Some Kodak B&W Film Deletions

fotch · Feb 6, 2010

Mahler_one said:
I admit to being somewhat mystified at the complaints directed at Kodak for their decision to discontinue certain films that are not selling enough to justify continuing production. Kodak is in business to make a profit, and the Board of Directors has to answer to the owners of the company-and some of us on APUG are probably owners of Kodak stock. If "our" company fails to make a profit, then the owners have a perfect right-indeed, a duty-to complain to the BOD and the CEO to do everything in their power to make a profit. Thus, stop production of film that is not making a profit, but is adding to costs. If a certain coating maching can only be used for film "TRI", and TRI isn't selling enough rolls in a given size to cover the costs of making TRI, then the company MUST stop making TRI or suffer the consequences. Those of us who are using the film that has been discontinued are unhappy, and rightly so. After all, our standard methods over the years have been honed using films that we have become familiar with. Nevertheless, to expect Kodak to make a product that they are losing money producing is simply unrealistic. Gosh....by the same logic, Ford should still be making the Edsel because some consumers enjoyed driving Edsels...

Obviously, except for PE and some others who are very knowledgeable about the process and art of making film for mass markets, most of us have no idea of the costs and difficulties involved with producing any particular film at Kodak. We have no owners to answer to, and if we decide to buy Ilford film instead of Kodak film...well, that is the choice that we have made. If the Kodak film is no longer available because of the choices many have made...regretable, but completely understandable.

What? Ford no longer makes the Edsel? I just got a deal on one and want to buy some original body parts. Hey, I never got a warning! :confused::rolleyes:

Photo Engineer · Feb 6, 2010

Guys;

Get this through your heads. 220 film must be on a special support to fit in the cameras. This means that 5000 ft minimum of 40" be coated. This is not inexpensive. And, the special 2 part paper backing must be in good supply. You guys have no concept of manufacturing!

PE

mikebarger · Feb 7, 2010

Or supply chain

JLP · Feb 7, 2010

Or business in general

lxdude · Feb 7, 2010

Photo Engineer said:
Guys;

Get this through your heads. 220 film must be on a special support to fit in the cameras. This means that 5000 ft minimum of 40" be coated. This is not inexpensive. And, the special 2 part paper backing must be in good supply. You guys have no concept of manufacturing!

PE

By support, do you mean the base? Because if so, I'm confused. The Tech-Pub says Tri-X 320 is available in 120 and 220 on a 3.9 mil acetate base.

Sirius Glass · Feb 7, 2010

Don't you just love the "I am smarter than everyone at Kodak about things I know nothing about" attitude??

:munch::munch::munch::munch::munch:

IloveTLRs · Feb 7, 2010

Martin Reed said:
...
TMax P3200 135-36, runout date to be confirmed;
...

I can't say that I'm surprised. Not that it's a bad film, but I wonder who uses it?

BW400CN 120, already gone by the look of it, & no suggested replacement

That sucks. I would think a C-41 film like that would be popular - especially among Holga users.

kauffman v36 · Feb 7, 2010

IloveTLRs said:
I can't say that I'm surprised. Not that it's a bad film, but I wonder who uses it?

That sucks. I would think a C-41 film like that would be popular - especially among Holga users.

therein lies your problem, holgas. lol. sorry, had to do it.

back on topic

lxdude · Feb 7, 2010

Martin Reed said:
BW400CN 120, already gone by the look of it, & no suggested replacement
.

Looking at the US site, I see no discontinuance notice. In fact, it shows 220 5-packs as being available, something I've not seen anywhere.

Ira Rush · Feb 7, 2010

MattKing said:
I have to wonder whether more 220 Black and White would be sold if it was available in other films.

Tri-X 400 would seem to be a natural.

Could Plus-X 220 increase Plus-X sales?

Would Tri-X 400 in 220 or Tri-X 320 in 220 be appropriate for special runs like those special cuttings for ULF?

Is the 220 machine at Kodak (afaik the last one extant) even capable of continuing to finish the Portra emulsions?

Matt

Plus-X 220 was discontinued about 5 years ago, I think, maybe longer maybe shorter.

