andreasbrigachtal
Hi Mirko,
There was a request for 220 film in another thread. I actually think there’s a demand for 220 film. An ADOX 50 or 100 would be brilliant!
Is that something you could arrange? Similar to the baryta paper?
Give us a quote!
And everyone, let us know if you’d be interested!
I’d take 50 rolls! If the price is right! ;)
Good light
Andreas
-Breast enlargement through the laying on of hands- Appointments by arrangement
MirkoBoeddecker
Andreas,
I can’t quote a price for that.
We worked out the figures and drew up a rough cost estimate back when there was still more demand for 220mm film (2002).
It requires an investment of over €100,000 in machinery and equipment.
Spread that out over the few hundred rolls of film that are in demand, and see if the price is ‘good’ :-)
Even 120 roll film is on the verge of being discontinued, as sales have plummeted to one-fiftieth of what they were back in the 90s. Compare my comments in the other thread, where I announced that roll film bases are no longer available to buy (worldwide) and that we therefore either have to discontinue roll films (and all others soon too) or come up with something new and, for example, cast onto 35mm base.
All I can say is: be glad that we’re still going to all this trouble for the few euros in revenue!
Conclusion: The existing demand for roll film stock absolutely must be consolidated into a single format.
It costs a great deal of money to implement or modify an industrial processing line.
Furthermore, 220 films can almost only be assembled fully automatically (gluing); light leak at the edges would be a problem, and the films would require a specially hardened backing to prevent scratches on the NC emulsion when they are pulled over the pressure plate unprotected. Technologically, we wouldn’t be able to manage that at all without synthesis, and that would cost a further €25,000 per run.
Unfortunately, there’s a lot more to it than you might think.
Best regards,
Mirko
Gast
Mirko,
How much of a problem do you think the roll film base material is? After all, there have been various types of base available on the market over the years (Forte, Ilford and Efke, for example).
Can anyone explain to me why suddenly nothing seems to work anymore, when even fifty years ago every small plastics factory could manage it?
To be honest, I simply cannot imagine that it is impossible to find a manufacturer – say, behind the Urals or in Inner Mongolia – who makes something like this (base material, not 220 roll film).
Roland
PS: I agree with Mirko on the 220 roll film point, unless Mirko gets his staff to work on it during their lunch break – with scissors and a ruler.
Gast
Hi again
What a shame! ;)
Obviously, I don’t want Mirko to force his staff to fiddle about in the dark with scissors and sticky tape!
I didn’t think it would be that much work either. So that leaves only the 120.
What a shame, what a shame, what a shame!
Maybe there’s still one somewhere in Siberia! :P
Cheers
Andreas
MirkoBoeddecker
Roland,
Please tell me the name of the small plastics factory that can produce substrates with a tolerance of +/- 1 micron and an absolutely uniform pre-coating at a reasonable price. I’ll be first in line to buy from them ;)
If only for strategic reasons regarding the future....
I know of only four sources worldwide that can deliver the required quality, and they operate facilities that cost over 700 million.
There is an emergency source in the East. Yes. But their films have holes in the emulsion the size of peas and sometimes no emulsion at all for centimetres at a time. The substrate simply doesn’t adhere well enough.
We only buy from them when we really have no other option, and then we throw away a third of the production and raise the price.....
Film production is high-tech. Roughly the same as the production of computer chips or wafers.
They work with comparable tolerances there.
It’s not all as simple as one might think.
Fifty years ago, the black-and-white film market was huge. Billions of square metres were produced worldwide.
Today, I try to order 5,000 square metres of base material for a 3–5-year supply.
It’s simply not possible. Either it costs €10,000 per square metre, or I have to buy 100,000 square metres.
It’s the same everywhere in the industry. Our standard of living is defined by the cheap production of mass-produced goods.
If any single component in the chain is no longer mass-produced, the price skyrockets and, as a result, the entire product can no longer be sold or produced.
But let me make this absolutely clear: the KB substrate is of higher quality, stronger and more expensive!
I suspect that roll films have only been cast onto thinner substrates up to now for cost reasons.
