Return of 220 film?

[ic-racer]

I'll buy some and test it. Where?

 

[pentaxuser]

I'll buy some and test it. Where?

In answer to the above question, the gentleman referred to in this thread? . So far he seems to be the only known source. If Shanghai have genuinely re-started production of 220 then I'd assume their volumes unless it is one or two employees only literally "knife and forking it" by hand then pretty soon it has to be made available through other channels doesn't it?.

Can you wait long enough?

pentaxuser

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

Catlabs has issued the gp3 100 under their own label here in the states, maybe in the future, (pending this is all true) they can sell the 400 as well.

 

[pentaxuser]

Catlabs has issued the gp3 100 under their own label here in the states,

In 220?

pentaxuser

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

In 220?

pentaxuser

120, and large format.

 

[pentaxuser]

120, and large format.

Ay, there's the rub as Hamlet said. Tis 220 we seek. I cannot swear that Hamlet got past the first bit

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[mshchem]

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.

Exactly!

 

[miha]

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.

So the Chinese came to rescue...

 

[MattKing]

So the Chinese came to rescue...

Maybe - if the leaders and trailers they are using don't become a source of problems.
Even 220 film can have problems at either end with wrapper offset.
And Kodak itself probably wouldn't have had the same 120 wrapper offset problems if they replaced all their current films with the films they sold 50 years ago.

 

[miha]

Maybe - if the leaders and trailers they are using don't become a source of problems.
Even 220 film can have problems at either end with wrapper offset.
And Kodak itself probably wouldn't have had the same 120 wrapper offset problems if they replaced all their current films with the films they sold 50 years ago.

Sorry Matt, what you wrote is pure speculation. And in a contemptuous tone of voice.

 

[MattKing]

Sorry Matt, what you wrote is pure speculation. And in a contemptuous tone of voice.

No contempt here - certainly none intended.
The wrapper offset problem is a problem with the interaction between the films and the ink and the paper - all of which have changed tremendously since the 1970s (50 years ago). In its most recent occurrence it didn't really manifest itself for Kodak until they ran out of the old backing paper that they had themselves manufactured in large quantities, up until when sales of 120 film dropped precipitously (leaving them with a lot of backing paper inventory). The backing paper manufacturing capacity was one of the capacities that went when they started their massive cuts.
The Shanghai film does appear to be older technology/an older formulation, and their backing papers certainly look like old technology/an older formulation. If they work well together, more power to those who are behind them.
I am confident that if Kodak could have sourced a solution from China for the relatively recent manifestation of the wrapper offset problem they would have done so immediately, but it would have had to work with all their films, including the colour emulsions.

 

[miha]

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.

 

[MattKing]

However the reality is that Shaghai proved them wrong (if we are to believe the FB post) That's all there is to it.

I would agree, if this was film with the quality and availability of Kodak, Ilford or Fuji, and the pricing made sense.
If, however, this is being kludged together by hand in small quantities, and consists of product (black and white only and of one speed only) that is of inconsistent quality and that has inconsistent availability, then I wouldn't agree.
So we shall see.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

So the poster on facebook keeps answering "me" when people ask where they can buy the 220. Is he reliable? I'm interested. I have just one 220 capable camera but I'd like to use 220 film in it rather than 120 on occasion.

Yes, he is very reliable. I've ordered Shanghai sheet film through him without issue.

 

[Agulliver]

Regarding Ilford....they stated in these very forums that their machine which produced 220 was worn out after 40+ years of service and needed a complete rebuild. I forget the projected cost but I am sure it was six figures. With the estimated sales of 220 they reckoned one single production run would need six years to sell. Which isn't viable. The cost of renovating the 220 production machinery would likely never be recouped. But they'd keep an eye on the situation. If Shanghai can sell decent numbers of GP3 in 220 maybe another manufacturer will take note.

It's entirely possible Kodak and Fuji faced similar issues....Kodak "killed" super 8 sound film for similar reasons back in 1997. It wasn't that they didn't want to make the film, the machinery had run for 20 years and was knackered.

Shanghai may be in a different position. As yet we don't know how they're making 220 but the chap on Ebay is offering it for just over $8 a roll which isn't bad. I have not contacted him with a view to buying yet, but he gives a price on his page.

 

[halfaman]

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.

Dear Customers :

We have received your petition for the return of ILFORD 220 roll film, we deeply respect the fervour and passion shown and the great effort that has been expended to assemble such a list of renowned photographers who would like to see this format re-introduced.

We have obviously taken note of the potential commercial opportunity of once again having 220 film within our product family, we would be remiss not to.

The Board of Directors of ILFORD Photo, HARMAN technology Limited have discussed this petition and the opportunity, and discussed at length with our manufacturing and finishing staff the practicalities of returning 220 film to the range.

