Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,708   Posts: 1,548,564   Online: 1105
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40
  1. #11
    Chazzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    South Bend, IN, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,859
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by erickson
    Where's the place to sign against 220?

    I'd rather see all of the remaining B&W film vendors settle on 120 format than waste their money maintaining machines to make various other formats of the same emulsion. I'm happy to have 10 6x7 exposures per roll. If I end up needing more exposures, it only takes about 10 seconds to load more film. If your shooting situation requires exposing many frames in very little time, simply have your assistant keep additional film backs loaded.
    I appreciate Mr. Erickson's sense of humor concerning loading backs in 10 seconds and letting our "assistants" do it for us, but he seems to be in earnest about opposing the availability of 220 film, and that absolutely baffles me. Surely we ought to keep as many film types available as are of use. The last I heard, 620 and 127 were still available--in fact, I believe even 126 Instamatic film is still available. So why not 220?

    I am always suspicious of people who want the rest of us to "standardize" on the products they use. Suppose that the miniature format people wanted us to "standardize" on 135, because they deem the format more "viable." Would we go along with such nonsense? Of course not.

    In the future, Ilford et al. will be serving niche markets--exactly what Kodak has not been able or willing to do. They will have to adapt to thinking small. I suspect that Ilford's decision concerning ULF is an omen of how this sort of thing will work in the future.

  2. #12
    Daniel Lawton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    474
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Zentena
    I don't know if anybody is asking all the companies to make 220. The point that companies should be putting all thier effort into 120 is how we're ending up this way. We risk all the companies deciding thier share of the market is too small and bailing. Better that they look to niche markets. Would it kill somebody to produce 220? I don't know but I bet it would create some loyal customers.

    I dunno, I think people going digital and using less film is how things have ended up as they are right now. I'm not calling for the demise of 220, but losing it doesn't mean the loss of a particular emulsion nor does it render any cameras obsolete. I suspect that if there were a worthwhile market for 220 film, it would be more widely available than it currently is and in more choices as well. With most film companies experiencing tough times or in various states of economic collapse (or rebuilding from economic collapse), I don't know if it would do any of us any good to have them spend more resources on products with a skeptical demand. Basically, I can't think of a more insignificant loss than 220 film and if something has to be "sacrificed" for the benefit of a healthier film industry I'd much rather it be 220 film than some of the other genuinely unique products that may be on the chopping block. If 5 years from now Ilford proves to be 100% completely stabilized and profitable in the digital era, then I say go for it but until then I think film companies have more pressing concerns that need to be dealt with before expanding offerings in 220 length film. Just my opinion.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, New Mexico USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Chazzy
    I appreciate Mr. Erickson's sense of humor concerning loading backs in 10 seconds and letting our "assistants" do it for us, but he seems to be in earnest about opposing the availability of 220 film, and that absolutely baffles me. Surely we ought to keep as many film types available as are of use. The last I heard, 620 and 127 were still available--in fact, I believe even 126 Instamatic film is still available. So why not 220?
    Because 220 works in some medium format cameras. 120 works in all medium format cameras.

    I'm sorry if you can't load you backs quickly. But really, if you're in a situation where you must motor through film and can't pause for a few seconds to reload or slap another back on your camera, you probably have an assistant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chazzy
    I am always suspicious of people who want the rest of us to "standardize" on the products they use. Suppose that the miniature format people wanted us to "standardize" on 135, because they deem the format more "viable." Would we go along with such nonsense? Of course not.
    You're comparing apples and oranges with format sizes. I'd be happy to standardize on 24-frame 35mm rather than 36-frame 35mm if it meant keeping the 35mm format alive. I'd be happy to buy boxes of 4x5" in qty 25 instead of 100 if it meant keeping 4x5" alive (if only I had a 4x5" camera!). Just open more boxes. Yes, it's inconvenient, but the 4x5" camera keeps working. The loss of 120 would render many cameras inoperable. The loss of 220 is inconvenient, but not show stopping.

    The rep from Ilford reported that 120 and 220 are made by different machines. Both machines require significant investment to operate and maintain. A company so recently back from the ashes shouldn't risk going out of business just to satisfy people who want more exposures. In a year or two, when they have more financial headroom, they most certainly should consider starting up the 220 machinery.
    Jacob

  4. #14
    Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    779
    Images
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by erickson
    In a year or two, when they have more financial headroom, they most certainly should consider starting up the 220 machinery.
    If you look up Simon from Ilford posts he said that there is no way 220 will be coming back, as the minimum order for backing papers was a many years supply, and it just wasn't financially viable.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by erickson
    Because 220 works in some medium format cameras. 120 works in all medium format cameras.
    no you're wrong.......the Roundshot cameras only take 220, they will not function properly with 120 film.


    Clayton

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    252
    Isn't the large problem with 120 vs 220 the greater film flatness in 220, especially with vacuum backs? Or did film flatness stop being a problem while I wasn't watching?

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    726
    I greatly miss Delta 400 in 220. I use a Pentax 67II for air photography which gets 21 frames off 220 and only 10 from 120. The difficulty involved in changing film in the very cramped cockpit of a light aircraft is such that whilst using 220 is viable, 120 is too difficult to use and I would have to drop to 35mm. At present I can still use Tri-X but its resolution is a bit lower than the Delta.

    David.

  8. #18
    Brac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    626
    I'd be happy to see a wider choice of 220 film but I don't feel I can in all honesty sign the petition because even when it was more widely available I never used as "many" as 5 rolls a year. So I wouldn't be rushing out to buy any meaningful quantity but I can see that for specialised fields such as aerial photography there is a need. I recall in an earlier thread Ilford talking about the possibility of getting a third party to assist in manufacture so maybe the answer is for just one emulsion to be offered on a pre-order basis (such as is being tried for ULF film). But unfortunately I can't see Ilford or even less likely anyone else offering a whole range of 220 B&W films.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    14
    I'm surprised at the negativity of this thread. Who knows what most company's will do considering that in today's era strong term results are the most important. The point of a petition is too show that there might demand. If enought people sign it and a company responds than great and if not who cares.

    mike

  10. #20
    Nicole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,548
    Images
    8
    Bumping for support

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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