Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,674   Posts: 1,481,901   Online: 1106
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
  1. #1
    DanielStone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,933
    Images
    1

    Head-scratcher: 220 Portra vs 120 Portra... big price differential

    I know this is a re-hash of re-hash'd topics mostly likely started lotsa times before, but why not ask again!

    Just for giggles I just looked up the cost of 120 Portra 400 in 120 and 220 sizes...
    WOW:

    120:
    singe roll: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...ortra_400.html
    pro-pack: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...ortra_400.html

    220:
    single roll: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...ortra_400.html
    pro pack: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...ortra_400.html

    $5.85 vs $15.19

    I can understand "double" price, because you're getting 2x the amount of film in length. But charging well over double? I mean, is it THAT much of a convenience factor, even for trigger-happy wedding shooters who don't understand the meaning of "a bottom line" and should probably be shooting 35mm instead ?



    I don't shoot much color neg film, but the price difference astounds me. Seemed not that long ago that 220 was just over 2x the cost of 120...
    Any ideas? I know it's a different base(it's thinner, duh!). I know there's no paper backing(just on the edges).
    So what do you think gives the rather large price differential?

    -Dan

  2. #2

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,629
    There are other inexplicable and to-remain-unexplained by the price setter examples of pricing. The answer lies in the first rule of pricing which is: there are no rules except what the seller judges the market will bear.

    Ask yourself what has changed in the demand/supply of 220 film in recent months and I suspect you might get close to the reason.

    pentaxuser

  3. #3
    DanielStone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,933
    Images
    1
    I can understand that 220 film doesn't get as many SERIOUS users as it used to(pre-digital days when film was THE capture medium), but TBH, a massive markup over 2x120 rolls? I mean, a few pro-packs of 120 and some extra cash and you've paid for a really clean extra back(or backs, depending on your system) to use pre-loaded for when the going gets heavy !

    If 220 E-6 were still available new, I'd be buying it. I shoot enough of it to have it not sit around. I like the convenience of not changing film backs that often. But I'll suck it up and shoot 120 if the cost savings are worth it, and right now they are.

    -Dan

  4. #4
    Prest_400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    512
    I certainly can see an advantage on using 220. For example in travel, having film occupy less space. I've long been looking and thinking into the 6x9 Fujis and for a long trip and a not too big backpack it seems quite useful. However, as you say, NOT cheap! Perhaps it's better to ship some forward to the places one is going to.

    Wasn't 220 just the same 120 film base but without the backing paper except leader and trail? I think part of this markup is due to the specifity of these components. One of the arguments that work against 220 for Ilford is that the backing paper was quite special. Another was that due the small market, the minimum they could order would last them about 2-3 decades at their estimated sales rate. Ilford did their math and it was quite more than 2x120, that's why it's not an endeavor they are getting into. IIRC they still have the broken machine. This is what I've gathered reading around here.

    If PE or Simon pop in they will have a closer knowledge.

  5. #5
    Chrismat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Brewer, Maine
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    455
    I helped shoot a wedding of a daughter of friends of mine last week, and I remember thinking the same when I ordered film for the wedding and saw the prices of 220 Portra. I ended up only purchasing 2 rolls for my Yashicamat, and I used a couple of other tlrs with 120 in them so I wouldn't have to change film so much. I've never been a trigger happy shooter but I really like 220, it's just so much more convenient especially at an event like a wedding. My friends paid for the film, of course, and there was an other photographer shooting digital, so they'll have the best of both worlds.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    193
    Funny enough, in Japan 220 Portras are slightly cheaper per photo than 120. I'm always surprised when I look at the 220 B&H prices.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,198
    Images
    2
    Why is Portra more expensive than Ektar?

  8. #8
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California & Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,635
    Quote Originally Posted by DanielStone View Post
    I can understand "double" price, because you're getting 2x the amount of film in length. But charging well over double?
    Take that plus the lack of film types on 220 ... I just said screw it and walked away from 220 with hoards of others. If you go back to when 220 first became available every 220 film manufacturer bent over backwards to make 220 unappealing with the goal of making 220 a failure.

    I just have multiple backs for 120 and never think about 220.
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  9. #9
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California & Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,635
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne View Post
    Why is Portra more expensive than Ektar?
    Because Portras are professional film which has tighter controls so that professional photographers will have consistency and repeatability. Also Portra has more accurate skin colors which again is part of being a professional film.
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,198
    Images
    2
    Ektar is a professional film

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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