After due deliberation, we find it impossible to do so at this time, the reasons are set out below.

1) The finishing route of this film is part automated, the machine designated to 220 is chronically obsolete, in excess of 50 years old, and is currently de-commissioned. To refurbish the machine is impossible and to manufacture a new one ( using the old machine as a template ) would cost in the region of £ 300,000.

2) Hand finishing of 220 has been evaluated and rejected due to the potential quality issues of hand finishing in total darkness.

3) The highly specialised coated papers used for backing strips for 120 and for 'tops and tails' for 220 film has to be ordered ( and finished in a process ) in very large quantities, the minimum order for 'tops and tails' to our required specification would equate to seven years and eight months stock* having to be ordered and paid for in advance of any production.

* Based on the last full years sales figures of all ILFORD 220 films, with no decline in sales taken into account and using a generic, none film specific
'top and tail'.

4) If we were to commit to a new machine and the advance order for 'tops and tails' and endeavour to recover the costs ( including interest ) over a 3 year period, the cost of an individual 220 film would be more than three an half times the cost of a 120 film, we do not believe this sustainable, therefore volume would reduce, and we would fail to recover the cost of our investment.

So what can ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology do ?

Our intention is to continue to try and pursuade a partner to finish the film for us, we have had little success so far, but we will continue, and increase our efforts, now that AGFA Photo has gone ( although they had already ceased all manufacture of roll film and the equipment was scrapped ) only two companies in the World have a quality system that is equal to our own for the finishing of roll film so we do not have many options.

We will keep the photographers who petitioned us ( and APUG members ) informed of any progress. The board of ILFORD Photo would like to take this opportunity to reassure all those who petitioned us and all APUG memebers that all the film products will continue to be available in 120 and that all our other monochrome product families will continue to be manufactured and new products will continue to be added to the range. We always have been, and always will be, passionate about our products, and our customers who use them.

We thank you for purchasing, using and valuing our products:

Simon.R.Galley, Director, for and on behalf of the board of directors of ILFORD Photo, HARMAN technology Limited :

Mobberley, Cheshire, UK 7th April, 2006:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ly-from-ilford-photo-harman-technology.18206/

 

[M-88]

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. How is one going to put a 220 film into it? And let's not forget MF is already a niche product within niche product.

 

[foc]

The following is pure speculation on my part ( and partly tongue in cheek), regarding the possible production of 220 film in China.

The finishing of 220 film could be done by hand, in the dark, just the same as some reloaded single use cameras and 35mm film cassettes were also loaded by hand in the dark.
The leader and trailer paper could be a simple reworking of existing backing paper and again applied by hand in the dark. (see above).
Leader and trailer paper ink to film transfer problems? What problem.
Labour costs of hand assembly, economical.
Finished product, ready for market? Yes
Quality control? Acceptable.
Sales channel? eBay.

 

[BrianShaw]

Labour costs of hand assembly, economical.

Eh? Please put a number on it.

 

[foc]

Eh? Please put a number on it.

See the first line of my post.

 

[BrianShaw]

See the first line of my post.

Even as speculation that doesn't make sense except if there’s a sweat-shop mentality at work. Trust me... I spent several years with a hand-crafted build-to-order company. Owner, operator, chief engineer, and sole manufacturing fool. We took no wages and more loss than profit.

 

[pentaxuser]

foc's speculation as he very honestly puts it, looks to be realistic to me in terms of a way to do 220. Would it be sufficiently profitable? That depends on a number of things such as what advantages does making and selling 220 confer on things like Shanghai's reputation.

Presumably as thing stand the Chinese gent who sells this stuff either makes it himself or has set up a very small operation that works in a similar way to what foc suggests and unless he is doing all of this out of philanthropic motives he is making money

Key to this is what does he charge for the 220. The demand for 220 may be very limited but there may be those who are prepared to pay a premium for it and if this turns our not to be the case then the capital cost of the set-up is relatively small so its not a case of six figure sums to restore the machinery which becomes a large loss unless there are economies of scale.

We can but wait and see what happens

pentaxuser

 

[foc]

Even as speculation that doesn't make sense except if there’s a sweat-shop mentality at work. Trust me... I spent several years with a hand-crafted build-to-order company. Owner, operator, chief engineer, and sole manufacturing fool. We took no wages and more loss than profit.

I understand your comment (I had my own business for 35 years) but my speculation was based on production and wages in a non first world economy.

 

[BrianShaw]

I understand your comment (I had my own business for 35 years) but my speculation was based on production and wages in a non first world economy.

We’re on the same page now. Not only is my humor diminished at this moment, but 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!