The posts about how making 220 is not all that different from making 220 may be true, but ignore the market.
If 220 was profitable, it would likely be done.
The problem is lack of demand, the way I see it...and the lack of demand comes from ignorance of the product.
You would be surprised just how many medium format film photographers are out there who don't even know 220 exists, or who know it exists, but have never used it, because they simply don't know that it is the same, only better for most purposes. I know people who will shoot roll upon roll of 120, using a film that is available in 220, with the same development to be performed on all the rolls, while their 220 inserts for their back sit in their camera bag never to be used again. Then they will pay $6 per roll to develop the 120 rolls, instead of paying $8 per roll to develop half as many 220 rolls. When I ask why, they have no answer, but continue to go on using 120 only.
120 is the more versatile film, as I cannot think of a camera that shoots 220, but not 120, but I can think of plenty cameras that shoot 120 only.
...but with all the people out there who own relatively modern medium format cameras like Hassies, RB/RZs, Bronicas, Pentaxes, etc., and the fact that these people very often (if not most of the time) shoot more than 10 to 15 shots in a shoot (sometimes shooting dozens to hundreds of pix, in fact), all intended for the same type of development, the lack of use of 220 film amazes me.
"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)
I have an answer to that: over here, 220 film costs more per roll than two rolls of 120.
Originally Posted by 2F/2F
And having a roll of 220 processed costs exactly twice as much as having a roll of 120 film processed (same 2x costs also applies when you do it yourself).
So bottom line, using 220 film costs more.
And for many, many things, a roll of 120 film is too long already.
So it does not amaze me that i don't use 220 film more at all.
I still do though, when having to carry a good amount of film, and will expose a good amount to before having any of it processed.
I'm still undecided about whether i like Ektar, but am quite happy with Portra, which is still available in 220. I would love to have T-Max in 220 too though.
You are now at the heart of the problem.
Originally Posted by 2F/2F
This happens every now and then in all fields, some products just don't "catch fire". It's sometimes quite an uncontrolled, almost random process.
And, I'm not ignoring the marketing aspect, quite the opposite. I've been saying it's just the marketing. And furthermore, as the marketing has to change anyway, there could be a new possibility for some 220 films at the same time. People buy more and more from big stores via Internet, so store shelf space doesn't matter anymore, as doesn't minimum order amounts that are problematic with small, local stores. But in addition to this, people should be told that 220 film exists! It's a great format, not for all but for many.
All I can say is don't hold your breath waiting for it.
It would be great...but....I dont think that it will happen any time soon. It may be worth a try, though.
M. David Farrell, Jr.
~Buying a Nikon doesn not make you a photographer. It makes you a Nikon owner!
~Everybody has a photographic memory, but not everybody has film!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Let's all go on a Kodak 220 craze, if you like the films available, and then they might have reason to do it with Ektar.
Helping to save analog photography one exposure at a time
That is why "When Sonny gets blue". Apologies to Mario Lanza.
Originally Posted by benjiboy
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.