Side by Side Comparison of 220 Films

Discussion in 'Color: Film, Paper, and Chemistry' started by A_M_Johnson, Jan 17, 2010.

  1. A_M_Johnson

    A_M_Johnson Member

    Messages:
    55
    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Location:
    Las Vegas, N
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I know there has to be a million threads on this but I can't find any so I am pre-apologizing for starting another one.

    I am looking around for some sort of comparison chart of 220 negative film, both color and B&W. Some films are obviously slide or reversal/transparency types which I'm not particularly interested in. From what I can see, the main brands are Kodak, Ilford, Fuji and maybe Agfa.

    Within the brands are various speeds, grain structures and other differences. It looks like there are three developing methods, C-41, E-6 and the B&W method I've used.

    So, any links, comments or walls of text would be appreciated. I have been using Tri-X and Fuji Pro 160 so far with this RB67 but I know there are many more films out there that might be better suited for me, depending on what the subject is. I am not intending on doing my own developing right now but will in the future.
     
  2. Chazzy

    Chazzy Member

    Messages:
    2,951
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2004
    Location:
    South Bend,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Ilford films are no longer available in 220. If Agfa films were ever available in 220, it is news to me. The only black and white emulsion currently available in 220 is Kodak's Tri-X Professional 320. As for the color print choices, I think your best bet would be to go to the Freestyle or B&H websites and see for yourself what is available from Kodak and Fuji.
     
  3. Tony-S

    Tony-S Member

    Messages:
    774
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Location:
    Fort Collins
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    As far as I know only Tri-X Pro 320 is in 220 for B&W.

    Edit: Doh! Chazzy beat me to it.
     
  4. A_M_Johnson

    A_M_Johnson Member

    Messages:
    55
    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Location:
    Las Vegas, N
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Good idea about going to B&H's web site, thank you. I didn't think of that. I didn't realize that the options were so limited for B&W, I might have to stock up.

    I have some Fuji Pro 160 here. Is there a better film for color or is this about it too?
     
  5. Michel Hardy-Vallée

    Michel Hardy-Vallée Membership Council Council

    Messages:
    4,351
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Location:
    Montréal (QC
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Kodak nowadays only has its Portra line of films in 220 (160 VC/NC ; 400 VC/NC ; 800)

    According to Fuji's literature, all Fuji films available in 120 (including chromes; excluding Reala) are available in 220. But if you don't like chrome for your purpose, the options left are 160S, 160C, 400H, and 800Z.

    In sum, your choices in colour 220 are the competing equivalents between Fuji and Kodak. I personally prefer Kodak films for reasons of colour palette (most people prefer either manufacturer for similar reasons).

    I would say the only slight advantage in terms of offering on the Kodak side is that its 400 films come in saturated+contrasty (VC) and normal (NC) versions, whereas Fuji's only has one kind of 400.

    There you go!
     
  6. Michel Hardy-Vallée

    Michel Hardy-Vallée Membership Council Council

    Messages:
    4,351
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Location:
    Montréal (QC
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
  7. PHOTOTONE

    PHOTOTONE Member

    Messages:
    2,412
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Location:
    Van Buren, A
    Shooter:
    Large Format
  8. Chazzy

    Chazzy Member

    Messages:
    2,951
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2004
    Location:
    South Bend,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Because some of us hate reloading film backs.
     
  9. David A. Goldfarb

    David A. Goldfarb Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    17,919
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Honolulu, Ha
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Fortunately, I like TXP. I shoot more 120 than 220, but if there were more choices, I'd shoot more 220. Fewer reloads are an attraction when shooting actively, and being able to process twice as many shots easily in the same time as 120 can be a major attraction when I've been shooting a lot of film.

    I can shoot 220 in any of my Bronica S2A backs, which are switchable, and I have a Linhof 220 6x7 insert that I use in 6x7 backs for the 2x3" and 4x5" Technikas.
     
  10. A_M_Johnson

    A_M_Johnson Member

    Messages:
    55
    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Location:
    Las Vegas, N
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    All I have is a 220 back for the near future. From what I'm seeing above, Kodak Portra 160VC might be nice to try outdoors in an urban setting. I'm in Las Vegas, so some vivid colors might make for some great images.