Can you post the times here? or the table? So we have the official source.
Thanks for the sacrifice you did in the name of us Apuggers.
Ah, yes. I hadn't opened the box yet. Inside are times for D-76, 7min in dilution 1:1. I'm going to use that.
Thanks for the full explanation, Cholentpot . It is difficult to see the whole process in my mind's eye but I get the general idea. I can see it taking quite a bit of practice
pentaxuser
yet the real question to me is, if this company can spool up 220... why cant other companies like say ilford do the same?
Only if they are willing to do it and lose a bunch of money on each roll.Well the issue is, if the Shanghai film can be done as 220 it sort of proves that alot of what that post from Ilford states as fact for THEM,, that is just a bunch of hooey.
Here's a suggestion The new "Ilford" is now run by a company called Pemberstone and while the facts stated by the former executive as to the state of the Ilford machinery will remain as they were, it may be that the new company may take a different position from the former board of directors of what was then Harman Technology. So make an inquiry of the current company via the IlfordPhoto website and let us know how it goesWell the issue is, if the Shanghai film can be done as 220 it sort of proves that alot of what that post from Ilford states as fact for THEM,, that is just a bunch of hooey.
reading that post from ilford, the machine that rolled 220 format is 50 years old, and is merely shutdown and mothballed. They state the cost of building a new one, and even for refurbishing the old one as being too expensive... funny thing is they dont NEED to upgrade the lectronics, simply hit the power switch.
Here's a suggestion The new "Ilford" is now run by a company called Pemberstone and while the facts stated by the former executive as to the state of the Ilford machinery will remain as they were, it may be that the new company may take a different position from the former board of directors of what was then Harman Technology. So make an inquiry of the current company via the IlfordPhoto website and let us know how it goes
If you don't mind a suggestion a simple inquiry is the best. I'd avoid using words like hooey or in any other way appearing adversarial. It is after all a different company
Neither do I think it is as simple as suggesting to them that they have merely to turn the on/off switch to the on position so personally I'd avoid this in the inquiry as your easy solution. It tends to relegate Ilford to being a little "simple-minded" IMO so not a good start
Best of luck
pentaxuser
We will see what the quality is like.Its just fact,,, it has been dabbled out on various spots it would cost 20$ a roll if ilford or kodak was to make 220 again,... yet the shanghai stuff isnt that expensive, and they dont have any issue getting the paper for the 220 ends.. Proves that it isnt impossible to do.
Fine you have two choices. You either argue your point here on Photrio in the hope that you can convince us that it is simple for Ilford to restart 220 or you can inquire of Ilford if it might consider spending the money to refurbish the machinery which in the then opinion of the then board needed to be refurbished.Its just fact,,, it has been dabbled out on various spots it would cost 20$ a roll if ilford or kodak was to make 220 again,... yet the shanghai stuff isnt that expensive, and they dont have any issue getting the paper for the 220 ends.. Proves that it isnt impossible to do.
.
The backing paper/leader and trailer paper is really quite complex and expensive stuff, and none of the film manufacturing companies have the capability any more to make it themselves.
It may be that your only desire is to convince us on Photrio that Ilford for what seems to be some strange reason is denying itself the benefit of extra profit by simply turning the machinery on
Here you are:
Your kindness is getting legendary proportions.
D76 1+1 is 7 minutes, much more reasonable.
Massive dev chart says 14 minutes. Once again, MDC is full of 'it...
For anybody in the UK area, Nik & Trick has some rolls available on their site (here: https://ntphotoworks.com/product/shanghai-gp3-120-roll-film/) at £9.69 ($13 usd)[/QUOT
Finally some decent images from this film are online. APPEARS to have a slight issue with heavily lighted scenes,,,, especially the tree one. But rest of it is better then i expected.
on the high note, almost all medium format film cameras can use 220 film rolls.
How many people are using cameras using 620 film? Not many, yet the film companies have been making 620 spools.... and not been bankrupted by it
Who’s manufacturing 620 film? As far as I know they are just retooling 120 film onto 620 spools. Not speaking of Shanghai of course.on the high note, almost all medium format film cameras can use 220 film rolls.
How many people are using cameras using 620 film? Not many, yet the film companies have been making 620 spools.... and not been bankrupted by it
The 620 spools that are being manufactured are plastic, and therefore work in some but not all 620 cameras. The plastic spools are necessarily slightly thicker than the original metal ones, and don't work properly in some of the tightest fitting 620 cameras.
No one has come up with an economically viable way of economically manufacturing small quantities of metal 620 spools.
More importantly though, the technology involved in making plastic (or even metal) 620 spools is far simpler than making 120 backing paper or 220 leaders and trailers, which need to:
1) be of different thickness at the edge than at the centre;
2) be fully opaque and non-reflective;
3) be of the correct thickness and flexibility;
4) be able to receive ink that
a) won't migrate or smear even when pressed against photographic film; and
b) won't react chemically when pressed against photographic film;
5) won't shed or react chemically when pressed against photographic film; and
6) has very particular requirements with respect to absorption and retention of moisture.
All of the above must be done to very close tolerances.
All of the above characteristics are within the capabilities of the best paper manufacturers, but the one (or ones) willing to do so on a production basis:
i) don't do this work cheaply and, perhaps most importantly,
ii) are only willing to do the work in large batches that, for 220 film, are uneconomic for the film producers to purchase.
For 220, none of the film producers are willing to tie up the necessary capital for several years at a time. The capital requirements involved in 120 backing paper are themselves problem enough.
I don't think that there is a plastic that would be strong enough, in the thickness required, to replace the very thin metal 620 spools that are required for the most persnickity cameras (primarily the most interesting Kodak ones).The inintial investment to injection mold the spools would be failry high (if that is how they are manufactured- most likley), at least $75k if not double that. Just the mold is probably $30k-50k, add heaters, runners, etc., plus having the rest of the facilites to injection mold. A business case could be made (and apparently was) for a molding shop to do it. Molds last a very long time once made.
3D printing them might work, but also would bne expensive on a per unit basis.
I don't think that there is a plastic that would be strong enough, in the thickness required, to replace the very thin metal 620 spools that are required for the most persnickity cameras (primarily the most interesting Kodak ones).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?