Gast
Do you have any plans to produce Efke/Adox -Filme im 220 Rollfilmformat?
Ich nehme an, dass es ein gewisses Interesse an diesen längeren Rollen gibt. Besonders Fotografen, die Panorama-Kameras, Großformatkameras mit Rollfilm-Rückteilen und Mittelformatkameras ohne wechselbare Rückteile (zum Beispiel Pentax 67) verwenden, werden an 220 Filmen interessiert sein.
Heutzutage ist die Verfügbarkeit von 220 Schwarzweißfilmen sehr eingeschränkt. Soweit ich weiß, produziert nur Kodak einige Filme (Tmax & Tri-X) im 220 Format. Wenn jemand andere Hersteller von 220 SW-Filmen kennt, bitte informiert uns alle, die an längeren Rollen interessiert sind.
RTK
PhilippeGrunchec
Take a look at www.film220.com!
NilVenet
yes, but your link is about fuji or ilford films... not adox... and that's true it would be cool to have some 220 films! :)
PhilippeGrunchec
Try to convince Mirko! :)
MirkoBoeddecker
It’s not a question of convincing me it is first of all a question of order quantities.
Photographers are EXTREMELY price sensitive.
If we make only 10 000 Rollfilms 220 and calculate all the work and effort to make such a project happen the price will for sure exceed twice the price of a 120 film by far (so buying two 120 films will cost much less than one 220).
In my opinion 95% of the photographers will then buy the two cheaper 120 film. Those 5 % of the Fotografen who care less about money (or in other words who are in the fortunate situation not to have to calculate so narrowly) are not enough to make such a project happen.
Regards,
Mirko
PS next to the financial side I cannot say if it will be technically at all possible to do.
PhilippeGrunchec
Mirko, if you take a look at www.film220.com, you can get an idea of the potential orders!
MirkoBoeddecker
Phillippe,
I saw your impressive list and found many of our customers on it :-)
I do not want to desillusionate you - I am only touching bases. So to me the question still remains: Will they buy one roll of 220 film if two rolls of 120 film are cheaper?
Did you ever bring this up?
I understand that all these people want 220 back (and if they have cameras built to accept 220 film this is fully understandable why) but are they actually willing to put down money or do they just want it back at the old price like in the good old days?
See we had quite some companies over here in Deutschland who were dumping film in the markets like crazy at incredibly low prices. They did not make any money on the goods sold. Now these companies are all bust and vanished off the markets. If you ask the photographers if they want these companies back they all shout at once: "yes please have them come back they were great because everything was so cheap" but if you tell them OK but in order to do so you would have to pay a price that makes it possible for these companies to survive, all the interest is suddenly gone and they reply: "well in this case I have no interest because at regular prices I can also get it somewhere else".
As to my opinion as long as there is any option cheaper than the other, das ist wo all photographers go.
So this would be the key issue to me. Not only a list of people who want 220 film back in the way it used to be before the manufacturers for good reasons stopped the production but rather a list of people who say: I want it back so much that I am willing to pay a premium to make it happen even if this is more than the price for an alternative product (like 120).
These people could really be the ones that make it happen if there are enough of them.
No critics here. Don’t get me wrong.
I fully support your project but someone has to put down money here and whoever might that be needs qualified information to make a decision.
So this is supposed to be like a little test. Just as if you went to the bank and applied for a loan and they ask you all kinds of strange questions :)
Regards,
Mirko
Gast
Make better pictures, not more, thats illness of todays digital photographers.
PhilippeGrunchec
Sorry, Mirko, it is not my project: I just translated the French text into German!
It was initiated by Philippe Bachelier and Sebastiao Salgado...
Gast
For me, and I think for many others too, this is not only a question about money. The convenience achieved by using 220 film instead of 120 film is in many situations remarkable. If you think for example landscape photograpers with 6x12 format you can get only 6 exposures in one 120 roll. With 220 film you can get 12 exposures. A remarkable benefit especially if you are photographing in a cold climate. Not to mention anything about them who are using 6x17 format... Also in street or action photography 120 roll runs out too rapidly. Many pictures are lost during loading the camera.
Yes, I know and understand, that these panorama format shooters are only a marginal group, but we do exist! Perhaps someone should serve also us.
About money and the price of the film. I don't try to get more shots with the same money by searching for 220 films. I tried to explain my motivations in overlying paragraphs. I think that for me the still tolerable price for 220 film roll is something like 2,5x the price of 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 that Fuji is the manufacturer to convince about a run of Acros in 220. They make so many different color films in 220, they seem to be 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 Deutschland ist es mehr wie dreimal so teuer.
I also believe that there is no point in trying to convince manufacturers that don't make 220 film at all. An investment in equipment is required, and different kind of paper is needed. It is much easier and more cost effective to make a 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 camreas most likely do not accept 220 film!
They usually work with the film numbering on the backing paper and haben nicht eine adjustable backing plate!
So these users are lost for 220.
If Fuji or Kodak decided to stop 220 then it will be impossible to get them to do it again unless someone puts down a huge pile of money which makes it worth doing for them.
This someone will most likely lose part of his money because there is a reason why Kodak and Fuji stopped other than equipment failure (as with Ilford).
The reason is: they lost money on the product.
Prices of 2,5x or 3x actually means 25% and 33% more expensive than 120 (broken down to the individual frame).
This is what I wanted to hear because this is what I assumed.
In my opinion this is way too little to make any project in relation to this happen as this does not even cover liquidating costs of an close to the end of date stock.
Regards,
Mirko
Petzi
RTZ, Petzi,
Panoramic cameras most likely do not accept 220 film !
They usually work with the film numbering on the backing paper and haben keine adjustable backing plate !
So these users are lost for 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 negs are between 20 and 60 cm wide! Lots of film changing with 120, plus more wastage per roll. In addition, I could make a single shot 1,6 m long with a 220 film, with 120 I am limited to roughly 80 cm.
Any camera that uses the film numbering on the backing paper probably belongs to the museum. You can't use that nowadays because the films are too sensitive and will be 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 came late to the b/w film business. They don't even offer 4x5" b/w sheet film except in Japan.
Kodak makes Tri-X 320 and chromogenic b/w film, none of which are too interesting. Plus-X is produced but not sold outside of the USA. I am sure a run of T-Max 100 and 400 would be well received.
MirkoBoeddecker
Petzi,
if Kodak would be making PlusX in 220, believe me we would carry it.
I don’t know if there is some still around in some smaller shops but it was not listed in the Kodak USA dealer Catalogue since 2003. Same for BW 400 CN.
Only the TRIX 320 is still available.
I was referring to panoramic cameras like Linhof, Fuji or Fotoman.
But it is a good hint that roundshots use 220 film even though there are so few of them that it will probably don’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 those will be the first questions asked by a manufacturer. No matter who approaches him. So my intention is not to desilusionate you but rather to get facts together in public domain for the use of everyone.
Regards,
Mirko
Petzi
There have to be several thousand Roundshot cameras in the field that can use 220 film and they work better with that. 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 not listed at B&H any longer (it was until a few weeks ago.)
