• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

220 B+W film?

mrtoml

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
574
Location
Sheffield, UK
Format
35mm
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...
 

Aurelien

Advertiser
Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jun 25, 2006
Messages
652
Location
Limoges, Fra
Format
Med. Format RF
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

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
1,836
Location
France
Format
Multi Format
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

Advertiser
Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jun 25, 2006
Messages
652
Location
Limoges, Fra
Format
Med. Format RF
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...
 
OP
OP

mrtoml

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
574
Location
Sheffield, UK
Format
35mm
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?
 

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council
Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
4,794
Location
Montréal, QC
Format
Multi Format
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.
 
OP
OP

mrtoml

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
574
Location
Sheffield, UK
Format
35mm
Thanks for all this information. It is a shame about the Ilford situation, but understandable.
 

David Henderson

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
345
Location
Datchet, Ber
Format
Medium Format
" 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.
 
OP
OP

mrtoml

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
574
Location
Sheffield, UK
Format
35mm

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

Moderator
Moderator
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
20,020
Location
Honolulu, HI
Format
Large Format
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

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Messages
607
Location
San Francisco
Format
Traditional
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

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
405
Format
Medium Format
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

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 21, 2004
Messages
2,421
Location
glens falls, ny USA
Format
Multi Format
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

Advertiser
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
914
Location
Washougal, Washington
Format
Multi Format
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
 
OP
OP

mrtoml

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
574
Location
Sheffield, UK
Format
35mm
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.
 

donbga

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 7, 2003
Messages
3,053
Format
Large Format Pan
Jobo loads fine with 220.
 

Chazzy

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
2,942
Location
South Bend,
Format
Multi Format
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register