Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,561   Posts: 1,545,274   Online: 800
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    726
    Nothing is really wrong with Tri-X. It is an all time classic and I will be very happy to keep using it if Kodak keep making it. I have bought almost 200 220 rolls this year alone. I do, though, have two problems with it, one potential and one actual. 1. Will Kodak keep making it? They seem determined to get out of silver photography and there is nothing else to replace it. 2. for my particular and (I freely admit) minority needs: archaeological air photography, resolution is everything. I have to use high speed film to freeze camera shake, because the aircraft moves quickly and vibrates like crazy, so I need to use 1000th shutter speeds in all conditions, and Delta 400 had higher resolution + plus a 1/3 stop speed advantage, so for my particular needs it was an all round more suitable stock. 6x7 Tri-X is still way better for recording detail than Delta 400 in 35mm, though, so, as I say I will keep buying it as long as Kodak will let me.

    David.

    p.s. Thanks Helen, I didn't know that was possible. Can you tell me how it is done and how the results compare with, say, Delta 400?

  2. #22
    gnashings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,376
    Images
    17
    I have tried turn counting in a Lubitel TLR (that little ruby window shows nothing at night)... and yes, there is a dramatic drop in turns needed over the length of a 120 roll, I can only imagine it on a 220 - there has to be a better way. I am surprised that 220 is not bieng pursued by the eastern European companies that seem to havemade themselves a good little niche out things the big western internationals can't justify making anymore...
    Maybe an inquiry from someone like one of the suppliers (JandC, etc.) would be a plausible way to look into it - if their distributors tell them there is a need, perhaps we wouldhave that film here... Just a thought - I have no clue how realistic that is.

  3. #23
    Donald Qualls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, USA (transplanted from Seattle)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,845
    Gnashings, you should see about the same change in number of turns per frame over the full length of a 220 roll that you would over 120 -- after all, they're the same final rolled diameter. The 220 is longer, yes, but the paper backing is left off the film itself specifically so the longer strip will fit on the same spools.

    I have two cameras (both currently in need of work) that could potentially use 220 -- Kodak Reflex II TLRs, which have a nice frame counter that would need resetting partway through the roll in order to count 24 exposures. I don't shoot enough, however, to make such film more than a novelty for me; it's not a big deal to change the roll every 12 exposures, generally, and it'd be a much bigger deal to remember to reset the counter (twice, because it doesn't lock after 12) in the course of a roll in order to get the full 24 exposures.

    With my budget, the price of a roll of 320TXP in 220 is a problem, too -- something like $8, last time I checked; my speed these days is shooting J&C Pro 100 at $1.29/roll or Lucky SHD 400 at $1.89.
    Photography has always fascinated me -- as a child, simply for the magic of capturing an image onto glossy paper with a little box, but as an adult because of the unique juxtaposition of science and art -- the physics of optics, the mechanics of the camera, the chemistry of film and developer, alongside the art in seeing, composing, exposing, processing and printing.

  4. #24
    gnashings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,376
    Images
    17
    DUH! Thanks for pointing that out - I had a brain fart
    I still would not want to do it... I'm too scatter brained to keep track, I know it.

    It has its uses, but like I said earlier, what I like about MF (and please keep in mind, I am an amateur - so time is not money, its just fun) - what i like about it is that it makes me work and think, compose - I take better shots, the limited number of frames somehow makes me do it.

    But I would like to have the option of taking more film at a time - especially when a long hike is in order!

  5. #25
    Brac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    625
    [QUOTE=Tom Duffy]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.

    At one time you could get Fuji Neopan 400 in 220 size in the UK. I still have an old catalogue listing it. A lot of Fuji B & W stuff isn't exported so I wonder if it's still available in 220 in Japan?

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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