All I am hoping for is that someone (Fuji, Ilford, Adox, anyone) picks up the ball and continues with some B&W in 220, any speed 100, 125, 320, 400 or 1 million for all I care, just some 220 B&W. Then again, I still believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and ....

Something please!

SuzanneR · Feb 7, 2010

lxdude said:
Looking at the US site, I see no discontinuance notice. In fact, it shows 220 5-packs as being available, something I've not seen anywhere.

Try this link,

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...filmAnnouncements.jhtml?pq-path=13319/2300263

And I've think we've seen the last of 220 in B/W. (And I doubt color films will last much longer in this format.) We've had detailed explanations from PE, and Simon Galley at Ilford Harman about the difficulties with manufacturing 220 film, and that the market for it is simply too small.

Photo Engineer · Feb 7, 2010

lxdude said:
By support, do you mean the base? Because if so, I'm confused. The Tech-Pub says Tri-X 320 is available in 120 and 220 on a 3.9 mil acetate base.

This is correct, and therefore a 35mm film cannot be used in 220 format unless coated on a separate master roll. To do that the coating machine must be reset for the thinner support and the 2 part paper backing must be ready.

This means that when you make a 220 film, you have to use a minimum of 5000 ft x 42" of the special thin film support. The coating machine must be set to accept this and it means leader and trailer, so figure about 15,000 feet of running time to get one master roll of 220 that will make about 10,000 rolls of 220 that must be sold within the expiration date of the emulsion or about 4 years at a guess.

This is all guesstimation on my part, but does illustrate the problem of converting to another support and coating 220.

PE

Mahler_one · Feb 7, 2010

Exactly Suzanne...hard to manufacture whilst insuring the quality that we have come to take for granted from Kodak and Ilford, and a shrinking market for whatever is produced. Those who MUST use the films being discontinued should consider implementing the actions taken by another well known photographer who, about 10 plus years ago, learned that the film he used was being discontinued: Buy as much as possible, and store the film in a freezer until the B plus F become too dense to deal with. I am not being disingenuous, for clearly there are those who, for a variety of reasons, simply MUST user a certain film. Realizing the inconvenience and expense of implementing the "buy and freeze" approach, there appears to be no other reasonable way for the individuals at "risk" to proceed.

I have learned much from the comments of PE, David, Sal, and others who are very informed about the manufacturing details involved with providing quality films to analog users. Candidly, given the difficulty of providing such film products in the diversity of formats needed, I am amazed that the price of film is as "reasonable" as it continues to be. The "best thing" for all of us to do is to continue to use such products to the utmost in order to assure that the films will continue to be available for some years to come. Is the demise of analog photography in the forseeable future? Such question is always on the minds of many of us on APUG, has been written about extensively here, and has no easy answer. Absent the teaching of analog techniques, and the application of such techniques in the world of print advertising and publishing, the market for analog materials appears to be doomed to slow attrition. One wonders if "mere" hobbyists, and the handful of fine art photographers who can actually earn a living by producing memorable images and giving workshops, will be enough to support the production of materials that we need. The actions of Kodak and Fuji with reference to film production appear to reflect the weakening song of the canary in the mine shaft.

B&Wpositive · Feb 7, 2010

Ira Rush said:
Plus-X 220 was discontinued about 5 years ago, I think, maybe longer maybe shorter.

All I am hoping for is that someone (Fuji, Ilford, Adox, anyone) picks up the ball and continues with some B&W in 220, any speed 100, 125, 320, 400 or 1 million for all I care, just some 220 B&W. Then again, I still believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and ....

Something please!

Agreed. Preferably an ISO 400 film, but any speed is fine.

B&Wpositive · Feb 7, 2010

Photo Engineer said:
This is correct, and therefore a 35mm film cannot be used in 220 format unless coated on a separate master roll. To do that the coating machine must be reset for the thinner support and the 2 part paper backing must be ready.

This means that when you make a 220 film, you have to use a minimum of 5000 ft x 42" of the special thin film support. The coating machine must be set to accept this and it means leader and trailer, so figure about 15,000 feet of running time to get one master roll of 220 that will make about 10,000 rolls of 220 that must be sold within the expiration date of the emulsion or about 4 years at a guess.

