News from Kodak Alaris and Fujifilm

[Jamie123]

We should remain realistic: 220 is dead. And it will remain dead.
The market is too small, and the production too expensive. The manufacturers have explained that several times: 220 would cost more than double than 120. And at that price only a tiny amount of people would buy it (resulting in even higher prices to be profitable).
In the past the market for 220 film was mainly driven by fashion photographers. Most of the demand came from them, and not from the amateurs/enthusiasts.
But the enthusiasts are now the major market for medium format film. And they prefer format 120. They don't have to shoot lots of rolls "in a hurry" like professional fashion photographers.

Some time ago on APUG one of the former CEOs of Ilford (Simon Galley) has explained all that in a very detailed way. Ilford e.g. would have to invest in a complete new machine for 220 converting. This investment would even further increase the price.

For those who want more shots and shorter reloading times the best way is to use 4.5x6 format (more shots per roll) and cameras with changeable film magazines: So you can load several magazines with film and then you just have to change the magazine in a shooting, which is very quick.
The classic case in fashion photography for example.

Spot on regarding the reason why 220 will never come back. I know that I wouldn't buy it for one. I remember it being easily available a decade ago when I was in my early 20s and I didn't buy it back then exactly for the reason that it was more expensive than twice the price of 120 both for the film itself and processing. Also, I always had this (purely speculative) idea that 220 might be more prone to scratches from the pressure plate due to the lack of backing paper.

As for the use of 120 for fashion shoots, it's true that it can become a little bit of a nuisance. I shoot almost exclusively on medium format (especially for fashion shoots) and having to change every 10 shots with 6x7 is a nuisance even with multiple backs because you still have to put the darkslide in and change the backs which can interrupt the flow. However, in the long run it would still be cheaper to just have two identical cameras on hand and just switch cameras when one is full. One can always make due. Heck, there are even current fashion photographers who use 4x5.

Fun fact: A friend of mine works for one of the leading contemporary fashion photographers who only uses film and apparently on a day's shoot they will usually use around 150 rolls (6x7) which I actually think is not that much seeing that those are high budget shoots.

 

[Prest_400]

For Kodak, 220 would have avoided the imprinting issues on the film as it doesn't have the continuous backing paper. If it wasn't proposed to do a run of it back then, now it won't. The same issue of paper backing sourcing is still there, and according to Simon Galley, it was expensive. Ilford would be doing 220 if it weren't for them not having a functional machine, and it did not make financial sense to set it up again.


Can dream a bit however. Ferrania stated that they had a machine, but the early state of the enterprise means it's far from a priority. It would be up to someone partnering and setting up an occasional batch of 220.