220 B&W Film

[ColColt]

I haven't shot 120 films in some time and decided I needed some B&W in 220. Where is it? I looked on Amazon, Freestyle and B&H and all I saw was 120 but they had some 220 in color-no B&W. What's the story?

You only get 10 pictures from a roll of 120 in 6x7 format.

 

[MattKing]

No one makes it.

Ilford's 220 finishing machine died, and they have posted that it was extraordinarily uneconomical to both have the machine repaired, and to purchase the minimum quantities necessary of the paper leaders and trailers. As they have indicated that the much more common 120 backing paper is actually more expensive for them to buy then it is for them to make the film attached to it, it would make sense that 220 was even more uneconomic.

Kodak appears to have ceased production of all 220, both colour and Black and White, allthough there is very little official confirmation.

Same for Fuji.

It seems to me there is a general misunderstanding here on APUG about how expensive it is for film manufacturers to put together films in varity of packagings - witness all the discussions n the pricing of bulk 35mm.

 

[Chrismat]

B&W in 220 is no longer made, you have to keep looking for expired 220 sales. I purchased a couple of expired Plus-X 220 pro packs about a year ago and now I'm down to my last roll. I keep checking Ebay, sometimes you can get a pretty good deal.

 

[Sirius Glass]

220 was never really accepted and from the start there were complaints that it was both hard to find and many film types were never made available.

 

[ColColt]

I can only guess what Kodak's excuse was. I suppose since all the pro wedding/portrait photographers went digital there was no demand for the Pro Packs of 220 anymore. I use to buy lots of VPS in 220 Pro Packs but not so much black and white although I did buy it. Like everything else I'm behind on I just assumed 220 B&W was still available. That's what you get for being under a rock for 15 years.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I can only guess what Kodak's excuse was. I suppose since all the pro wedding/portrait photographers went digital there was no demand for the Pro Packs of 220 anymore. I use to buy lots of VPS in 220 Pro Packs but not so much black and white although I did buy it. Like everything else I'm behind on I just assumed 220 B&W was still available. That's what you get for being under a rock for 15 years.

Besides Kodak include Ansco, Dynacolor, Luminere, Agfa, Fuji, Ilford, ... [a very long list].

 

[MattKing]

I'd be willing to bet that of the three remaining 220 finishing machines in the world, there isn't one that is younger than 50 years old. The volumes are tiny - would you spend thousands - maybe millions - of dollars to rehabilitate or replace them?

By the way, those three machines include Ilford's broken one.

 

[Roger Cole]

No one makes it.

Ilford's 220 finishing machine died, and they have posted that it was extraordinarily uneconomical to both have the machine repaired, and to purchase the minimum quantities necessary of the paper leaders and trailers. As they have indicated that the much more common 120 backing paper is actually more expensive for them to buy then it is for them to make the film attached to it, it would make sense that 220 was even more uneconomic.

Kodak appears to have ceased production of all 220, both colour and Black and White, allthough there is very little official confirmation.

Same for Fuji.

It seems to me there is a general misunderstanding here on APUG about how expensive it is for film manufacturers to put together films in varity of packagings - witness all the discussions n the pricing of bulk 35mm.

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. It's just the packaging, and that should well be cheaper for bulk than for loaded 35mm film. But I do get it about 220.

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.

 

[gzinsel]

ahhh>>>>>>> (sigh) 220. The good ol' days. I remember when story: . . . . . . . some time in early 1990, maybe 1992, I can;t quite recall, . . . . . I had my Mamiya c330 with my trusty 55mm/80mm/135mm set up. I went into the camera store and bought my first pro pack!!! I was so scared, and intimidated, ( because, of course, I did not consider my self a pro! so why buy the pro pack??? right? I mean they didn't sell amateur/ pro pack) sorry to digress, but any way . . . . . the sales clerk asked me, 220? Out of being scared, I said "sure". That was the only time I ever bought 220. I 120 is just my speed these days, eight shots to a roll!!!!

 

[Luis-F-S]

I suppose since all the pro wedding/portrait photographers went digital there was no demand for the Pro Packs of 220 anymore. I used to buy lots of VPS in 220 Pro Packs but not so much black and white although I did buy it.

Pretty much all I bought for some 20+ years. Right now, I'm thankful we can get any film in B&W at all! I guess I'll add all eight A24 Blad backs to my paperweight list! Thank goodness I have a couple of A12's. L

 

[j-dogg]

I shoot a lot of slide 220 because you can get good emulsions cheap with it. Plus I have a NOS Rb67 Pro-SD 220 back so why not

 

[j-dogg]

I shoot a lot of slide 220 because you can get good emulsions cheap with it. Plus I have a NOS Rb67 Pro-SD 220 back so why not

 

[trythis]

I have several packs of c41 b+w portra in 220. Its a good deal if you can fjnd it on ebay.


