220 B&W Film

For me the main attraction of 220 is that it cuts processing time in half--twice as many shots in the same size tank. Contax claimed that film flatness was better without the paper backing, but I suspect you would need very tightly controlled conditions to notice it.

My Jobo reels take two 120 rolls or one 220. It is faster to load one roll of 220 than two 120's. Other than that, processing time is the same. Once developed, the film dries dead flat without curl. (TXP 220)

I can load two 120 rolls on a stainless 220 reel as well, but I've always felt that was more risky than just using 220.

I'd sure like to see Tri-X or HP-5 on 220 but I guess I may as well wish for K64 while I'm at wishing. Maybe a trip to Fantasy Island is in order.

ColColt said:

I'd sure like to see Tri-X or HP-5 on 220 but I guess I may as well wish for K64 while I'm at wishing. Maybe a trip to Fantasy Island is in order.

Click to expand...

But not during the rest of our lives.

In the late seventy's and early eighty's I used 220 VPS and it was a life saver for weddings, but for B&W it was not very handy due to the fact 1 roll would stay in the camera to long,even though I had many 120 backs, this was for personal stuff were I would not burn film like at weddings. So never had a use for 220 B&W.

It was beautiful film for skin tones. I attended a seminar with Ed Pierce and Monte Zucker called "Wedding 2000" back around 1995 and if they recommended it I certainly was going to try it. I did and loved it-so did the customers.

ColColt said:

Had I kept up with this more than I did I would have fore saw the demise of 220 and stocked up...day late and a dollar short, it's been said. It still appears to me 120 would cost more to manufacture as there's more of the foil backing than with 220.

Click to expand...

Hi David
Resellers kill off film not manufacturers.
If 220 had 1/10 the volume of 120 it would have died earlier.
But that 1/10 would have helped 120.

Resellers and retail don't like lower volume lines when the item has a sell by date!

Noel

Ya!! VPS was our standard film for weddings and Portrait , work very well with strobe also, we all ways kept a fresh stash in the studio frig. It had a soft contrast and like you say good skin tones.

ColColt said:

I'd sure like to see Tri-X or HP-5 on 220 but I guess I may as well wish for K64 while I'm at wishing. Maybe a trip to Fantasy Island is in order.

Click to expand...

I used kodachrome 25.

I would venture to say if wedding/portrait photographers still used film today there would be enough fuss about the lack of 220 film available and someone would start making it again. I know Portra may come in 220, don't know that for sure, but zero B&W(my personal favorite).

I think we should start a thread over in the Medium Format forum about "Show Us Your Best Wedding Pics".

David A. Goldfarb said:

For me the main attraction of 220 is that it cuts processing time in half--twice as many shots in the same size tank. Contax claimed that film flatness was better without the paper backing, but I suspect you would need very tightly controlled conditions to notice it.

Click to expand...

The magazine tests with and without a tele rolli glass plate showed a difference with 120, so flatness was a problem with cameras and backs which curled film...

Roger Cole said:

35mm bulk is a very different thing. The film is exactly the same. Even the edge printings COULD be left the same, with rather bizarre but photographically inconsequential results.

Click to expand...

I believe that the machinery in most packaging lines is set up to punch, notch or even cut the film at the right spot while putting the frame number on, otherwise the numbers could get out of step. Kodak did make a 410 roll at one time, 5 36 exposure lengths, notched and with a precut leader. That may have been diverted from the packing machine.

Some machines I have seen described do the perforations at the time of spooling, being fed a roll of unperforated 35mm wide film. LOok at the ADOX.DE you tube video of their perforating machine and see the big wheels on the lower right hand side where the numbers are put on, and the mention of it punching a hole where the film is to be cut.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bo4piI1JaWA

Roger Cole said:

220 would be nice if I had a 6x7 or 6x9 camera, more so than for my 6x6 and 6x4.5 ones. Closest work around is probably a camera with interchangeable backs and/or inserts that you can pre-load and swap quickly. My M645 Pro fills this bill; my Yashicamat 124 certainly doesn't.

Click to expand...

Certainly an assistant to reload backs is a work around. I do have a Mamiya 645 with both 120 and 220 inserts, but I guess I will not get a chance to try the 220 inserts.

One thing working against 220 in B&W is that it cost quite a bit more than a pair of 120 rolls, and if you are doing the developing yourself there is little saving in processing. Even sending out colour to a lab, 220 cost more to handle as it would not work well in a plain dip and dunk machine as it would be a touch long. FIne in a roller transport machine but using twice the chemistry. so little saving in processing cost to again make up for the higher cost that two rolls of 120.

There's more shots on a Mamiya or Pentax 645 with 120 than on my favorite, the 6x7 which, unfortunately, only gives 10 shots per roll. that's my biggest reason for wishing 220 was still with us. Who likes changing film after just 10 shots? It reminds me of a six shooter verses a 17 round Glock.

My GW690III only does 8 frames on a roll. That goes very fast.

ColColt said:

220 didn't have near as much paper backing as 120. A little at the beginning and end and that was it. It was easier for most people as you got double your pleasure for little more. I would hate to see the perspiration if I had to do a wedding today with 120 film. You'd need several bodies and assistants to constantly change the film while you're shooting with just 10 shots per roll.

At times, yes. I'm still wondering what happened with Studebaker.

Click to expand...

Well use 645 and you'll get 15 or 16 shots, depending on the camera. And with preloaded inserts loading film can be really fast.

Economics 101, "Use it or lose it." The demand for 220 film had decreased to a level where it was no longer economical to produce it. This rule applies not only to 220 film but also other products.