What are the chances of film manufacturers make 220 film again?

[Arthurwg]

I like 220. Fun to shoot without having to reload after 12 shots.

 

[grat]

In addition to the printed start mark - which is necessary - how are you going to deal with the requirement that it is thinner at the edges than in the centre, that it requires fairly demanding dimensional stability and that it is both light tight and resistant to chemically reacting with the emulsion at either end of the film?
It also has quite demanding properties with respect to absorption of moisture.

So I'm not going to disagree-- but I'm curious... How in the name of all that's holy, could they meet such precision requirements for an affordable amount of money in 1901? I realize modern emulsions are far more light sensitive, but even so-- for these problems to have been prevalent in the 1920's, or 1950's, there's no way 120 (or 620) would have survived.

Obviously, there was a way to make it at a profitable markup back then, so what are we missing today?

 

[removed account4]

I like 220. Fun to shoot without having to reload after 12 shots.

I loved shooting 220 by mistake and having the ruby window make that line across my whole strip of negatives! it was almost as much fun as having numbers printed on my Velvia or maybe it was Provia from unknown to me offset issues ..
Good times!
John

 

[MattKing]

So I'm not going to disagree-- but I'm curious... How in the name of all that's holy, could they meet such precision requirements for an affordable amount of money in 1901? I realize modern emulsions are far more light sensitive, but even so-- for these problems to have been prevalent in the 1920's, or 1950's, there's no way 120 (or 620) would have survived.

Obviously, there was a way to make it at a profitable markup back then, so what are we missing today?

I'd be willing to bet that the backing paper used in 1901 wouldn't come close to working with modern emulsions.
And I would hazard a guess that the in house paper manufacturing and printing part of Kodak (and others) would have been much more capable of producing at an economic cost the much larger (at least relatively speaking) volumes of paper suited to the backing paper needs of a film manufacturer.
The current backing papers/leaders and trailers come from a paper manufacturer and printer whose business is mostly other products. As a result, their products cost the film manufacturers a lot more than the film does.
As the car dealers love to advertise - "volume, volume, volume".

 

[mshchem]

I could get excited about a yearly, special order thing. I would like a few rolls of TXP . Not going to happen.

 

[Agulliver]

A yearly special order isn't going to happen because as Ilford already worked out, one run would take over 7 years to sell.

Regarding a hundred years ago....as well as everything said about the backing paper production above....I suspect the definition of "affordable" in 1920 is rather different to the one being used today. though I'd be curious as to the typical cost of 120 film in the 1920s and 220 film in the 1960s....compared with average wages then and now and linked to inflation.

 

[BrianShaw]

Couldn’t this be used?

Have at it; hand roll a few!

https://bluemooncamera.com/store/product/019498174803/ilford-120-roll-film-backing-paper---ulf

 

[MattKing]

Couldn’t this be used?

Have at it; hand roll a few!

https://bluemooncamera.com/store/product/019498174803/ilford-120-roll-film-backing-paper---ulf

You will, of course, need to cut down some 70mm film to supply the film part.

 

[Arthurwg]

I'm still holding on to my A24 Hasselblad back. Hope springs eternal.

 

[Luckless]

Wonder just how big of film spools they feed into their 120 rolling machine, and what one of those would cost to have Ilford hand package one for me, and just how many photos a day I would have to shoot to use one up in a reasonable amount of time...

Rather doubt 'reasonable' actually applies to the rest of that sentence, but hey, maybe it will be something to do if I win one of those large Lotto Max jackpots?

 

[iakustov]

I can think of two rational reasons for wanting 220 (and probably many irrational ones.*) I'm curious if there are others I missed:

1. Want to use a camera that only shoots 220. I doubt there are many of these, but for some MF system cameras, like the Bronica ETR, a 120 back might cost $150, whereas a 220 back might cost $25. I think similar for Pentax 645 film inserts. Are there any cameras that only shoot 220?

2. More shots per roll. I can certainly see the value of this in a professional context. It also could make sense for travel photography--less roll swapping, less boxes to carry. Is 220 as light safe as 120? I've occasionally had light leak onto the edges if the 120 roll wasn't as tight as it could be or I changed the roll outside. I would think that 220 is less safe to change rolls in sunlight, am I wrong? In general photography, I hate 135 because almost everything is 36 exposures unless I spool them my self, and 36 exposures take me forever to finish, but I know I'm an outlier in that respect. As has been mentioned 220 would probably not be a cost benefit.

For those who would like to have 220 rolls, what are the reasons you would like to see it? Is it one of the things I mentioned above? Or is it emotional/nostalgia? Or would you would just like to try it because its there? I'm genuinely curious.

* When I say irrational, I don't mean bad, just something that is more based on emotion, nostalgia, etc.

Apart from having more frames per roll:
When I last bought 100+ fresh rolls of Velvia 100 in 220 it was cheaper than 2x 120 (when it was still in production).
And since I develop with Tetenal kit in a Paterson tank, it is more convinient to develop 220 film.

 

[abruzzi]

I know nothing about the manufacturing and packaging process, but several knowledgeable people here imply that if they brought back 220 it wouldn’t have a price benefit, so I don’t know if that reason holds up much these days (given that 220 would sell a whole lot less that 120). Also, with 120 and Patterson reels, you can use a small bit of tape to chain a second roll of 120 behind the first roll and essentially get two 120 rolls on a single reel. I think the jobo reels have something similar, but with a little plastic clip. But I wouldn’t try that on a metal reel.

 

[Luckless]

I know nothing about the manufacturing and packaging process, but several knowledgeable people here imply that if they brought back 220 it wouldn’t have a price benefit, so I don’t know if that reason holds up much these days (given that 220 would sell a whole lot less that 120). Also, with 120 and Patterson reels, you can use a small bit of tape to chain a second roll of 120 behind the first roll and essentially get two 120 rolls on a single reel. I think the jobo reels have something similar, but with a little plastic clip. But I wouldn’t try that on a metal reel.

"Double Loading" 120 onto 220 reels is a bit of a pain I've found. I frequently do it on paterson reels, but I much rather not have to.

Trying to tape them into a single roll of film frequently results in jams, and sometimes slips and overlaps.
Pushing the first further onto the reels has had it 'walk back' and overlap a few frames.

So far I haven't come up with a design for a clip or blocking piece that I trust.

Haven't tried loading two rolls back to back, which could in theory net you four 120 rolls developed on a single standard reel, but that sounds like it is begging for extra jamming and faff, but I've seen one random person on the internet claiming to make it work.

 

[MattKing]

For Paterson or AP clone of Paterson reels, the following works for me:
1) load the first 120 roll as far into the reel as it will go and the second just as far as is required to get the entire roll past the ball bearings. That leaves a good gap between the rolls;
2) pre-rinse in water with agitation - I use 3 minutes and have no problem with continuous rotary agitation;
3) use normal, inversion agitation (without much of a rotary component) in the development part of the process;
4) after the developer - stop bath, fixer, rinse and HCA in my case - it works fine with agitation, either inversion or rotary.
The critical part is the time in the developer. The pre-rinse seems to reduce slightly the slipperiness of the film in the developer, but it is still prone to moving in the reels. After the developer, it seems to stay in place.

 

[wiltw]

I know nothing about the manufacturing and packaging process, but several knowledgeable people here imply that if they brought back 220 it wouldn’t have a price benefit, so I don’t know if that reason holds up much these days (given that 220 would sell a whole lot less that 120). Also, with 120 and Patterson reels, you can use a small bit of tape to chain a second roll of 120 behind the first roll and essentially get two 120 rolls on a single reel. I think the jobo reels have something similar, but with a little plastic clip. But I wouldn’t try that on a metal reel.

220 never had a price benefit for the pro...it allowed professionals to exchange film backs or reload backs half as often! Important, when covering weddings and receptions, or other events and not being caught changing film during the peak of some action.
Consulting a 2003 Calumet catalog as reference, a 220 ProPack was exactly 2x the price of a 120 ProPack (actually, the 220 was $0.01 more than 2x) Street prices did give advantage to 220...2005 magazine ad for Adorama list 120 at $2.49 for NPH and 220 at $4.85, a saving of 2.6%

 

[MattKing]

Back in the day, when I was using 220 for weddings, 220 Vericolour was slightly less expensive than twice the price of 120 Vericolour.
Then when things changed over to Portra, the same applied.
In both cases, my Pro lab charged me less to develop a roll of 220 than it charged me to develop two rolls of 120.
The proof prints were all priced per print, in all cases.
I was paying pro prices - had a business tax account and had access to pro pricing - and my lab was actually set up by a bunch of pro photographers to service both their needs and the needs of amateurs who wanted high quality results.

 

[wiltw]

Back in the day, when I was using 220 for weddings, 220 Vericolour was slightly less expensive than twice the price of 120 Vericolour.

While you were posting this, I had already gone back to add comment about Adorama ad saving 2.6% for 220 vs. 2x 120
...hardly a substantial savings that would make much difference in net income. I can't find my old processing costs of E6, so cannot compare those costs.