Sent with typotalk

 

[Xmas]

ahhh>>>>>>> (sigh) 220. The good ol' days. I remember when story: . . . . . . . some time in early 1990, maybe 1992, I can;t quite recall, . . . . . I had my Mamiya c330 with my trusty 55mm/80mm/135mm set up. I went into the camera store and bought my first pro pack!!! I was so scared, and intimidated, ( because, of course, I did not consider my self a pro! so why buy the pro pack??? right? I mean they didn't sell amateur/ pro pack) sorry to digress, but any way . . . . . the sales clerk asked me, 220? Out of being scared, I said "sure". That was the only time I ever bought 220. I 120 is just my speed these days, eight shots to a roll!!!!

Normally c330 do 12 per 120 reel try a CLA.

 

[Xmas]

Pretty much all I bought for some 20+ years. Right now, I'm thankful we can get any film in B&W at all! I guess I'll add all eight A24 Blad backs to my paperweight list! Thank goodness I have a couple of A12's. L

If you don't mind shooting blanks after the 12th you could load 120 film in them.

 

[Xmas]

I haven't shot 120 films in some time and decided I needed some B&W in 220. Where is it? I looked on Amazon, Freestyle and B&H and all I saw was 120 but they had some 220 in color-no B&W. What's the story?

You only get 10 pictures from a roll of 120 in 6x7 format.

Kodak did fresh Trix320 till 2009 or so, so estate film stuff is still likely to be a reasonable fog level.

Ilfords do a once of year custom run but they won't do a 100 foot roll of 120/220 so you would need a splitter they will do 127 though.

You must fell like Rip Van Winkle?

Noel

 

[removed-user-1]

For a very long time in the 90s, my dream camera was a 645 SLR that could shoot 220 film - 30 shots a roll! I thought I'd be in heaven, those big negatives and nearly as much capacity as 35mm. Alas, by the time I could afford one, most film I like to shoot was no longer available in 220. Oh well.

As an aside, I once asked a photographer I used to assist for why he didn't use 220 film and he said, "That's for people who are too lazy to change film." ... "Oh, I see."

 

[ColColt]

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.

You must fell like Rip Van Winkle?

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

 

[Sirius Glass]

ahhh>>>>>>> (sigh) 220. The good ol' days. I remember when story: . . . . . . . some time in early 1990, maybe 1992, I can;t quite recall, . . . . . I had my Mamiya c330 with my trusty 55mm/80mm/135mm set up. I went into the camera store and bought my first pro pack!!! I was so scared, and intimidated, ( because, of course, I did not consider my self a pro! so why buy the pro pack??? right? I mean they didn't sell amateur/ pro pack) sorry to digress, but any way . . . . . the sales clerk asked me, 220? Out of being scared, I said "sure". That was the only time I ever bought 220. I 120 is just my speed these days, eight shots to a roll!!!!

If you shoot 6x6 you could get twelve shots per roll instead of eight.

Square is the perfect format. -- Hasselblad.

 

[bdial]

I did a wedding a few years ago, once I taught my assistant (my wife) how to load them, it went pretty well swapping backs at the end of each roll. I think the worst part was fiddling with darkslides.

 

[ColColt]

When I was doing weddings I had two 6x7 bodies and used 220 film. My step-son would load one and after getting through those 20 shots would hand me the other body. All I did was swap the lens. I taught him well in advance how to load the cameras and set up the light stands as I carried my studio to the wedding, basically, with the 600 w/s Photogenic lights fired by two Quantum 4i Radio Slaves. One main light inside an Ed Pierce Signature Edition Halo and another 60" white umbrella for the fill light. It was a lot of work.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I still have some TXP 220 in the freezer from what I think was the last batch, expiration 6/2012.

 

[carioca]

Offer follows demand.

With digital being mainstream, few are those who request film. For those few film geeks, 120 size film is still being offered, not enough to produce 220 rolls, I guess.
Also, not all medium format cameras can handle 220 film size, only 120, another reason why 220 will probably never come back to life.

I loved 220 for my Pentax 67, still have a few rolls of Tri-X. Easy to load one roll of 220 on a film developing reel than 2 rolls of 120

 

[destroya]

i wish there was still 220 B&w film. i had a chance when i first started shooting med format to get some tri-x 320 in 220 but passed. alas all i have left in 220 is velvia 50 and astia

 

[ColColt]

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.