|
|
|
-
220 or it's later than you think
This is not a rumor based thread. I was checking to see what's available in 220 roll film and found just a couple of color films out there. No b&w 220 at all but I never shot it that much anyway.
Anyone have something I might have missed? I see the Kodak color films at Freestyle and B&H.
Curt
Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand
-
I wouldn't use a retailer as a specific guide to what products are manufactured. I would contact Kodak or Fuji directly.
For some time, the only b.w 220 film was TXP. That was discontinued either last year or the year before.
But, that being said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if 220 film disappeared in short order. It'd be a real shame IMO, but I don't think it is long for this world based on what people I know and people on this Website seem to shoot. I think 220 is better than 120 in almost every way, personally, and I don't see why more people do not shoot it.
2F/2F
"Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."
- Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)
-
No 220 B&W on the market. Kodak discontinued the last TXP a while ago and Ilford doesn't have the machines to do it - you would assume it would be easy to do (just make it twice as long) but from a number of discussions, it is not easy at all. Different base, different type of paper and harder sell. So there is some colour and I think there is one-two slide films (don't quote me on that) but that is it. Look at the price for 220 only backs and they are a quarter what a similar 120 back sell for, for this very reason.
Once a photographer is convinced that the camera can lie and that, strictly speaking, the vast majority of photographs are "camera lies," inasmuch as they tell only part of a story or tell it in a distorted form, half the battle is won. Once he has conceded that photography is not a "naturalistic" medium of rendition and that striving for "naturalism" in a photograph is futile, he can turn his attention to using a camera to make more effective pictures.
Andreas Feininger
-
Hell, I'd shoot 220 if I could get it, but no one makes it in B&W any more as you've found.
-
 Originally Posted by Kevin Kehler
No 220 B&W on the market. Kodak discontinued the last TXP a while ago and Ilford doesn't have the machines to do it - you would assume it would be easy to do (just make it twice as long) but from a number of discussions, it is not easy at all. Different base, different type of paper and harder sell. So there is some colour and I think there is one-two slide films (don't quote me on that) but that is it. Look at the price for 220 only backs and they are a quarter what a similar 120 back sell for, for this very reason.
Not a different base. The paper's different in that it is only at the beginning and end.
It's listed by Fuji and Kodak for most slide films, but I don't know if their websites are up to date on actual availability.
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.
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
220 Film is a different base....or at least it was from ILFORD
Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :
-
Thanks, Simon.
All the current Kodak and Fuji tech sheets I have seen, positive and negative film, have shown the same material and 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.
-
The biggest problem I see with 220 roll film is that it can't be used with the much more common 120 backs. I have no idea what MF camera makers thought when they created this mess, small format cameras could use 12, 24 and 36 exposure film without any modification.
By now it's a chicken and egg problem: nobody would buy a 220 film back on the off chance that one gets the film of choice for it and without such a back nobody will buy 220 film. Contrary to was was written here, 220 backs are not offered that much cheaper than 120 backs, at least not on keh or ffordes.
Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.
-
Originally Posted by Rudeofus
The biggest problem I see with 220 roll film is that it can't be used with the much more common 120 backs. I have no idea what MF camera makers thought when they created this mess, small format cameras could use 12, 24 and 36 exposure film without any modification.
That's because the film fits inside the canister, without no need to modify it except for length.
There was no room on the spool for the longer rolls in medium format unless the full-length backing paper was omitted, creating a product which required different means to produce.
By now it's a chicken and egg problem: nobody would buy a 220 film back on the off chance that one gets the film of choice for it and without such a back nobody will buy 220 film. Contrary to was was written here, 220 backs are not offered that much cheaper than 120 backs, at least not on keh or ffordes.
Oh, really? For Bronica ETR series, KEH right now has a 220 Ei (Ei=latest) back in EX+ for $29, and a 120 Ei back in BGN for $69. They have a 220 Ei in BGN for $12.
A back is 120 or 220 depending on which insert is in it. A 220 Ei insert, EX+, is $8. A much older 120 insert, BGN, is $21.
I prefer 220, and am sorry to see it used so little.
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.
-
Bronica had the good sense to make a switchable 120/220 back during the era of the S,S2,S2a,EC,EC-TL, and there are some cameras with non-interchangeable backs that have this facility. I suppose it never became a norm because of the added mechanical complexity and maintenance required/risk of failure. Those Bronica 12/24 backs can be finicky, but fortunately they're cheap.
|
|
Adv Reply
