Gast
Do you have any plans to produce Efke/ADOX films in the 220 roll film format?
I assume there is some interest in these longer rolls. Photographers who use panoramic cameras, large-format cameras with roll film backs and medium-format cameras without interchangeable backs (such as the Pentax 67) will be particularly interested in 220 film.
These days, the availability of 220 black-and-white films is very limited. As far as I know, only Kodak produces a few films (Tmax & Tri-X) in the 220 format. If anyone knows of other manufacturers of 220 black-and-white films, please let all of us who are interested in longer rolls know.
RTK
PhilippeGrunchec
Have a look at www.film220.com!
NilVenet
Yes, but your link is about Fuji or Ilford films... not ADOX... and you're right, it would be great to have some 220 film! :)
PhilippeGrunchec
Try to convince Mirko! :)
MirkoBoeddecker
It’s not a question of convincing me; first and foremost, it’s a question of order quantities.
Photographers are EXTREMELY price-sensitive.
If we produce only 10,000 rolls of 220 film and factor in all the work and effort required to make such a project happen, the price will certainly be far more than double that of a 120 film (so buying two 120 films will cost much less than one 220).
In my opinion, 95% of photographers will then buy the two cheaper 120 films. Those 5% of photographers who are less concerned about money (or, in other words, who are in the fortunate position of not having to budget so tightly) are not enough to make such a project happen.
Regards,
Mirko
PS: Aside from the financial aspect, I cannot say whether it will be technically possible at all.
PhilippeGrunchec
Mirko, if you take a look at www.film220.com, you can get an idea of the potential orders!
Gast
Take better photos, not more – that’s the problem with today’s digital photographers.
MirkoBoeddecker
Phillippe,
I saw your impressive list and spotted many of our customers on it :-)
I don’t want to dash your hopes – I’m just checking things out. So the question still remains for me: Will they buy a single roll of 220 film if two rolls of 120 film are cheaper?
Have you ever raised this point?
I understand that all these people want 220 back (and if they have cameras designed to use 220 film, it’s entirely understandable why), but are they actually willing to pay for it, or do they just want it back at the old price, like in the good old days?
You see, we had quite a few companies here in Germany who were flooding the market with film at incredibly low prices. They didn’t make any money on the goods sold. Now these companies have all gone bust and vanished from the markets. If you ask the photographers if they want these companies back, they all shout at once: “Yes, please bring them back – they were great because everything was so cheap”, but if you tell them, “OK, but to do that you’d have to pay a price that makes it possible for these companies to survive”, all interest suddenly vanishes and they reply: “Well, in that case, I’m not interested, because at normal prices I can get it somewhere else.”
In my opinion, as long as there is an option cheaper than the others, that’s where all photographers will go.
So this would be the key issue for me. Not just a list of people who want 220 film back the way it used to be before the manufacturers, for good reasons, stopped production, but rather a list of people who say: I want it back so much that I’m willing to pay a premium to make it happen, even if this is more than the price of an alternative product (like 120).
These people could really be the ones to make it happen if there are enough of them.
No criticism intended here. Don’t get me wrong.
I fully support your project, but someone has to put money on the table here, and whoever that may be needs reliable information to make a decision.
So this is meant to be a bit of a test. Just as if you went to the bank to apply for a loan and they asked you all sorts of strange questions :)
Regards,
Mirko
PhilippeGrunchec
Sorry, Mirko, it’s not my project: I just translated the French text into German!
It was initiated by Philippe Bachelier and Sebastião Salgado...
Gast
For me, and I think for many others too, this isn’t just a question of money. The convenience of using 220 film instead of 120 film is, in many situations, remarkable. Take landscape photographers using the 6x12 format, for example: you can only get 6 exposures from a single 120 roll. With 220 film, you can get 12 exposures. A significant advantage, especially if you’re shooting in a cold climate. Not to mention those using the 6x17 format... In street or action photography, too, a 120 roll runs out far too quickly. Many shots are lost whilst loading the camera.
Yes, I know and understand that photographers using these panoramic formats are only a small group, but we do exist! Perhaps someone should cater to us as well.
