Petition Ilford to bring back 220!!

Petition Ilford to bring back 220!!

  • Total voters
    129
  • Poll closed .
Kodak 70mm WL Surveillance Film, EI 400!

Kodak 70mm WL Surveillance Film, EI 400!

Rangefinderfreak said:
Is the surveillance film Aerocon II Plus X 70mm.. a fantastic film, I have 4 cans of 500ft of it in the freezer. Absolutely fantastic stuff. Only drawback is it`s thinness. hard to load on big nikor 70mm reel It responds like a IR film with filters, but in normal light like TRI-X.. uh huh. luckily the cold war ended and we got those NASA supplies to photographic work...
Click to expand...

Hi Jukka,

Nope but I have 500' of the 70mm Plus-X Aerorecon II, from the Guy in Utah. Great stuff. I know you like it too. I use a Kindermann 70mm plastic developing tank and 70mm metal Kindermann developing reel for mine.

The WL Surveillance Film I got from a Military Surplus Place in California. I ordered a roll, tested it, and then inquired about how many rolls they had left. Turns out about half-a-case, so I got the rest of it, for a decent price.

It is true 400 ISO, like Tri-X. Looks like MF Tri-X, too.
 

Attachments

  • 001.jpg
    001.jpg
    56.1 KB · Views: 0
Nokton48 said:
Hi Jukka,

Nope but I have 500' of the 70mm Plus-X Aerorecon II, from the Guy in Utah. Great stuff. I know you like it too. I use a Kindermann 70mm plastic developing tank and 70mm metal Kindermann developing reel for mine.

The WL Surveillance Film I got from a Military Surplus Place in California. I ordered a roll, tested it, and then inquired about how many rolls they had left. Turns out about half-a-case, so I got the rest of it, for a decent price.

It is true 400 ISO, like Tri-X. Looks like MF Tri-X, too.
Click to expand...

Imagine leica or Nikon S series rangefinder would be like Contax... from cassette to cassette.. The cassette would easiluy take 60 frames, because of the current thin films/filmbase. You could shoot the 60 frames, or quit in half way, slice off and continue to another empty hassette. We can thank the press going into color material that was in the cassettes, before that most of the pros would use metal reloadable stuff from bulk film...
 
Rangefinderfreak said:
Imagine leica or Nikon S series rangefinder would be like Contax... from cassette to cassette.. The cassette would easiluy take 60 frames, because of the current thin films/filmbase. You could shoot the 60 frames, or quit in half way, slice off and continue to another empty hassette. We can thank the press going into color material that was in the cassettes, before that most of the pros would use metal reloadable stuff from bulk film...
Click to expand...

Yes. Like a Mamiya 6 (or 7) but 70mm. Only camera I am aware of that is like that is the Graflex XL, which I am not personally familiar with. The thin Aerial films that we favor will load 200 to 250 exposures into a 70mm cassette, but of course, it must be cut into reasonable 5 metre strips for conventional processing.

Agreed also, I had a local dealer friend sell me a huge box of 70mm Vericolor III 70mm cassettes, (from a color lab) for an amazing price. They used them once, and disgarded them.
 
Nokton48 said:
Hah! You should try to load 15 feet of 70mm film onto a stainless steel reel. :eek: It requires infinite patience.
Click to expand...

Ouch. I worked for an editorial photographer who did several huge jobs each year with four or five guys shooting. We'd get back from this one job each year and have to run all the film so proofs could be delivered in the morning. He had one of those 50 or 100 roll tanks for 35mm with the big basket. Well after the other assistant and I misloaded two rolls because we got to talking while sitting there loading reels for a half hour we were banned from ever being in the darkroom with anyone else when loading film. Short straw was awful.
 
I never found it difficult to load 220. I had read that 220 would give slightly sharper images due to the lack of a paper backing and would therefore be flatter across the whole frame. Old wives take, perhaps...

Joel
 
I would love 220 B&W for my Fuji 6x9 camera. With 120 you only get 8 shots per roll - it seems at times as if I need to change rolls every couple of minutes. 220 would really be nice to have.
 
Dear Ilford,

I am a selfish artist, who is a slacker at heart, but I shoot lots of film, and if 220 was made available I would not buy from other manufactures, and I would shoot more medium format than ever over small format. Generally my shooting is about half small format, but if 220 were readily available I would definitely shoot more than half medium format.

Last summer I averaged 50-60 rolls a month and perhaps I spent $2.5-$3K on film last year. I already have 220 reels, I have enough experience loading 220 that the thin film base is no handicap, and literally developing 4 reels in a stainless steel tank with twice the amount of exposures means literally cutting the amount of time that I use developing and processing film will be cut in half. All this saved time means more shooting.

Know that my Plaubel 69W, Rollie 3.5F, Fuji GM670, Fuji GL690 and Pentax 67II all can load 220, and if 220 became available I likely would add a Hasselblad SWC with a few A24 backs.

I live in NYC where it is a street shooter's haven, and that I also do a lot of urban landscape. I miss a lot of shots due to reloading, so if you want to support the arts please make 220 available again. Please know that I have no problem shooting lots of film, I have no difficulty loading 220 reels, and I only have one medium format camera that can't do 220 (a Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta).

If you make 220 again I promise not to buy 120 from other manufactures. Frat word. I feel passionately that if you want to be good that you have to carry a camera every day and shoot as much as you can. Having 220 available again would make this struggling artist's life easier, and you would be supporting the arts.

Cal

P.S. Please note that generally I carry two medium format cameras to help not missing shots because of reloading.
 
Last edited:
The type of photographer who really needed 220 roll film has gone almost to zero.
So apart from the fact Ilford/Harman has no 220 roll film assy machinery anymore, the same is valid for Foma, Adox so the chance for new 220 roll film emulsion is zero. In a small assy nobody would pay the price at least three times for a regular 120 roll film either.

127 roll film: After the death of Fotokemika/Efke nobody picked up this film format so far. When you hear on a Photokina Foma booth that the volume for 127 is even too low for them for making a regular 127 film price it is maybe a niche market for LOMO. They are used to sell fancy films (and formats) for Eur. 12,00 each.
 
Fotohuis said:
127 roll film: After the death of Fotokemika/Efke nobody picked up this film format so far. When you hear on a Photokina Foma booth that the volume for 127 is even too low for them for making a regular 127 film price it is maybe a niche market for LOMO. They are used to sell fancy films (and formats) for Eur. 12,00 each.
Click to expand...

So perhaps we need to petition LOMO, then!
 
I'm with those who think 220 would take too long for me to finish.

I live in a place with many interesting stuff, but the distance between those interesting stuff is measured in miles (sometimes hundreds), not yards.

Therefore the only time I get to really shoot is usually short, on trips that I get to do only a few times a year.

Thus 120 fits very well in this situations. Plus I agree that loading 120 rolls into reels are easier.
 
Whilst earlier in the thread a link was posted to the "official" Ilford answer, that was a few years ago. This was the most recent response and was generated as a result of a move to look for 70mm film production, which I see has popped into this thread :D
Look away now if bad news upsets you:

Simon Galley Ilford 26/2/13

"220 film by m2 was less than 5.00% of roll film sold ( by us ), so 5 rolls of 220 for every 95 rolls of 120. We could have bought a new machine to do 220 we even had it costed, over £ 300 K we would never have recouped that investment and we would have had to increase our inventory, and then every retailer would have to be sold 220, and what do you think a retailer would say, no I cannot hold it in stock if sales are 5.00% of 120 film sales. So even if we had done it 220 rolls would cost 3 x what a 120 roll would cost, thats why 220 is never coming back, from anyone."

http://www.apug.org/forums/viewpost.php?p=1467499

This statement is also worth quoting:"we make more Mono products than all the other manufacturers put together, well in excess of 2,400 SKU's"

I may be wrong but I don't see references to Ilford products in that ratio on this forum site. My preference is going to be to place my purchasing where it will be most beneficial to the community. By all means support your niche product in the hope sales will stop the large corporation pulling it, but don't hold your breath. How many on the board of those corporations actually shoot film, let alone B/W? Yes I know there are a few other independent producers out there and they deserve support but Ilford happen to be in my back yard and I did start out with an Ilford Sportsman ( yes still have it ;) ) No other economic interest declared.
 
I rather like the amount of shots on a roll of 120, pretty perfect for the amount I shoot. If I was shooting weddings then I would love 220, but 10 6x7 shots is ok by me.
 
Pro labs hated developing 220. Pain in the a** running it thru a dip&dunk, greater chance of screwing it up.
 
At trade shows, you actually get to see pictures taken by the directors (= owners) of Ilford, and sometimes even to have your picture taken by them. "Commitment" is an understatement of their position.

Cheers,

R.
 
With the way Ilford goes out of their way to accommodate sheet film sizes with their annual special order I completely believe them when they say 220 is not something they could afford to do.

Commitment indeed. That should be their motto.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom