what is this obession with 220 over 120

[hywel]

Tri-X is Tri-X no matter how long the roll is.

Like to agree with you except that Tri-X can be 400TX or 320 TXP, completely different films. They offer 400TX only in 35mm and 120 but 320TXP in 120 and 220 but never in 35mm. So Tri-X isn't always Tri-X no matter how long the roll and Tri-X in 220 is always 320TXP.

Most of the complaining comes because the 320TXP is the only B&W film that anyone does in 220, and some of us long for the idea of big negatives without having to change films so often.

Hywel

[Chazzy]

For me it comes down to this: I just hate loading film backs. It is drudge work, and working with 120 requires twice as many backs (unless one stops to reload the backs, which might not be convenient). A while back someone mentioned that Kodak might do a special run of Tri-X 400 in 220. That surprised me, but I hope that it turns out to be true.

[wilsonneal]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that your use of the words 'child like' are because English may not be your native tongue and you're unsure of the idiomatic usage. I don't see any particular obsession with 220. It's just a good option for some people. Like others, I wish there were more options available in 220 today.
Neal

What it this child like obsession with 220 film? I see begging and pleading to ilford for 220.

I go and try some 220 (Kodak Tri-x 320) and after the 20 minutes to load it on the reel I paid $15 for just to try it, It comes out with a pale hazy backing and some purple 'flame' marks on the edge of a single frame.

Did it exhaust the developer or fixer??


I Think i stick with 120 for now

[Photo Engineer]

I agree with all of the above and add this.

It is a real joy to have one or more 220 rolls of color film hanging from ceiling to floor in your drying area just covered with beautiful pictures side by side.

I can hardly wait to see them when they are dry!

PE

[Harrigan]

It's also alot less expensive for me to have 220 c41 and e6 processed at me local lab. 120 c41 costs 5 dollars and 220 costs only 6 dollars per roll. Uh yeh that would be a no brainer. Most labs are not so generous so don't tell mine!

Too bad.... EKC used to produce mostly plus-x in 220. I was always under the impression it had a thinner base on it but I could be wrong. I never did enjoy spooling that up on the plastic reels we had at the lab I worked at in Rochester.

[Sirius Glass]

When I got the C330 I was excited about 220 rolls, then I found that none of the films I was interested in was available in 220. I promptly lost interest. I would not concider a A24 back now.

Steve

[Nokton48]

When I was shooting alot of weddings, I would also use primarily 220 color negative film. When I was first getting going, I used only 120 (six film backs) and I was -constantly- loading and unloading film magazines. It was -grueling-.

Now I have six 220 backs, so I -never- run out of exposures. But now, I am no longer shooting weddings

For years, I have been playing with 70mm in my Hasselblads. It takes the advantages of 220 even further. Takes reloading out of the equation completely.

[technopoptart]

Well first, English is my only language besides geek speak. I said ' childlike' because of the huge thread to Ilford requesting 220, that even had posts that seemed to imply that Ilford would find 'some' way if they really cared.

Second i did use a 220 reel, cost me $16, the clip only held half a Qtip tips worth of film and was working at about 100 psi, i was barley able to slip the film in.

My concern was developer exhaustion, as i was unable to find any other times or even confrimation that the time was the same for 120/220.

I will try again, i hope to find a plastic reel or Jobo tank, i hate the 2 reels i bought.

[Nick Zentena]

220 needs twice the developer that 120 does. Depending on your tank that may be an issue. Also depends on how concentrated your developer is.

[bjorke]

bromide streaking? look to practice your agitation technique... and yeah, it sounds like your fixer is exhausted