, and cheaper supplies. The Kodak print-through issues with their paper was apparently dye related. Since 220 film should not have any dye ever com into contact with the film, there should be no instances of print-through, and any mottling would be limited to the first and last 1-2 cm of the film. From the Ilford quote previously posted, Ilford required products to their standards. I'm sure a paper company in China could make a much cheaper paper that would satisfy other companies.

I just don't see the market for this film. I might buy a roll just to justify the purchase of my 220 insert for my Mamiya, but find that it takes a while to shoot 15 frames, and 31 would take forever.

Return of 220 film?

pentaxuser

Sirius Glass

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

TheGreatGasMaskMan

pentaxuser

ic-racer

Raghu Kuvempunagar

mshchem

Henning Serger

Henning Serger

Henning Serger

Raghu Kuvempunagar

miha

Commerre

Henning Serger

TheGreatGasMaskMan

Agulliver

TheGreatGasMaskMan

ic-racer

BrianShaw

TheGreatGasMaskMan

Raghu Kuvempunagar

MattKing

Moderator

Agulliver

Wallendo

Return of 220 film?

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency