Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,933   Posts: 1,585,552   Online: 824
      
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 67
  1. #31
    hrst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    Images
    1
    It's misleading to use such wordings as "we are lucky that film is manufactured", or words like make 220 or so. As I said, it's the same product, only cut to different length with different backing paper and different carton, and a different product number in a catalog.

    This is simply a problem of the end of the chain and it is possible to fix it. There are many niche products and the key is to keep marketing costs down per product. If it's easy to manufacture, as in case of 220 film for companies that already produce 120 film, it can be done even if the markets are very low, if done correctly.

    But it is not done, for some reason or other.

    Optimizing the chain from factory to end-user for current business situation may be very important in the future anyway. 220 film may become viable at the same time.

    Please understand the fact that selling one 220 film is equivalent of selling two rolls of 120. Selling bigger "family packs" is a basic thing in any business; you can sell more and selling more means more profit. In 220 film, you don't even need to drop the per exposure price.

    This is a state that can change anytime or, again, it may not change.

  2. #32
    michaelbsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,106
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by hrst View Post
    ... As I said, it's the same product, only cut to different length with different backing paper and different carton, and a different product number in a catalog.

    This is hardly a trivial change.

    Quote Originally Posted by hrst View Post
    ... Please understand the fact that selling one 220 film is equivalent of selling two rolls of 120. Selling bigger "family packs" is a basic thing in any business; you can sell more and selling more means more profit. In 220 film, you don't even need to drop the per exposure price.
    This isn't exactly true, although there is a lot of truth in it.

    Selling two rolls of 120 is like selling two rolls of 120. If a manufacturer wants to sell ProPaks of 5, then that's a pretty easy way to up the exposure count, and a lot simpler than a completely new manufacturing line.

    You have to keep in mind that film is a number of products, not one product. The Master Roll product is a raw material for the slitting plant.

    Granted, Kodak owns 220 confection lines, so it's not a giant stretch to think they could supply it easily enough if it's profitable.

    I think the "best" strategy is to begin getting folks to think that the remaining film users are likely to be quantity hobbyist buyers, not casual mom and pop buyer. So somehow we would need to get the marketing projectors at K thinking in terms of *US* rather than the ordinary consumers as their target.

    I know I can pop off 20 shots on a roll of 220 in an afternoon. I'm sure everyone else here can, too. If I go out to shoot something, I'm likely to shoot *THE WHOLE ROLL* regardless of whether it's 120 or 220. The question becomes whether I'll reload a second roll if it's 120.
    Michael Batchelor
    Industrial Informatics, Inc.
    www.industrialinformatics.com

    The camera catches light. The photographer catches life.

  3. #33
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,954
    Images
    60
    As I understand it, there are probably only two 220 finishing machines left in the world that work (1 for Kodak and 1 for Fuji), they are very old, and they would be very, very expensive to replace.

    Simon Galley has posted about Ilford's 220 machine. It was old and not economically repairable. To have a new one manufactured would have made no economic sense, given any reasonable projections about sales. Ilford investigated purchasing time on other manufacturers' machines, but were unable to make an arrangement. As a result, Ilford doesn't sell 220 film.

    PE has posted as well that it is becoming difficult to obtain different backing papers for roll film, as there are very few sources that remain in business.

    I expect that it is the nature and condition of the finishing machinery that has the greatest influence on 220 film choice, followed closely by the relative difficulty of obtaining special purpose backing paper. It can all be done, but most likely at an increased cost.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  4. #34
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,221
    I personally was amazed that in the current situation that Kodak brought out Ektar at all when even the only professional dealers in the city I live in of over 200,000 people has only about forty rolls of film in stock in total of all makes and sizes because according to them " Nobody uses it these days" Kodak make Ektar in 35mm , i20, 4X5 and 8X10, sometimes we have to be grateful for small mercy s
    Last edited by benjiboy; 08-16-2010 at 05:18 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Ben

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    NJ
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    124
    That's interesting to note about Ilford - I wonder if their position would change if Kodak or Fuji were to retire one of their 220 finishers, and it were available to be acquired? All I really remember about Ilford's stance was that it would never happen, so perhaps there are other issues (such as the supply chain issues) as well.