Regarding money and the price of the film. I’m not trying to get more shots for the same money by looking for 220 film. I’ve tried to explain my motivations in the preceding paragraphs. I think that, for me, a still tolerable price for a 220 film roll is something like 2.5 times the price of a 120 film roll.
Best wishes,
RTK
Petzi
So to me the question still remains: Will they buy one roll of 220 film if two rolls of 120 film are cheaper?
[right][post="7085"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right]
I will buy 220 film if a 220 roll costs less than three times the price of a 120 roll.
I believe Fuji is the manufacturer to convince about producing Acros in 220. They make so many different colour films in 220; they seem committed to it. I buy my Fuji 220 film in the UK, by the way, where it actually costs about twice as much per roll as 120 film. In Germany, it’s more than three times as expensive.
I also believe there is no point in trying to persuade manufacturers who do not produce 220 film at all. An investment in equipment is required, and a different type of paper is needed. It is much easier and more cost-effective to produce 220 film when you already have all the equipment and supplies. That means Kodak and Fuji are the ones who should be asked to do it.
MirkoBoeddecker
RTZ, Petzi,
Panoramic cameras most likely do not accept 220 film!
They usually rely on the film numbering on the backing paper and do not have an adjustable backing plate!
So these users are out of luck when it comes to 220.
If Fuji or Kodak decided to stop producing 220, it would be impossible to get them to start again unless someone put up a huge sum of money to make it worthwhile for them.
That someone will most likely lose part of their money because there is a reason why Kodak and Fuji stopped production other than equipment failure (as with Ilford).
The reason is: they lost money on the product.
Prices of 2.5x or 3x actually mean 25% and 33% more expensive than 120 (broken down to the individual frame).
This is exactly what I wanted to hear, as this is what I had assumed.
In my opinion, this is far too little to make any project of this nature happen, as it does not even cover the liquidation costs of stock nearing its expiry date.
Regards,
Mirko
Petzi
RTZ, Petzi,
Panoramic cameras most likely do not accept 220 film!
They usually rely on the film numbering on the backing paper and do not have an adjustable backing plate!
So these users are out of luck with 220.
[right][post="7153"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right]
This is WRONG. I use a Roundshot and it works better with 220 film than 120. I use ONLY 220 film in it, because most of my negatives are between 20 and 60 cm wide! There’s a lot of film changing with 120, plus more wastage per roll. What’s more, I can take a single 1.6-metre-long shot with 220 film, whereas with 120 I’m limited to roughly 80 cm.
Any camera that uses the film numbering on the backing paper probably belongs in a museum. You can’t use that nowadays because the films are too sensitive and will get fogged if the sun shines on the back of the camera.
Fuji and Kodak did not decide to stop making 220 film.
Fuji never made 220 b/w film in the first place, because they entered the b/w film market late. They don’t even offer 4x5" b/w sheet film outside Japan.
Kodak makes Tri-X 320 and chromogenic black-and-white film, neither of which is particularly interesting. Plus-X is produced but not sold outside the USA. I am sure a run of T-Max 100 and 400 would be well received.
MirkoBoeddecker
Petzi,
if Kodak were still making PlusX in 220 format, believe me, we’d stock it.
I don’t know if there’s any left in some smaller shops, but it hasn’t been listed in the Kodak USA dealer catalogue since 2003. The same goes for BW 400 CN.
Only TRIX 320 is still available.
I was referring to panoramic cameras like Linhof, Fuji or Fotoman.
But it’s a good point that panoramic shots use 220 film, even though there are so few of them that it probably won’t make a difference.
Don’t get me wrong again. I would love to be able to offer 220 films, but I have to ask these questions because they will be the first questions asked by a manufacturer. No matter who approaches them. So my intention is not to disillusion you, but rather to gather facts in the public domain for everyone’s use.
Regards,
Mirko
Petzi
There must be several thousand Roundshot cameras in use that can take 220 film, and they perform better with it. These are current products. The alternatives are 5-inch aerial film and 70mm film, but both require a different camera, and these cameras are very rare (unlike the 220 cameras).
I have seen the Kodak BW 400 CN in stock at B&H, but of course it may be old stock. Plus-X is indeed no longer listed at B&H (it was until a few weeks ago).