 

[Huss]

And this thread as well from Huss, although it is a bit hard to figure out, because understanding the beginning depends on being able to see the picture (of Shanghai 220 film) that no longer shows up.
Essentially, it seems that the 220 film from Shanghai is/was hand assembled using re-purposed 120 backing paper without the appropriate 220 start mark.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/look-what-the-cat-dragged-in.178967/

Yeah I bought 10 rolls of Shanghai 220 earlier this year. Shot 3, sold off the rest. Because it was garbage.
Incorrect film leader/backing length. Uneven emulsion coating. Random scratches everywhere.

 

[dynachrome]

I have a question which is partially related to the issue of 220. Over the last few years there have been complaints that ink from 120 backing paper has come off onto the film. What if the film was coated onto stock which was thicker, as thick as existing 120 film with the backing paper. The leader could still be paper but as the film wound into place for use there would be no backing paper. I understand that this would not be suitable for older "ruby window" cameras but it would solve the problem of ink coming off of the backing paper. In the mix of all costs associated with making 120 film, a thicker film base should be tolerable.

 

[mshchem]

What might make sense is for a company like Adox to craft 220 film from Ilford films. Maybe not actually make 220, but run the numbers. When people realize that the cost per frame would be 4 times what 120 is, then maybe people would quit asking for 220.

 

[railwayman3]

Way back in the day, when I did a lot more serious Yashica 124 picture-taking, I quite liked using 220 transparency film and didn't mind the slight extra cost.

But it seems that 220 would not now be viable for manufacturers, given the cost of new machinery. And the obvious elephant-in-the-room point that, all-other-things-being-equal, each 220 film sold would mean two less 120 films sold ?

 

[MattKing]

I have a question which is partially related to the issue of 220. Over the last few years there have been complaints that ink from 120 backing paper has come off onto the film. What if the film was coated onto stock which was thicker, as thick as existing 120 film with the backing paper. The leader could still be paper but as the film wound into place for use there would be no backing paper. I understand that this would not be suitable for older "ruby window" cameras but it would solve the problem of ink coming off of the backing paper. In the mix of all costs associated with making 120 film, a thicker film base should be tolerable.

The problem isn't due to the ink coming off, it is due to it reacting chemically with the emulsion, causing an increase of sensitivity in the parts of the emulsion that are in contact with it.
But your suggestion replaces one set of problems with others - the need for a complete revamp of the existing 120 film stocks, including obtaining a different substrate and a re-do of the anti-halation systems. And as that film wouldn't be suitable for all the red window cameras, the film manufacturers would be faced with the dilemma of either making them unusable, or having two different types of 120 films, with different substrate and backing paper requirements, including the associated minimum order requirements for those two different substrates, and two different types of backing papers.

 

[mshchem]

And the obvious elephant-in-

Add complexity, cost and risk without added sales? Sounds like a big ol elephant

 

[wiltw]

But it seems that 220 would not now be viable for manufacturers, given the cost of new machinery. And the obvious elephant-in-the-room point that, all-other-things-being-equal, each 220 film sold would mean two less 120 films sold ?

Whether the company sold 2x 120 or 1x 220, the usage of film area is virtually equivalnt (apart from any difference in the overhead used for leader/trailer film length So I wouldn't anticipate it means much to the manufacturer (2 rolls of 120 would have twice as much overhead film than for 1 roll of 220, so if 220 = 2* 120, it is advantageous to manufacturer that 30 exposures has less overhead use for 1 roll of 220 than 2 rolls of 120, not to mention the paper savings of not backing 30 exposures in 220. And only one box to contain 220 vs; two boxes to contain 120, again more effeciency in packaging, too.
I think the real issue is cost of tooling for 220 production of rolls to replace worn out equipment, and perhaps the issue of supply of 220 backing paper. And the relatively low demand given the abandonment of film by wedding professionals.

 

[mshchem]

Whether the company sold 2x 120 or 1x 220, the usage of film area is virtually equivalnt (apart from any difference in the overhead used for leader/trailer film length So I wouldn't anticipate it means much to the manufacturer (2 rolls of 120 would have twice as much overhead film than for 1 roll of 220, so if 220 = 2* 120, it is advantageous to manufacturer that 30 exposures has less overhead use for 1 roll of 220 than 2 rolls of 120, not to mention the paper savings of not backing 30 exposures in 220. And only one box to contain 220 vs; two boxes to contain 120, again more effeciency in packaging, too.
I think the real issue is cost of tooling for 220 production of rolls to replace worn out equipment, and perhaps the issue of supply of 220 backing paper. And the relatively low demand given the abandonment of film by wedding professionals.

I think you are underestimating the expense of tooling. Having more sku(s) of a perishable product, equates to much higher inventory costs. Makes zero sense for the big film companies. A small company that could charge a high premium might be able to do it.