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

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I have a couple of cameras that will use 220 film. What's the chance of Ilford or Kodak making 220 film again?

 

[cramej]

Probably somewhere between slim and none. A new production line is a massive expense and regardless of the increase in film sales, it will never be where it was at a level to support the volume necessary to maintain separate 120 and 220 lines.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Probably somewhere between slim and none. A new production line is a massive expense and regardless of the increase in film sales, it will never be where it was at a level to support the volume necessary to maintain separate 120 and 220 lines.

Low return on investment I guess. Luckily, the cameras use both 120 and 220 film.

 

[BrianShaw]

If you ask Kodak or Ilford I bet they will tell you no-chance-at-all.

 

[faberryman]

Ferrania has already expressed the hope to make 220.

"This will require some expensive modifications to our 120 converting and finishing lines, but it can of theoretically be done. We do hope to eventually make 220, and we have a few ideas about how to do this without endangering production of other products, while at the same time understanding what the total market for this format could be."

https://emulsive.org/interviews/fil...ilm-ferrania-community-interview-results-time

Perhaps now would be a good time to start buying up as many Hasselblad A24 220 backs as possible.

 

[MattKing]

None.
Several years ago when Ilford/Harman examined this, and made sales projections, and discussed it here, the cost of replacing or restoring their warn out machine that assembled the film, the leader and the trailer in production quantities at economic speed, the cost then was in the order of 300,000 pounds sterling, and the minimum order quantities for those leaders and trailers meant that they would have to buy and pay for several years of supply ahead of time.
There was no likely scenario that would result in any return on investment in any reasonable period of time.
As best as I can tell, it is the minimum order quantity for the leaders and trailers that precludes Kodak Alaris and Eastman Kodak from doing it as well. Their 220 equipment may also have been decommissioned.

 

[Paul Howell]

220 was primely used for pros, fashion, commercial, wedding, the vast majority has moved to digital platforms. When I stopped shooting commercial freelance work I stopped buying 220, 120 was just the right size for travel.

 

[pentaxuser]

Wasn't there a very long thread on this some time ago which slowly died?

Not sure what Ferrania's declaration does for its credibility, given its struggle to even make an old b&w film called P30

pentaxuser

 

[Cholentpot]

Not very likely.

Better idea is to learn to roll your own. And after shooting a few rolls of 220 you understand why it'll never come back.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...What's the chance of Ilford or Kodak making 220 film again?

Probably somewhere between slim and none...

That's an unrealistically optimistic reply.

 

[Nokton48]

I load 24 exposure rolls of 70mm B&W which I shoot in Hasselblad A70 magazines.

 

[cmacd123]

ILFORD has said NO way. Kodak proably no longer has equipment. Ferrania has ended up may years behind where they wanted to be thanks to COVID, and they have not managed to make even P30 in 120. 220 is not likly to appeal to the LOMOgraphy crowd. I think you would be better off figuring how to convert your 220 magazines to use 120.

I will of course never say never, but I would give someone making film for my Kodak Instant camera, (the ones that were mostly recalled and destroyed) than seeing any new 220.

 

[MattKing]

The irony is that it would be easy to make (and edge print) the film.
Sadly, no one can economically do what is required to make it usable in cameras - obtain the leaders and trailers, and put them together with the film.
I certainly don't discount the possibility of there being a technological solution for replacement of the machine that attaches the film to the leader and the trailer.
Most likely the main difficulties relate to the challenges/costs of distributing an additional format, and the extraordinary capital costs associated with the large minimum order requirements of the specialty leader and trailer manufacturer and printer.

 

[mshchem]

Same problem as before, no one would buy it. 220 was more expensive per frame, not cheaper. Tri-X would be $22 a roll. Only a small company like Adox could do something like this. Buy film in bulk, color and b&w, from the obvious players. Have a subscription model. The Big Boys wouldn't cooperate.

I guess my point is Adox and Ilford are actually doing new things. Those folks could figure out something, but 1 220 would cost 3 120. Kinda like new Acros II at 12 bucks a roll for 120.

 

[koraks]

Ferrania has already expressed the hope to make 220.

Ferrania - many hopes, not so many products.

Given the problems we've seen over the past few years with backing paper issues, which nearly every manufacturer has been struggling with in one way or another, it's extremely unlikely anyone is going to complicate matters by having to engineer the thinner backing paper that 220 requires for a market that's vanishingly small.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Given the problems we've seen over the past few years with backing paper issues, which nearly every manufacturer has been struggling with in one way or another,

I've not had any issues with the newer Kodak 'glossy' backing paper so far. I'd like to be able to use ILFORD 120 film with confidence but have experienced backing paper problems with in-date, well stored film.

 

[mrosenlof]

Lots of "guess" and "impression" here...

I'm under the impression that the main users of 220 film were event photographers. Weddings, trade shows, and the like. It seems like very few of those events are shot on film these days. Something would have to happen to create a viable market.

I agree with the "slim" and "none" responses here.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Again, not very likely. 220 was mostly a Professional format, not a hobby one. When Pro photographers moved to digital, demand died. I, for one, won't buy 220 myself, since it doesn't make any sense for me. I suspect this would be the case for many film shooters, because one of the reason to use film vs digital is the slow cadense of shooting.

 

[Luckless]

The only route I can see where 220 is remotely likely to be accessible again is someone making a small scale spooling machine, and processing bulk rolls from existing manufacturers, or diving into building a small scale coating machine themselves.

[I've been hanging onto my 120 backing papers on the off chance they become useful for such a process in the future.]

Having access to 220 would be nice given the ongoing rising price of working 120 backs, but the 220 backs are sitting gathering dust for long enough that I suspect the working pool of those is going to shrink as they get converted, gummed up, or just outright tossed. But I would still find them nice for sports, hiking, and cold weather work. Wasn't a fan of trying to swap rolls at -30 windchill back east. Not sure if that will be an issue for me on the west coast however.

 

[cramej]

Wasn't a fan of trying to swap rolls at -30 windchill back east. Not sure if that will be an issue for me on the west coast however.

Therein lies an advantage of 120. The tension is on both the paper and the film and the paper won't break at -30. If 220 breaks, your entire roll is toast...errr ice?

 

[Luckless]

Therein lies an advantage of 120. The tension is on both the paper and the film and the paper won't break at -30. If 220 breaks, your entire roll is toast...errr ice?

If I drop a loose roll of film into the snow because my fingers are too numb to handle and wrap it, then I actually lose the photos on that film.

If I snap a roll of 220, then I have to recover it in a dark-tent, but likely only lose a single frame of exposed film at most depending on the tear, and possibly only lose unexposed film.

 

[mrosenlof]

I've shot a bit of 220, mostly as my own hobby work. I never had issues with film breaking. Maybe just lucky.

I do know that I hated loading my 220 reel (metal) for developing in a standard size tank. A small spaced spiral like 35mm, but wider floppier film, is not a good combination! I also had one 220 reel that was jumbo size, spaces like a 120 reel, and easy to load. I just had no daylight tank for it and developed in total darkness in little tubs. That was my usual choice.

I don't particularly miss 220.

 

[MattKing]

it's extremely unlikely anyone is going to complicate matters by having to engineer the thinner backing paper that 220 requires for a market that's vanishingly small.

As far as I can tell, the leaders and trailers used for 220 film are made out of exactly the same paper (with revised printing) as 120 paper.
But the different paper length and different printing still means separate minimum order requirements.

 

[wiltw]

Therein lies an advantage of 120. The tension is on both the paper and the film and the paper won't break at -30. If 220 breaks, your entire roll is toast...errr ice?

Shot 220 for wedding and event coverage jobs back in the 1990s, never snapped a roll of 220 because it did not have paper backing. A lot of pros shot 220 back then, now all the wedding coverage is 135 format digital...the demand for 220 is no longer in the pro ranks.

 

[cramej]

Shot 220 for wedding and event coverage jobs back in the 1990s, never snapped a roll of 220 because it did not have paper backing. A lot of pros shot 220 back then, now all the wedding coverage is 135 format digital...the demand for 220 is no longer in the pro ranks.

But you probably weren't shooting weddings outdoors at -30*.