So the product is getting better, and there’s no point in lamenting the old substrate.
Best regards,
Mirko
Gast
Mirko,
In principle, I also think KB film stock is better, but it’s difficult to gauge how this will affect the flatness of the film and, in particular, the image distance.
Is the other source by any chance ‘OAO “AK” CBEMA’ from Shostka in Ukraine? I have occasionally noticed scratches in the films, but definitely only those that were mechanically scratched in by Svema (perhaps 1/10 mm in size).
The emulsion adheres well to the base; I haven’t had any delamination or the like.
Roland
Gast
People are practically talking the 120 roll film to death here. If 120 film really does disappear, I’ll hang myself. I’m already ordering 220 colour film by the box so that someone will still deliver it to me at a reasonable price.
Although I do wonder why it’s so difficult to manufacture 120 film; my grandad used it even before the war, and back then we hadn’t even flown to the moon yet. The 220 format was introduced around 1962.
Gast
People are practically talking the 120 roll film to death here. If 120 film really does disappear, I’ll hang myself. I’m already ordering 220 colour film by the box so that someone will still deliver it to me at a reasonable price.
Although I do wonder why it’s so difficult to produce 120 film; my grandad used it even before the war, and back then we hadn’t even flown to the moon yet. The 220 format was introduced around 1962.
MirkoBoeddecker
Petzi,
Let me repeat:
It’s the same across the whole industry. Our standard of living is defined by the low-cost mass production of goods.
If any single component in the chain is no longer mass-produced, the price skyrockets and, as a result, the entire product can no longer be sold or produced.
Everything stands or falls on the volume of demand.
Compare this with my earlier statements: Quality, too, is a question of volume when it comes to photochemical products. In the 1950s and 1960s, one could afford everything that was technically feasible at the time because the costs were spread across millions of films.
Back then, you could simply synthesise protectors or Sensitizers for 50,000 euros, and Kodak maintained its own herds of cattle that were only allowed to eat specific grass so that certain substances did not end up in the gelatin.
Today, we have to be more imaginative.
Of course, we could roll the films by hand in very small batches, cut the protective paper with a craft knife and use a felt-tip pen to trace the numbers onto the back through a pre-carved stencil.
A film would then cost 30 EUR.
So what do we do? We try to combine processes wherever possible.
So if we manage to cast two types of film onto a single base, that’s a huge advantage!
Best regards,
Mirko
Gast
I’d really like to know just how real the threat to roll films is.
I find that bit about the herds of cattle quite interesting – a nice anecdote. ;)
Gast
There’s an emergency supplier in the East. Yes. But on their films, the emulsion has grains as big as peas, and in some places there’s no emulsion at all for centimetres at a time. The base just doesn’t adhere properly.
We only buy from them when we really have no other option, and then we have to bin a third of the production and raise the price...
Then I’d have a chat with them to see if we can’t improve things a bit.
Otherwise, the Western firms with their 700 million mark factory facilities will say – nah, it’s not worth it anymore, we’re scrapping our luxury machines...
... but by then, the state-run enterprise in Absurdistan will have been privatised and gone bust, because nobody bought their base material!
Regards
Winfried, who’d still like to work with roll film for a while
RomanJRohleder
Winfried,
>The Western companies with 700 million in factory equipment usually say – nah, it’s not worth it anymore, >we’re scrapping our luxury machines...
For one thing, the machines aren’t particularly mobile – once they’re set up, transport is more or less out of the question – otherwise the L6 would have been sitting in Poland or Slovakia under its old brand for 10 years and Agfaphoto would never have existed.
For another, this is what matters:
>... but in the meantime, the state-owned enterprise in Absurdistan has also been privatised >and gone bust, because nobody bought its film stock!
... not the manufacturers. Their stance is: “If I can’t make money from it, neither should anyone else. Nothing is given away for free.”; that is precisely how Kodak ran its black-and-white paper division into the ground and spoiled the market for everyone else.
Gast
Roman,
... the manufacturers don’t. Their stance is: ‘If I can’t make money from it, neither should anyone else. Nothing’s given away for free.’ That’s exactly how Kodak ran its black-and-white paper division into the ground and spoiled the market for everyone else
That would surely be an argument for buying the base material from Russia
and keeping the operation—which is probably ready for the museum—alive.
I couldn’t care less whether the material isn’t that good; what use is it to me to get top-quality goods for two years longer if, due to a lack of suitable base material, the entire film production has to be shut down?
For one thing, the machines aren’t particularly mobile – once they’re set up, transport is more or less out of the question – otherwise the L6 would have been in Poland or Slovakia for the last 10 years under its old brand name, and Agfaphoto would never have existed.
I didn’t claim that either; I was thinking of stripping it down and selling the scrap as raw materials.
I’m pessimistic if we can’t become independent of such giants in this regard.
Regards
Winfried
Gast
Hello,
It’s bad news yet again… I’m always pleased when something new is announced, like the high-resolution film from ADOX.
What about colour roll film? Will the situation be just as critical for slide and negative film?
Best regards,
Marwan
MirkoBoeddecker
Marwan,
The situation isn’t that critical. We won’t be discontinuing roll films overnight, and we’ve already intervened twice in the past with Foma to keep roll film production going.
I don’t really see any reason why the missing base couldn’t be substituted with another one.
The difference is 20–30 microns. I can’t imagine that any pressure plate would jam because of this, rendering the film impossible to transport.
The image distance isn’t affected by this, as the front of the base with the emulsion still rests against the image window.
To simply change tack and spread the existing demand across an additional roll film product would be the wrong move in the current situation.
We are, after all, the most flexible supplier of all and will certainly find a solution.
You’ll just have to get used to a few minor changes here and there.
Best regards,
Mirko
Gast
Mirko,
I’m not sure how much use this would be to anyone, but you could look into whether it’s possible to sell the roll film as a continuous roll and include the paper leader, so that anyone who wants to can make their own 220 roll film in their darkroom.
Happy New Year
Robert
MirkoBoeddecker
Hello Robert,
We’ve already considered that.
Unfortunately, however, that doesn’t address the fundamental issues, which are as follows:
1) This paper leader and trailer aren’t available to buy, and they can’t be produced without significant investment.
2) Standard paper cut to size would not have the correct start mark and is not sufficiently resistant to light leaks. No one can match the quality of Kodak’s special paper.
3) The film would still get scratched on the reverse side.
4) We do not have a suitable, chemically inert adhesive to stick the film to the paper without it tearing.
If these problems could be solved, it would be possible to have the film manufactured.
The only option left is for those who ‘refill’ their Kodak reels, but that only works 2–3 times.
Best regards,
Mirko
MirkoBoeddecker
Petzi,
About that herd of cattle:
Eastman Kodak came within a hair’s breadth of going bankrupt (I think in the 1920s) because almost an entire year’s production of film had become completely unusable.
They had to write off all the film and replace every customer’s rolls because, after a few months of storage, the film suddenly ‘went off’ (no longer had speed, no longer had a Dmax).
All this happened because the cattle that supplied the gelatin had eaten too much of a certain herb (I’ve forgotten what it was), and the breakdown products that found their way into the gelatin were not chemically inert and caused a reaction.
Something like this is bound to happen again in the future. The Kodak herd of cattle no longer exists.
Best regards,
Mirko
Gast
Hello,
As far as I know, these were some kind of mustard varieties whose high content of sulphur-containing compounds ultimately doped the photographic emulsion with sulphur.
Best regards,
GeorgK
Gast
Hello roll film users!
You’ve really thrown me off balance now!
I understand that 220 roll films are no longer available.
But have I interpreted the posts correctly to mean that
120 roll films are no longer being produced either (due to a lack of backing paper, etc.)?
Does this statement only apply to ADOX/efke production, or
to all manufacturers such as Ilford, Fuji, Lucky, Forte etc.?
I hope I’ve got this wrong, otherwise we’ll have to
scrap our medium-format cameras.
Regards, Franz
