220 B&W - What to do?

[lxdude]

I thought that 220 film is not just twice as long, but that it is on a thinner base stock. That would be why making 220 available is not simply a matter of cutting it "twice as long"

Base stock is the same thickness for 120 and 220.

 

[flatulent1]

If Kodak (or anyone else) were to do a special run of 220 B&W, count me in for a pile of it.

Being a Mamiya 645 user I don't have special 220 backs languishing under a pile of unwashed laundry, just several inserts, which is no real loss.

 

[Q.G.]

For a black & white film yes. It will be either Plus-X or Tri-X. [...]

There we go.
I have no interest in either film, but would love T-Max in 220 format.

 

[Q.G.]

If Kodak (or anyone else) were to do a special run of 220 B&W, count me in for a pile of it.

Being a Mamiya 645 user I don't have special 220 backs languishing under a pile of unwashed laundry, just several inserts, which is no real loss.

No loss at all, considering that there still is 220 film you can put on those inserts.

 

[JBrunner]

IRRC Simon said the problem for Ilford with 220 is that the machine that spools leaders and packages it is dead worn out. Being essentially a rare and custom thing, no parts are available, and the investment needed to replace or rebuild the thing could never be recovered with present demand. It is a bit of a catch 22- falling availability ultimately kills demand, but in this case, unfortunately, I feel pretty certain that 220 in B&W is done and gone. I'd dearly love to be wrong. The vast majority of it was used in applications that don't shoot film as a rule these days.

 

[vdonovan]

I loved TXP in 220 format. It was my go-to portrait film (which is what it was designed for). I used TXP 220 mainly in portrait sessions so I didn't have to change backs as often. For personal shooting, I actually prefer 120.

I agree with J. Brunner that 220 B&W is probably dead and gone, but, for the record, if the Kodak angels are granting wishes, my priorities would be:

1. bring back TXP in 220. I promise I will consume 10 rolls per month
2. If not, start coating TXP in 120. So I'm in for 20 rolls per month.
3. ? TMAX in 220? I'm not familiar with it, but if it's a good portrait film, give it to me.

 

[cfclark]

I have a 220 insert for my Pentax 645 and a few rolls of TXP 220 left--I'm not attached to 220 color, particularly, so once I finish these I'll probably convert the 220 insert to 120 via some tinkering and just have two 120 inserts. I doubt I'll ever see 220 in B&W again, although if someone makes it, I'll buy it.

(And if you have any P645 220 inserts you don't want, send them my way.)

 

[tim elder]

Has anyone called Kodak to see if it's possible for them to do a special order?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Has anyone called Kodak to see if it's possible for them to do a special order?

For 5,000 rolls of 220 film, if Kodak just happened to have the proper paper ends in stock, if Kodak just happened to have the properly printed foil packaging, if Kodak just happened to have the properly printed boxes ...

<<sigh>>

 

[Ektagraphic]

I'll try to speak with someone at Kodak tomorrow just to see if they would even do it.

 

[SWphoto]

The good news in today's Portra 400 announcement is that 220 is among the formats, so there is still some life left in the old boy.

 

[michaelbsc]

I'll try to speak with someone at Kodak tomorrow just to see if they would even do it.

Of course they'll do it if you have the money. But is it worth it? I'm certain that if I show up at the door with a billion dollars and offer it for a master roll of Kodachrome all cut up and packaged they'll make one for me. But if I show up with less than it's worth to them to waste the time they won't do it.

The question becomes where is the meniscus where you tip over the edge between "this ain't worth it" to "ok, let's talk" and whether that point is on the correct side of the other curve, "Wow, how much is this really worth?"

I for one was never a big 220 shooter, but I know others are. But is it worth 2.5x the price of a roll of 120? What if they want 3x? 4x?

 

[Ektagraphic]

I for one was never a big 220 shooter, but I know others are. But is it worth 2.5x the price of a roll of 120? What if they want 3x? 4x?

For me, it's lab costs and ease of shooting (sometimes). As of right now, it's only a couple of dollars more to move up to 220 processing. Why not shoot 220 is my question.

 

[Q.G.]

For me, it's lab costs and ease of shooting (sometimes). As of right now, it's only a couple of dollars more to move up to 220 processing. Why not shoot 220 is my question.

Though i would like and use 220 B&W film, i know a couple of answers to that question.

First, 220 film is often too long. For many occassions, 120 film already is too long.
And even when a large number of frames is exposed 'in one go', changing film isn't that much of a problem. A loaded spare back will do when it's not convenient to reload, and loading when it is convenient is quick enough.

Second, it already is more expensive than 120 film over here.
The film costs more per roll than 2x what a roll of 120 costs. And processing costs double.

So overall, when longer rolls would be fine (on trips), i pay extra for the convenience.

I still would like some T-Max 100 in 220 though. (And hope that they keep producing Portra in 220.)

 

[AgX]

First we lost 70mm DP B&W and now 220 B&W is also gone.

70mm DP B&W still available in ISO 400 from Maco.

For more film choices contact Agfa.

 

[Sirius Glass]

First, 220 film is often too long. For many occassions, 120 film already is too long.

Isn't that why you have multiple film backs for your Hasselblad?

Steve

 

[Q.G.]

Isn't that why you have multiple film backs for your Hasselblad?

No, no.
When you want to create a photo, put an idea onto film (and go on from there, of course), you (or i at least) very often don't need an entire roll to 'get it in the can'. Many the times that i have processed films with just a few frames on them exposed, or shot some rubbish just so i wouldn't have a mostly blank film come out of the tank.

I know, you could wait, hold off processing until you next want to do the same and fill the roll. But i just want to get on with it; exposing film is only a small, short, part of the process, and i don't like to have to put the rest on hold because i have to fill the film to capacity first.
Sometimes you are forced to though (simply because there is no opportunity to go on to the next step - trips), and for those occassions i like 220 film.


Multiple backs are good for two things only: you need to get onto a fresh roll in a big hurry, or you need to switch to another type of film without having finished the one you are on now.

 

[Sirius Glass]

No, no.
When you want to create a photo,

Sometimes it is just fun to jerk your chain.

Steve

 

[Q.G.]

Of course it is.

And sometimes, you just don't understand things and end up having to come up with lines like that...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Of course it is.

And sometimes, you just don't understand things and end up having to come up with lines like that...

Oh, I understand those posts, I am just not taking them siriusly!

 

[aoresteen]

There we go.
I have no interest in either film, but would love T-Max in 220 format.

No worries! I'd buy T-Max 220 if that's what Kodak decided to make. I can get good negatives from T-Max. But I'm just used to Tri-X and HP5.

 

[aoresteen]

Has anyone called Kodak to see if it's possible for them to do a special order?

Yes. I asked them via email if they would do a special run of 220 TRI-X 400 if I ordered 10,000 rolls.

Answer: NO. NO way would they do it.

But they would spool TXP ISO 320 in 120 rolls for me!

here's the email:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi, Tony,

Yes, we can make black and white 120, but not 220 in either Tri-X 400 or Tri-X 320. Sorry.

Please let me know if I may be of future assistance.

Sincerely,

Peter V.
Kodak Professional
Technical Support
800-242-2424 ext. 19

 

[aoresteen]

Of course they'll do it if you have the money. But is it worth it? I'm certain that if I show up at the door with a billion dollars and offer it for a master roll of Kodachrome all cut up and packaged they'll make one for me. But if I show up with less than it's worth to them to waste the time they won't do it.

The question becomes where is the meniscus where you tip over the edge between "this ain't worth it" to "ok, let's talk" and whether that point is on the correct side of the other curve, "Wow, how much is this really worth?"

I for one was never a big 220 shooter, but I know others are. But is it worth 2.5x the price of a roll of 120? What if they want 3x? 4x?

Well, it a moot point Michael, as Kodak said no.

 

[michaelbsc]

Of course they'll do it if you have the money. But is it worth it? I'm certain that if I show up at the door with a billion dollars and offer it for a master roll of Kodachrome all cut up and packaged they'll make one for me. But if I show up with less than it's worth to them to waste the time they won't do it.

The question becomes where is the meniscus where you tip over the edge between "this ain't worth it" to "ok, let's talk" and whether that point is on the correct side of the other curve, "Wow, how much is this really worth?"

I for one was never a big 220 shooter, but I know others are. But is it worth 2.5x the price of a roll of 120? What if they want 3x? 4x?

Well, it a moot point Michael, as Kodak said no.

Clearly the minuscus fell in the wrong place in the analysis.

But I still contend that if you gave the right money they'll do it.

Don't jerk their chain please, but I'll bet if you could offer to take 10 million rolls paid up front, they'll say yes.

MB

 

[Sirius Glass]

Don't jerk their chain please, but I'll bet if you could offer to take 10 million rolls paid up front, they'll say yes.

Don't bother, they said that do not have the paper for the ends of the rolls. Kodak told us that years ago. Why are you still "beating the dead horse" long "after the ship sailed" and "the fat chick sang"?