Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,338   Posts: 1,537,606   Online: 1035
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,576
    Images
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
    If I could get Efke 100 and J&C Classic 400 in 220, I'd use them in my Bronica S2A (alas, the DaYi 617 back relies on the film window for frame counting, so I'll have to stick to 120 for that at 4 frames per roll).
    Have wondered if there is a work around for this David, since the Bessa I have has 2 windows (one for 6x9 the other for 645 using a mask). Would it be possible to determine the number of turns per shot and then cover the window with something to block the light? May not be worth the trouble, just wondering.
    Mike C

    Rambles

  2. #12
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,244
    Images
    20
    You could do that, but the number of turns per shot would decrease as you go through the roll. It might not be enough to matter, but you would find that out after one shot or with a test roll. Also you would need to find out how many turns past the start point is the first frame. You would also have to keep track of the number of shots taken--maybe put a piece of masking tape on the back and tick them off as you go.

    Another problem could be that the pressure plate won't be spaced properly for 220, since there is no paper backing, but I'm not convinced that this is critical for every camera, since there is often enough extension in the springs, I suspect, for 120 or 220. On the other hand, film flatness is enough of a problem on any 6x9 folder that you might just not want to chance it.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  3. #13
    MikeS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Newport, TN USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    220
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb

    Another problem could be that the pressure plate won't be spaced properly for 220, since there is no paper backing, but I'm not convinced that this is critical for every camera, since there is often enough extension in the springs, I suspect, for 120 or 220. On the other hand, film flatness is enough of a problem on any 6x9 folder that you might just not want to chance it.
    I've never used 220 film myself, but I've often wondered if it would be possible to tape down a short length of 120 paper backing onto the pressure plate of a 120 only camera/back, thereby killing 2 birds with one stone, it would act as the backing so the pressure plate/backing/film combo would be proper, as well as blocking off the ruby window. Leaving as the only problem the number of turns between shots. I would imagine if you're willing to kill a roll of film, you could wind it thru the back with the back not attached to a camera, and by marking the film as you go figure out how many turns each frame needs. Of course the remaining problem (if the number changes during the roll) would be remembering where in the roll you are!

    -Mike

  4. #14
    MikeS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Newport, TN USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    220
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by gnashings
    I think 220 would be a curse for me
    I would get that shutter happy 35mm approach to my MF, the lack of which has often been its only saving grace...
    Well, I just got a couple of 70mm roll film backs for my Linhof, that take 52 shots on a 15' roll of film, I'll have to resist treating the camera like a 35mm! Processing 15' of film at one time is going to be interesting to put it mildly, but I think it's going to be real hard to resist shooting 'just a few extra' when the camera is holding 50 shots!

    -Mike

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,170
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    6
    i've tried using 220 film in a 120 back with no success.
    i didn't have a backing the first time - bad idea... even with a black tape over the good ole ruby window, i got a nice thick exposure trail throughout the whole roll
    then i taped long backing paper down the whole roll with the numbers carefully mapped out, but the roll with the paper didn't fit in the film back!

    there's gotta be a better way!

    - john

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    726
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Zentena
    So I'm wondering. Is there any chance the eastern European companies would make 220?
    To go back to this thread's original question, oh I do hope so, especially if Kodak's commitment to film is weakening. I use more more 220 than all other films put together in B&W and it is getting ever more difficult to get. I use it for air photography from tiny light aircraft where changing roll films is a real operation. The extra length of 220 makes it viable to use medium format as my Pentax 67II manages to squeeze in 21 shots a roll. With 120 I am down to 10 and I really would have to give up and go down to 35mm, a dramatic drop in resolving power. I used to use Delta 400, but Ilford have dropped 220 so I am stuck with Tri-X. A great film for many roles to be sure, but already a backward step for a type of photography where resolution is all.

    David.

  7. #17
    Mongo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    960
    David-

    I believe Kodak still makes T400CN in 220 rolls. C-41 process, but the image should be less coarse than Tri-X. Plus-X is also still available in 220 for the time being (although the last I heard it was being killed off at the end of the year), but it is a slower film. B&H stock both films.

    It might be worth contacting J&C to find out what it would take to get one of their emulsions packaged as 220. If there's enough interest, they might be willing to help. (I'm pretty sure that they're gone for the next week, but should be back after that.)

    Be well.
    Dave
    Film is cheap. Opportunities are priceless.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    726
    Sadly, I have to pass on chromogenic films. As an archaeologist I am expected to produce truly archival permanent results and these films are essentially B&W colour neg and so fade with time. I have to use silver neg film, but thanks for the thought.

    David.

  9. #19
    Helen B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, New York, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,557
    Images
    27
    Have you thought about developing it to a silver image?

    Best,
    Helen

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    963
    I don't think any manufacturer is going to take this on. Ilford dropped the format before their current problems, saying it wasn't feasible to continue, economically. Fuji and Agfa never made B&W in 220.

    My question is, what's wrong with Tri-x 320 in 220 format? Excellent film, no quality control problems, great in pyro developers. Let's keep this one alive as long as possible, at least.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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