  6. #36
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,951
    Quote Originally Posted by guyjr View Post
    That's interesting to note about Ilford - I wonder if their position would change if Kodak or Fuji were to retire one of their 220 finishers, and it were available to be acquired? All I really remember about Ilford's stance was that it would never happen, so perhaps there are other issues (such as the supply chain issues) as well.
    Oh yes, they will just pack it up and ship it UPS. Have you ever seen how large the equipment is???
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  7. #37
    hrst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    Images
    1
    We are speaking about a very, very simple industrial machine. It cuts the film with a blade - just like the 120 cutter. Or like scissors. The "magic" is to roll it on a core with a backing paper. Yes, it's a bit different from 120 machine because there are two sheets of paper and two pieces of tape instead of one. Such a machine (for 120, which is very similar) is shown in a KODAK documentary film from the 50's. The link has been here on APUG. The machine shown on the film is not big at all. I would call it compact!

    If the machine is big, then it produces a vast amount of rolls. If they all sell, then the big machine is justified financially. If less rolls are needed, then there's absolutely no reason to buy such a big machine. This is a self-controlling system. Someone just have to make the correct decision. It's not rocket science but very simple industrial business.

    This is very, very simple automation nowadays. In fact, this is about what happened in industrial revolution in the 18th century. The machinery in question is not complicated, and not big even at industrial scale. You cannot even mention it in the same sentence with emulsion manufacturing, coating etc. - those are really complicated and costly operations. 120 vs. 220 is just a matter of packaging, which has been automatized centuries ago and has nothing special, magic or costly here. Machines are used because they are much cheaper than people doing the same job. One person could roll 220 rolls in 10 seconds or so. It wouldn't be so costly even hand-made. Cutting film and inserting a BACKING PAPER is an extremely simple task.

    Sorry, but I respect clear logical thinking and facts I can find higher than authorities named but not citated. It's too easy to mis-interpret and read off the context.

    I'm 100% sure that the actual problem lies in marketing strategies, like: how many rolls of 120 and 220 should be sold and where (it's difficult to foresee the exact sales number---leftovers are not wanted), or simply a problem of market places (certain stores may have a fixed number of places for products on their shelves and they would be reluctant to take any extra products for sale), etc. Things like these. This is the reason I'm saying that the end-chain needs some optimization.

    And, as I said, it needs some reforming anyway! Film business has changed much and it needs continuous care and renewal to stay profitable. One example of such development is the demise of small, local stores, often criticized here at APUG, but it's the only way the FILM can stay, and that's what really counts. As you can see, large Internet/mail-based companies do not have the problem I mentioned about 220 - fixed number of products on their shelves. And, as they sell more, at a larger geographic area, the problem of leftovers due to fluctuations of market is less pronounced. This kind of development might well make 220 more successful. The question is, is it still going to be successful enough to be produced? What else can be done, if anything?
    Last edited by hrst; 08-17-2010 at 04:34 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #38
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,954
    Images
    60
    I found the post from Simon Galley of Ilford:

    http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/2...tml#post294407
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Nil volentibus arduum, and all that.
    They could if they wanted to. They don't want to. Probably have good reasons for that.

  10. #40
    michaelbsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,106
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    Nil volentibus arduum, and all that.
    They could if they wanted to. They don't want to. Probably have good reasons for that.
    Sure they could do it if they wanted to. But Ilford's objective is to make a profit, not to make film. Making and selling film is the vehicle they use to make a profit.

    Why don't we petition the government to purchase them a confectioning machine to support our art use of film?
    Michael Batchelor
    Industrial Informatics, Inc.
    www.industrialinformatics.com

    The camera catches light. The photographer catches life.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin