220 B+W film?

[mrtoml]

I have just received a Mamiya 7 and am trying to get to grips with only 10 shots on a roll of 120.

Is there anyone still making 220 film that is available in the UK? I have only seen Tri-X at Silverprint so far...

 

[jim appleyard]

AFAIK, the only 220 b/w film left is Kodak's TXP 320. There is more selection in the color films.

 

[Aurelien]

Yes, in B&W, the only 220 film is 320 TXP. Ilford does not have the machine to make it since theirs is out of order. Fuji could make it but does not want. Only Kodak keep on producing it... Till when?

 

[Laurent]

I dunno what it is in the UK, but in France a single roll of 220 is more expensive than 2 of 120, which is why I stopped using it.

 

[Aurelien]

In france, at my retailer's, the 220 is exactly twice a 120. But if you buy it at freestylephoto.biz, you will have it for a few money: propack (5) is for 35USD only. Even if you add shipping, it is interesting...

 

[mrtoml]

Thanks, Guys. At silverprint it looks to work out slightly more for 10 x 120s than 5 x 220s (by a couple of pounds).

I have not used 320 TXP, but use the 400 all the time. Is the 320 better or more difficult to use?

 

[Aurelien]

It easy to use but better if you expose it à ISO 200. My preference

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

320TXP has a slightly different curve from the 400TX. What it means is that you will have deeper shadows and more brilliant highlights. 400TX is a more "regular" film, with a straighter curve.

But to be honest, you have to use 320TXP on subjects tailored for it if you really want to see the difference. Otherwise, it looks just like the 400TX.

 

[Aurelien]

Clearly yes, not such a difference. But nice tu use. Not hard

 

[Philippe Grunchec]

Take a look at: www.film220.com
We did what we could!...

 

[Philippe Grunchec]

P.S.: Salgado uses the TXP, developed by Philippe Bachelier in XTol, by Imaginoir in Acufine.

 

[Aurelien]

Yes, I signed the petition. But Kodak promised to launch a run of 400TX in 220, no?

 

[mrtoml]

Thanks for all this information. It is a shame about the Ilford situation, but understandable.

 

[David Henderson]

" but in France a single roll of 220 is more expensive than 2 of 120"

The benefit of 220 film has never been cost, its convenience. Less loading, fewer rolls to carry, fewer rolls to manage on a long trip. To me these are wort6h a small premium in total cost per frame vs 120.

 

[mrtoml]

" but in France a single roll of 220 is more expensive than 2 of 120"

The benefit of 220 film has never been cost, its convenience. Less loading, fewer rolls to carry, fewer rolls to manage on a long trip. To me these are wort6h a small premium in total cost per frame vs 120.

This was what I had in mind also. I am going on a trip soon and the bulk of the 120 rolls is a bit of a pain for 10 shots each roll, but it's not the end of the world.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Also, fewer reels to load at the processing end of things, and depending on the developer, more shots processed per tank (but some very dilute developers may need twice as much developer per roll of 220 to avoid exhaustion mid-development, so it might not be the case if you use, say, PMK 1+2+100 or Rodinal 1+100).

TXP has a longer toe than TX, so the main thing you want to avoid is underexposure, or you'll lose your shadow detail, but don't overcompensate so much that you push everything into the flary shoulder. Meter for the shadows, and you should be fine.

 

[vdonovan]

I use both 220 TXP (exposed at box speed) and 120 Tri-X (exposed at E.I. 200) for portraits. I very much like TXP for some subjects, it seems to have a broader tonality in the shadows. And the extra 1/3rd of a stop comes in handy. I hope it NEVER GOES AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HEAR THAT KODAK????????????????????????

That said, I find 220 a pain in the neck to process. 220 reels have quite narrow slots and are unforgiving of mistakes in loading the film. I've practiced quite a bit but I still usually have at least one botched frame whenever I develop 220.

 

[herb]

txp 220

Try the Patterson plastic reels. They do nicely with 220, one roll goes on completely.

I have txp in rodinal that is very punchy, looks great on outdoor portraits.

 

[jim appleyard]

Speaking of loading reels with 220, I managed to find a 220 Nikor tank and reel set on ebay; it's easy to load 220 film! I thought it would be tough, but it's no harder than 120.

 

[Reinhold]

There's a lot of good information on 220 reels and processing tips at:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Reinhold

www.classicBWphoto.com

 

[mrtoml]

I use the Jobo 1520 tank for 120. I can get two 120s onto 1 reel no problem with the plastic clip to hold the 1st roll in place. I guess getting one 220 on it should be OK as well.

 

[Aurelien]

Clearly, with Paterson reels, it's as easy to load 120 and 220. But with Jobo, I prefer 120. 220 may be a bit hard...

 

[donbga]

Jobo loads fine with 220.

 

[Chazzy]

Jobo loads fine with 220.

Not for me it doesn't.

 

[Chazzy]

Hey Simon, now that you've saved all that money by not setting up to make Polaroid film, shouldn't you be able to fix the 220 equipment now?