This is all guesstimation on my part, but does illustrate the problem of converting to another support and coating 220.

PE

I've noticed that 35mm film is damn thick compared to 120 and 220.

Is 220 film usually the same thickness as 120 of the same emulsion, or is it even thinner in some cases?
If 120 is already thin enough, why would one have to create a whole new base in order to make a 220 film?
Couldn't Kodak (in theory) make either Tri-X or TMY-2 in 220 without much additional engineering (assuming it would sell) simply by using the same film base used in the existing 120 version?

It's not clear to me if it's 220 in any b&w size that wouldn't sell, or just TXP-320 specifically. If it was just TXP, then why not make 400 TX or 400 TMY-2 in 220? Is 220 really that unpopular? My Patterson reels take 220; I see no big issue with processing versus 120.

Or, I suppose if no one makes 220 in b&w again, we'll just have to buy several more film backs and learn to load and unload the 120 rolls into a new back quickly when they run out during weddings.

Sal Santamaura · Feb 7, 2010

B&Wpositive said:
...Couldn't Kodak (in theory) make either Tri-X or TMY-2 in 220 without much additional engineering (assuming it would sell) simply by using the same film base used in the existing 120 version?...

With respect to TMY2, see my post above:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

As for Tri-X 400, it wouldn't sell!

B&Wpositive said:
...Is 220 really that unpopular?...

Yes!

B&Wpositive said:
...I suppose if no one makes 220 in b&w again, we'll just have to buy several more film backs and learn to load and unload the 120 rolls into a new back quickly when they run out during weddings.

There you go, a simple, straighforward solution. If you think that's challenging, imagine what the photographer at my late parents' 1952 wedding went through. It was shot on 4x5. Even if he used Grafmatics, that's a substantial weight to carry around. They contained six sheets each, can't be reloaded in the field and were accompanied by a 4x5 camera plus a load of large flashbulbs and the power pack to fire them! I wouldn't want to have done that job.

Today most wedding photographers have gone digital. The market for 220 film probably doesn't greatly exceed those complaining in this thread. I strongly suggest everyone suppress their urge to whine, move on to other more productive threads and be thankful for the numerous available choices of black and white film, paper and chemicals still around. We're certainly in a lot better shape than I thought we'd be this far into the digital age.

Photo Engineer · Feb 7, 2010

There is a 3.9 mil (4 mil), 5 mil and 7 mil series of supports that are rather standard. There are others, but these are the mainstays of the industry. The 5 mil is for 35mm, and the 7 mil is for sheet film. I have seen 120 and 220 coated on 4 or 5 mil from various manufacturers, but 4 mil is the 220 standard to fit that much film onto a small spool and still allow a paper protective layer. Of course, a similar argument can be made for 120 but there is a lot more leeway for paper so 120 and 220 are often different.

And no, you cannot coat one emulsion on several supports without changes in machine tension, drying, speed of travel, and a whole host of other parameters, nor can you coat well on 2 thicknesses at the same time due to the splice between types and the reprogramming of the machine for the new film.

All of that aside, the 220 packing machinery, as I said above, is much more complex and is old. It is not often used and cannot be easily replaced or repaired. In addition, that 2 part paper is hard to get. Well, for that matter, 120 paper is hard to get as well. Simon Galley commented on it a while back saying that their supply had dried up and they had to re-establish a source and supply line.

This isn't any paper, you know. It must be opaque with feathered edges to be light tight. It must be chemically inert to the film and it must not leave any residue of ink or fiber on the paper during storage and use.

PE

Photo Engineer · Feb 7, 2010

Sal;

Excellent answer while I was typing away. I remind those who can look at the gallery that I took those aerial B&W shots at 60,000 ft using a Speed Graphic with pockets full of loaded 4x5 film packs. I had holders in every pocket of my flight suit. It is doable!

PE

lxdude · Feb 7, 2010

Photo Engineer said:
This is correct, and therefore a 35mm film cannot be used in 220 format unless coated on a separate master roll. To do that the coating machine must be reset for the thinner support and the 2 part paper backing must be ready.

This means that when you make a 220 film, you have to use a minimum of 5000 ft x 42" of the special thin film support. The coating machine must be set to accept this and it means leader and trailer, so figure about 15,000 feet of running time to get one master roll of 220 that will make about 10,000 rolls of 220 that must be sold within the expiration date of the emulsion or about 4 years at a guess.

This is all guesstimation on my part, but does illustrate the problem of converting to another support and coating 220.

PE

OK. I thought you were saying the supports were different for 120 and 220.
If an entire master roll had to be used to make 220, I could see that being uneconomical these days. I suppose it's uneconomical or impractical to cut a master roll or switch a partial to a different machine?

lxdude · Feb 7, 2010

SuzanneR said:
Try this link,

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...filmAnnouncements.jhtml?pq-path=13319/2300263

And I've think we've seen the last of 220 in B/W. (And I doubt color films will last much longer in this format.) We've had detailed explanations from PE, and Simon Galley at Ilford Harman about the difficulties with manufacturing 220 film, and that the market for it is simply too small.

Yes, I looked at that link and see it referring to Tri-X films. I was referring to the BW400CN, which the OP said is already gone. Kodak has no discontinuance notice for it, and shows it available in 120/220.

Ian Grant · Feb 7, 2010

lxdude said:
Yes, I looked at that link and see it referring to Tri-X films. I was referring to the BW400CN, which the OP said is already gone. Kodak has no discontinuance notice for it, and shows it available in 120/220.

That's the way Kodak sometimes work, and is exactly what they did with Kodachrome, discontinuing supply then later processing in some markets to begin with.

So it's gone in 120 in Europe where it's never been popular anyway, XP-2 would outsell it by a huge margin, that leaves the remaining stock for the US market.

Ian

dynachrome · Feb 7, 2010

I was at Unique Photo in Fairfield, NJ half an hour ago to pick up some TXP 220. They have 52 pro packs left.

df cardwell · Feb 7, 2010

"BW400CN 120, already gone by the look of it, & no suggested replacement " O.P.

Well, it is still listed on the US and UK Kodak sites,
there is no notice of its demise,
and still in stock at B&H... and Silverprint.

May we check sources before we go mad ?

Ian Grant · Feb 7, 2010

df cardwell said:
"BW400CN 120, already gone by the look of it, & no suggested replacement " O.P.

Well, it is still listed on the US and UK Kodak sites,
there is no notice of its demise,
and still in stock at B&H... and Silverprint.

May we check sources before we go mad ?

Martin's sources will be accurate, he's a major stockist of these products and has a long and excellent track record of supplying & in many cases importing products from a variety of companies (in the UK).

In the past anything like this he's posted has proved to be correct.

Ian

GeoffHill · Feb 7, 2010

David A. Goldfarb said:
Yes, it is apparently a very complex and huge piece of equipment. Ilford's was evidently old and too expensive to repair or replace given the small market for 220. I believe that some of the APUG members who went on one of the Ilford factory tours saw the machine and reported that it was obvious why they couldn't just build another one.

Having seen the machine which spools 120 at Moberly, I can confirm that it is.

The Ilford machine that spools 120 (there are 2 of them) is about the size of a double bed on its end, and about a foot thick. It has a reel for film, a reel for backing paper, 2 reels for the start and end tabs, a roll of tape, some glue and a hopper full of the spools.

It has to cut and measure both the film and paper, and spin it all together with tabs, and does so at the rate of one every 2 or 3 seconds, and dumps them into a hopper,

Next to it is another machine which prints the foil wrapper, inserts the film and seals both ends before dumping them on a conveyor, over the ceiling, to the boxing machine, where the boxes are printed with the date, folded, film inserted, and a clever machine puts 10 boxes together and wraps them in film.

The only manual part is feeding the 1km long, 60mm wide rolls of film into the machine, and putting the 10packs into boxes at the end.

The whole machine is takes up an area of 30ft by 20ft

Before seeing this machine, I couldn't see how it could be so difficult to do, but after seeing it, its clear why it is not economically viable to do, especially seeing that most buyers of 220 film would be those who had previously bought 120.

I wish I could have taken a picture.

Some Kodak B&W Film Deletions

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency