Tri-x 400/220 Petition?

Chazzy · Feb 10, 2010

Mahler_one said:
Regarding the need for 220 film, there is another option. Some manufacturers, once a year, will make a "run" of film in sizes that are unusual and not normally in great demand. At such time, photographers who use such film in the sizes needed will have an opportunity to purchase the film by pre-ordering, and pre-paying. In such manner, the manufacturer is assured that all the film that is made in a given size is sold and paid for, and the photographer has enough film to use. Obviously the risk is that the photographer will need MORE of the film that was originally ordered, but such risks can be ameliorated if extra film is ordered, and place in a freezer or refrigerator as an emergency supply. I am not sure if Kodak would be open to such a plan, but if enough people committed to buying 220 film, and actually paid for the film when they ordered, then Kodak might be willing to make another run or two of 220 film to see if such a "yearly" run made any sense at all. Of course, the system would only work if those who are upset about the loss of the film actually buy a certain minimum number of rolls. Who knows what such minimum number might be...could be that several hundred rolls would need to be purchased....depends upon the number of buyers, and the minimum run needed to make the film at a reasonable price.

Simply a thought.

Well, as long as Kodak is still producing TX in 120, the proper film stock exists, so it would just be a question of cutting and finishing it for 220. What we don't know is the minimum number of rolls Kodak would have to produce and which would have to be presold in the arrangement you suggest, and what they would have to charge per roll in order to recoup the cost of setting up to cut and finish a small quantity of 220 (small by Kodak standards). I don't know whether this is what the petition should ask for, or whether this should be Plan B after Kodak says that they are unwilling to resume regular production of any black and white 220.

There is always the option of a petition to Fuji, since Fuji has the equipment to finish 220 film.

Mahler_one · Feb 10, 2010

Chazzy....according to PE, there is considerably more to making the 220 film then most of us believe. For starters, there is the need for the special paper backing that is now in short supply, and hard to find. Regardless of what anyone says here, clearly Kodak will do whatever is the interest of the company and the owners.

Ed

Chazzy · Feb 10, 2010

Mahler_one said:
Chazzy....according to PE, there is considerably more to making the 220 film then most of us believe. For starters, there is the need for the special paper backing that is now in short supply, and hard to find. Regardless of what anyone says here, clearly Kodak will do whatever is the interest of the company and the owners.

Ed

But they have to get backing papers for the 220 color films anyway. I don't think anybody is going to complain because the 220 TX says "Portra 400NC" on the backing paper.

Chazzy · Feb 10, 2010

I don't care whether the box is for 120 TX either. I think we can deal with putting a label on the box to say that it is 220, unless Kodak would be breaking the law by using the wrong box and backing paper.

Christopher Walrath · Feb 10, 2010

Again, it all comes down the inevitablilty of the cessation of production of film products as Kodak had expressed as their intent.

Mahler_one · Feb 10, 2010

Chazzy said:
But they have to get backing papers for the 220 color films anyway. I don't think anybody is going to complain because the 220 TX says "Portra 400NC" on the backing paper.

Not sure Chazzy....the film thickness might be different and therefore the paper might have to be different...I guess PE will comment if he is following the thread. Not a big deal either way.

applesanity · Feb 10, 2010

Unless I am in a studio session or I'm doing fast quick photography (i.e., weddings), I never really feel a need a need for 220. Even when I feel a need, it's not like I'm cursing the heavens for not having a 220 back, because I already have a 120 back pre-loaded. 220 costs twice as much, and cost twice as much to develop, Also, you can't use 220 in older cameras with the red hole for frame counts. The only real advantage of 220 is about 1-2 minutes of reload time, depending on how fast you are.

For the past 6 months, I've basically settled on Plus-X as my 120 film of choice. Even after shooting countless rolls of PX125, I'm still experimenting, whether it be new developers, or pushing and pulling. The advantage of shooting 120 is that I can experiment more easily.

Given the dire straights we all assume Kodak is in, I think investing in the machines to print 220 of any Black and White film seems a stretch. 220 for Portra I can see, because that falls into the realm of wedding photographers and studio folks.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, maybe not.

Christopher Walrath · Feb 10, 2010

I don't think they're in dire straits. I just see Kodak making their move toward the electronic end of things, photographically speeaking of course.

MattKing · Feb 10, 2010

The biggest argument for going ahead with a petition is that it constitutes a request for a new packaging of an existing product.

Kodak may have older data on hand that indicated to them that there isn't any interest in such a packaging. A petition may cause them to reconsider the question of whether or not there may, indeed, be enough interest.

There is a reasonable chance that in the past some people who otherwise would have liked 220 Black and White may have refrained from purchasing any because, in high speed emulsions, it was only available in 320 TXP.

You cannot vote by buying, if what you want to buy isn't sold.

Matt

SuzanneR · Feb 11, 2010

Closed per OP's request.

Tri-x 400/220 Petition?

Chazzy

Mahler_one

Chazzy

Chazzy

Christopher Walrath

Mahler_one

applesanity

Christopher Walrath

MattKing

Moderator

SuzanneR

Moderator

Tri-x 400/220 Petition?

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency