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.
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 ..I like 220. Fun to shoot without having to reload after 12 shots.
I'd be willing to bet that the backing paper used in 1901 wouldn't come close to working with modern emulsions.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?
You will, of course, need to cut down some 70mm film to supply the film part.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
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.
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.
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.
While you were posting this, I had already gone back to add comment about Adorama ad saving 2.6% for 220 vs. 2x 120Back in the day, when I was using 220 for weddings, 220 Vericolour was slightly less expensive than twice the price of 120 Vericolour.
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/
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.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.
Add complexity, cost and risk without added sales? Sounds like a big ol elephantAnd the obvious elephant-in-
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.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 ?
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.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.
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?