Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,224   Posts: 1,659,639   Online: 906
      
Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 117
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    300
    I thought that 220 film is not just twice as long, but that it is on a thinner base stock. That would be why making 220 available is not simply a matter of cutting it "twice as long"

  2. #22
    Jeff Bannow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,757
    Images
    41
    I'd be in for a bunch as well.
    - Jeff (& sometimes Eva, too) - http://www.jeffbannow.com

  3. #23
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,857
    Quote Originally Posted by SWphoto View Post
    I thought that 220 film is not just twice as long, but that it is on a thinner base stock. That would be why making 220 available is not simply a matter of cutting it "twice as long"
    Base stock is the same thickness for 120 and 220.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  4. #24
    flatulent1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Seattle USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,305
    If Kodak (or anyone else) were to do a special run of 220 B&W, count me in for a pile of it.

    Being a Mamiya 645 user I don't have special 220 backs languishing under a pile of unwashed laundry, just several inserts, which is no real loss.
    Fred Latchaw
    Seattle WA


    Right now in Spain they're holding the Running of the Bulls,
    followed by the Soiling of the Pants, and the Burying of the Idiots.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by aoresteen View Post
    For a black & white film yes. It will be either Plus-X or Tri-X. [...]
    There we go.
    I have no interest in either film, but would love T-Max in 220 format.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by flatulent1 View Post
    If Kodak (or anyone else) were to do a special run of 220 B&W, count me in for a pile of it.

    Being a Mamiya 645 user I don't have special 220 backs languishing under a pile of unwashed laundry, just several inserts, which is no real loss.
    No loss at all, considering that there still is 220 film you can put on those inserts.

  7. #27
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,800
    IRRC Simon said the problem for Ilford with 220 is that the machine that spools leaders and packages it is dead worn out. Being essentially a rare and custom thing, no parts are available, and the investment needed to replace or rebuild the thing could never be recovered with present demand. It is a bit of a catch 22- falling availability ultimately kills demand, but in this case, unfortunately, I feel pretty certain that 220 in B&W is done and gone. I'd dearly love to be wrong. The vast majority of it was used in applications that don't shoot film as a rule these days.
    That's just, like, my opinion, man...

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    426
    I loved TXP in 220 format. It was my go-to portrait film (which is what it was designed for). I used TXP 220 mainly in portrait sessions so I didn't have to change backs as often. For personal shooting, I actually prefer 120.

    I agree with J. Brunner that 220 B&W is probably dead and gone, but, for the record, if the Kodak angels are granting wishes, my priorities would be:

    1. bring back TXP in 220. I promise I will consume 10 rolls per month
    2. If not, start coating TXP in 120. So I'm in for 20 rolls per month.
    3. ? TMAX in 220? I'm not familiar with it, but if it's a good portrait film, give it to me.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Pasadena, CA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    172
    I have a 220 insert for my Pentax 645 and a few rolls of TXP 220 left--I'm not attached to 220 color, particularly, so once I finish these I'll probably convert the 220 insert to 120 via some tinkering and just have two 120 inserts. I doubt I'll ever see 220 in B&W again, although if someone makes it, I'll buy it.

    (And if you have any P645 220 inserts you don't want, send them my way.)
    Pentax: 6x7 MLU
    Olympus: OM-1n
    Graflex: Miniature (2x3) Speed Graphic

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    146
    Has anyone called Kodak to see if it's possible for them to do a special order?

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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