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

[wiltw]

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

Do you know of any couple getting married outside in -30 degree temps and holding their reception out there, too?! Apart from the Inuit?

Did you hear the one about the Inuit woman having an affair with a fur trader during the winter, until she broke it off?

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

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

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.

On the twelfth of Never.

 

[tomkatf]

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.

^^^^^
This...extremely small market share compared to 120, even smaller today...

 

[wiltw]

About the same probability of the Impossible Project making 4x5" instant film for monorail cameras

 

[Kodachromeguy]

This topic came up within the last year or so. The major companies, absolutely no chance. Someone in China is selling 220 versions of Shanghai GP5 film, but I do not know if it is still available and if it is really viable as a product. People complained of quality control issues, but I have no personal experience.

 

[MattKing]

Here is the 2006 thread started by Simon Galley, then a Harman Technology Ltd. director, in response to the petition directed to Ilford requesting 220 film: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ly-from-ilford-photo-harman-technology.18206/

 

[Cholentpot]

It's not overly difficult to make 220 from slit down 70mm honestly. The ONLY benefit I've seen shooting 220 these days is if you use a lab, and the lab develops 220, it's just a smidge more in price to develop 220. Something like $1 more locally.

However, you'll need nonperforated 70mm, backing paper cut to size, a slitter and some sort of guide. Otherwise it's not too bad.

Hand rolled 220. Portra 160NC 70mm rolled in the dark. Shot in a Bronica S2. S2 has a 220 switch on it.

 

[Arthurwg]

The Chinese could do it.

 

[mshchem]

We need to challenge Engineering colleges to come up with a cheap solution. A machine using existing materials, papers, spools etc. Get Kodak and Ilford to kick in some free film. See if there's a low volume way. Will need to be something that doesn't cannibalize existing products.

 

[MattKing]

The backing paper for 120 costs Harman/Ilford more to buy than it costs them to make the film.

 

[mshchem]

The backing paper for 120 costs Harman/Ilford more to buy than it costs them to make the film.

The answer to that is get rid of the printing. Gasp!!

 

[MattKing]

The answer to that is get rid of the printing. Gasp!!

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.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

The Chinese could do it.

Yeah, ignoring the utter lack of demand (outside a few PHOTRIO squawkers), we could all look forward to another cheap, low-quality Chinese product that might jam cameras or be subject to light leaks. Walmart, however, would certainly stock it.

 

[mshchem]

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 know. You're correct. Seems to more demanding everyday. Back in the day people bought film as needed not for stocking. And of course Kodak, and others had all kinds of people to watch over every aspect of production. I never really liked 220 anyway.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

The Chinese could do it.

And this means what? Of course a Chinese company could make 220 film. We just discussed here and in the last 2 or 3 threads on the subject that there is barely any demand for the product. So you think some Chinese film company will make and stock a product guessing that there will be a demand?

 

[MattKing]

The Chinese could do it.

As a matter of fact, they have tried:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/shanghai-gpx-400-220-terrible-quality-control.185048/

 

[MattKing]

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/

 

[Agulliver]

The Shanghai 220 film that appeared last year as hand rolled by a chap in Hong Kong. I got in touch with him at the time and he explained he was hand rolling and offering to sell in significant quantities, not just a few rolls. He seemed quite disappointed in the inquiries and orders he was getting, mostly people like me wanting a small number of rolls. It wasn't a Shanghai factory product.

However there is now Shanghai factory made 127 beginning to appear, and promises of 620. Their website even mentions shortly being able to OEM 135, 35mm bulk, 120, 127 and 620 B&W film. No mention of 220.

It isn't simple to make, as SImon Galley told us some years ago. And the market is *very* small. Almost all cameras which can use 220 can also use 120.....with there being no price advantage in 220 (it costs more than 2x a roll of 120) the market really is tiny. I guess with the 127 they feel they can make money, though they're only 20% cheaper than Rerapan which is hand rolled in Japan.

 

[PerTulip]

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

But they also use 120, so it makes no sense for a company tho manufacture both.

 

[Arthurwg]

And this means what? Of course a Chinese company could make 220 film. We just discussed here and in the last 2 or 3 threads on the subject that there is barely any demand for the product. So you think some Chinese film company will make and stock a product guessing that there will be a demand?

How can there be demand for a product that doesn't exist? I would want it for sure, and so would many others if it was available. So tell me, how do you know how much demand there would be? Yes, not the massive demand from wedding photographers but China makes vast amounts of things that have low demand.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

How can there be demand for a product that doesn't exist?...

You and other PHOTRIO squawkers have been demanding 220 for years since it ceased to exist.

...how do you know how much demand there would be?...

How do you know?

 

[abruzzi]

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.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

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

Yes emotions too. But I'd like to travel with my Fuji GSW 690. It only gets 8 exposures with 120. With 220, I could double that. Reloading film on location is a pain. It's a minor inconvenience though.

 

[MattKing]

Are there any cameras that only shoot 220?

Yashica 24 - although later models included both start marks. You still had to remember though with 120, because the frame counter still went to 24.

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?

There is probably no real difference, because there still is the same amount of backing paper outside the film.
The biggest reason that people want 220 film is because they see 220 backs or inserts at really low prices. Most of that market would dry up if they were priced similarly to the 120 versions.

 

[Pieter12]

Most of that market would dry up if they were priced similarly to the 120 versions.

I would think that market is pretty dead since you can't get 220. And 220 is not going to be available from any major manufacturer ever again. Why should they bother? The only way would be for someone to entice them with an expensive and enormous order--any volunteers here? People gripe when the price of film goes up a few cents as it is.