Save 220 film

[jim appleyard]

This may not be news to some, but if you'd like to save 220 film, please add your name to this petition.

http://www.film220.com/

 

[Brac]

This may not be news to some, but if you'd like to save 220 film, please add your name to this petition.

http://www.film220.com/

The subject of 220 film can be found in umpteen threads on this site. The petition has already been submitted so adding further names will achieve nothing because Ilford have done all they reasonably can. In the latest information on this site (July) Ilford explain they contacted both Fuji & Kodak about the possibility of their finishing 220 film for them. But they have had no response. As no-one else manufactures 220 film these days and as Ilford explain in their response to the petition that there are no other roads they can go down it might be time we all accepted this and got on with other things.

 

[Sparky]

Now if only we could get Ilford to finish 220 film for THEMSELVES!!! They don't offer anything (useable) in 220 do they?? I've looked ALL around for it.

 

[FrankB]

Suggest you read the previous threads. Ilford really are taking this seriously, but there's nothing further they can reasonably do.

 

[Sparky]

I read the letter from Simon Galley. I wonder if anyone's ever explained to Mr. Galley the massive spike in medium format use since all those hasselblads and rolleiflexes got dumped onto the market at giveaway prices. I'm guessing that film manufacturers were dealing with an overly simplistic sales model, operating under the assumption that with a great decline in the manufacture of NEW cameras, that film demand would accordingly go down.

WRONG.

Perhaps if he and others look at sales figures of 2nd hand cameras on ebay over the last few years...

 

[Sparky]

I read the letter from Simon Galley. I wonder if anyone's ever explained to Mr. Galley the massive spike in medium format use since all those hasselblads and rolleiflexes got dumped onto the market at giveaway prices. I'm guessing that film manufacturers were dealing with an overly simplistic sales model, operating under the assumption that with a great decline in the manufacture of NEW cameras, that film demand would accordingly go down.

WRONG.

Perhaps if he and others look at sales figures of 2nd hand cameras on ebay over the last few years... if anything it's quite the opposite. I would venture to guess that there are FAR more operating and film-hungry medium format cameras (in amateur hands, of course - but I'm sure it more than balances the decline in pro use) than, say five years ago.

 

[Ole]

I would venture to guess that there are FAR more operating and film-hungry medium format cameras (in amateur hands, of course - but I'm sure it more than balances the decline in pro use) than, say five years ago.

I bet very few amateurs shoot 500 frames of MF per day, 5 days per week, like many professionals did.

If anybody knows how sales of MF film has changed over the past few years, it's Simon Galley.

You'd better believe that the bottom has dropped out of the MF market. Else how could all this great professional gear end up being sold to amateurs for a fraction of its cost?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Sparky,

The simple truth is that not enough people buy the stuff. One of the originators of this petition is a friend of mine and approached me early on. I had to say I could not sign with a clear conscience because I never buy 220 either. I very rarely need the double length, and much higher demand for 120 means that two rolls of 120 are usually cheaper (and often more convenient, and I find easier to process) than one roll of 220.

No-one needs to explain such things to Simon. He is no fool. Nor are the others at Ilford, directors such as Steve Brierley and Howard Hopwood. They all say the same thing (as do other film manufacturers): if people will buy enough of it, we'll make it.

In fact there's an interesting example of a really rotten film staying in production because there's still a big demand for it: Kodak Ektachrome 64. Some Kodak people have told me that they are embarrassed at how bad this film is next to their more modern products (grainy, unsharp, desaturated, blue...) but enough people buy it thast they go on making it.

And finally, no, the increase in amateur use (if there is one, and even that is disputable) doesn't outweigh the decline in professional use. Professionals use(d) truly impressive amounts of film, which is one reason why digital does have some professional appeal despite the lack of quality. The savings in film, couriers, processing and Polaroids make even a big investment in digital kit surprisingly attractive.

Edit: I see that as I was writing this, before I posted it, Ole made the same point about film usage. I used to work in advertising, and we didn't use much film compared with (say) fashion or glamour or catalogue photographers, but we still got through a hell of a lot of it.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Mick Fagan]

In the lab and photo studio complex I worked in, the Kodak rep come in twice weekly to ensure that stock levels were being maintained. Basically we had two major deliveries a month, most months these deliveries would be about 6 tonnes of materials.

Of this, film was around 1 tonne a month. I know this, as we had to load it into the walk in refrigerator using a pallet trolley. Hot work, even working in a fridge dressed in a shirt.

I recently spoke to one of the last photographers there that I worked with. She mentioned film usage seems to have stabilised to about 300 rolls a month and may go up slightly, but not much more than that.

One of the interesting side effects of all the film being scanned, is that nearly all frames are being used. Any slight problems from a scanned tranny can be fiddled with. Previously it was a re-shoot.

At our other huge graphic arts house, we had a part time Kodak employee who worked three days a week to ensure that every department would always have materials needed.

You had to see the size of the deliveries to comprehend just how much film, paper and other sensitive materials were being consumed daily.

All of that is now gone!

Mick.

 

[Sparky]

I bet very few amateurs shoot 500 frames of MF per day, 5 days per week, like many professionals did.

Well - that's certainly a point I hadn't considered... being an architectural photographer - I shoot MAYBE 25 sheets of 4x5 a day - MAX. I guess there are other pros out there really going through the stuff (or at least - they were...!)

 

[Sparky]

I suppose this all makes a fair amount of sense to me now. And certainly - demand at the shops would certainly ramp up production on the manufacturing end, wouldn't it? Though B&H seems perpetually out of Pan F...! It just seemed to me that the sales of MF cameras on ebay couldn't have been predicted - and also that the internet is FAR more active with MF and LF film shooters than ever in the past. But it could just be an internet thing. Thanks for the reasoned explanations. I appreciate it. I'll have to consider the alternatives before I launch another diatribe! (LOL)

 

[Chazzy]

I sent an email to Fuji, asking whether they could offer one of their black and white emulsions in 220, since they offer several of their color products in 220. They obviously have the necessary equipment. So it might be a good idea to be sure that the petition goes to Fuji too, not just Ilford. If Fuji provides a 220 black and white product, I'll abandon Ilford and standardize on Fuji instead, so that I can use the same product in 220 and 4x5. Life is too short to fiddle with reloading the 120 Koni-Omega backs.

 

[SuzanneR]

I'm not holding out any hope, but I signed the petition awhile ago. If 220 film were more widely available in b/w I'd buy it. I started using TXP 320 specifically becuase it comes in 220, but I'd love to see the regular Tri-x or Hp5 in 220, but like I said... not holding out much hope that more variety (if any) will always be available.

It's just great for children's portrait work!

 

[sanking]

Switch to 220 color. There are still lots of emulsions available, both negative and transparency material. Scan the negatives with a good quality scanner and you have the best of both worlds in that you can make either color or B&W prints.

Sandy

 

[ineffablething]

Up until recently, I worked at a major photo store in a large US city. 220 film sales were almost nonexistent in b&w. Wedding photographers bought the 220 in color. To say that there has been a massive spike in film sales due to the influx of used medium format cameras is a bit disingenuous. 220 film sales counted for less than 1% of all our film sales, and our outlet sold the most film of all in the company.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear All,

I can assure you we looked at the 220 question from every angle, we value all our customers and wish to supply the products they wish to buy, and the petition we received also had some pretty impressive names on it...we will continue with our efforts to see if we can get someone else to finish for us ( its on our action list for PHOTOKINA ) ...but lets dispose of one myth...' massive increase in Medium format use ' ...I am afraid not......our 120 sales are OK and we are not complaining, but it is not increasing and all medium format film ( 120 & 220 ) by value and volume is much, much smaller than the 35mm miniature film market.

Regards

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

 

[Dave Parker]

I know the store I worked at, didn't keep any 220 in stock and had not ordered any 220 for a customer in over a year when I worked there, and still has not taken any orders for 220 in the 3 years that I have been gone from there...just not a lot of people buying 220 now a days.

Dave

 

[jim appleyard]

Thanks for all the input folks. I only know of one way to not save something, and that's by not trying!

Simon, thanks for your help and input.

 

[Woolliscroft]

Switch to 220 color. There are still lots of emulsions available, both negative and transparency material. Scan the negatives with a good quality scanner and you have the best of both worlds in that you can make either color or B&W prints.

Sandy

The trouble is you can't get Panalure paper any more, so scanning is the only route. If we could get panchromatic paper again I'd be happy to do that.

David.

 

[technopoptart]

Thanks for your support

Thank you for your support of MF/LF photographers. I am a fan of pan F in the 120, and would like to use it for as long as possible.

Dear All,

I can assure you we looked at the 220 question from every angle, we value all our customers and wish to supply the products they wish to buy, and the petition we received also had some pretty impressive names on it...we will continue with our efforts to see if we can get someone else to finish for us ( its on our action list for PHOTOKINA ) ...but lets dispose of one myth...' massive increase in Medium format use ' ...I am afraid not......our 120 sales are OK and we are not complaining, but it is not increasing and all medium format film ( 120 & 220 ) by value and volume is much, much smaller than the 35mm miniature film market.

Regards

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

 

[Tom Duffy]

Have I missed something? Has Kodak discontinued TXP in 220? I'm still able to buy it regularly.

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

This is just silly. 220 is in no danger at Kodak; there are a whole bunch of people still shooting color 220, so they've no reason to stop making B&W 220 film as it is the same exact process as for spooling color, except for the paper being a different color.

 

[wirehead]

You know, I kinda like how I only get 10 shots a roll. Means that I don't have 16 shots left on a roll of Velvia and a model on her way over.

 

[Petzi]

..., so they've no reason to stop making B&W 220 film as it is the same exact process as for spooling color, except for the paper being a different color.

The situation if good, if you like TXP...

 

[Curt]

Sure, save it.