220 Film Prices

Anyone notice the prices for 220 film? I have a bunch of Fujifilm NPH 220 and Agfa Optima 220. Always looking for great deals but lately I’ve nice prices on eBay are going way up. Someone asking $44 for a roll ( single ) of Portra 400NC. Box of 5 rolls of NPH for $150. I’ve seen single rolls of Agfa Optima for $20 or more—I bought three boxes of 220 for $90 recently. Who’s shooting 220?

wjlapier said:

Who’s shooting 220?

Click to expand...

Effectively no one. It's been out of production for around fifteen years, with Shanghai just now bringing it back (sort of, if they ever get the process automated and beat the quality control issues). It makes no sense for virtually all medium format users, because when available it cost more than twice as much per roll as 120. It was only ever sensible for users who'd shoot so much film that reload time was a problem bigger than the increased cost per frame.

That means what you're buying on eBay is effectively the old freezer/fridge stock of professional photographers who switched to digital and had a bunch of 220 left on hand. You can't depend on its pricing any more than you can depend on the pricing of 1950s vintage Leica or Contax cameras (or Hasselblads, if you want the MF version).

Given that almost all cameras that take 220 can be used with 120 by one means or another, it is a sensible question to ask why you're spending so much on 220 -- I bought a 220 roll film holder for my RB67 solely to convert for use with 35mm film, because I have no expectation of ever wanting or needing 220.

BTW, you can still get 70 mm from Ilford (if only during their annual custom cutting event), the cassettes and loaders and roll holders for it show up on eBay now and then, and equipment to develop it in cassette lengths isn't unobtainium. That would be my recommended solution if you really need more than twelve frames of 6x6 or ten frames of 6x7 between reloads, and it would be what I'd seek if I wanted to shoot longer rolls in my RB67.

wjlapier said:

Who’s shooting 220?

Click to expand...

I do from time to time. Most recent was a roll of Fuji 800Z Pro. However, I've noticed the same thing you've been noticing, namely the huge increase in what 220 is going for, and I'm wondering why I simply don't empty out my freezer with this 15-year expired film, sell it and take the proceeds to buy fresh film. Granted, some of my old stock is no longer made, but then again, I've had mixed results with expired film.

wjlapier said:

Who’s shooting 220?

Click to expand...

As Don said, "No one". There is very little of the supply left. What is produced now is probably not worth the film base it is coated on. If you ask to buy a 220 Hasselblad film back, they will throw in a bunch of free stuff just to clear out the inventory.

When wedding photographers shot film, this was the heyday of 220. I recently inherited a horde of junque. From a long gone wedding and portrait studio. There were 1/2 dozen Koni-Omega 220 backs 4 (broken) Graflex 220 inserts. All junk.
I got some beautiful lights, a couple lenses I don't need.

The only uses I have found for 220:
- when Agfa was a major player in film business, I loved their Optima line. When AgfaPhoto went bankrupt in 2005, the Optima 400 quickly went out of stock and the 220 5-packs were the only ones remaining in the stores I checked. So it’s not a use, but a reason for which I bought 220 film… and also to save on shipping for some foreign orders where adding a box of 120 was more additional shipping than switching one box of 120 for one of 220.
- the Rollei film back (not magazine, there is no draw slide on this one) for SLX / 6000 series that has a data module (from Nikon IIRC) uses the same mechanisms as a 35mm data back, i.e. it illuminates the data through the film, which means that film cannot have paper backing, i.e. it has to be 220 film.
- Traveling with fewer films in my small bag when I know I am going to shoot many pictures and am very space-limited.

Other than slowly depleting my stock of expired film and using that old data back, or reducing travel volume (by not much), I don’t see much use for 220.

I am reminded of 320TXP that came in 220. Loved that film. And it didn’t take me long to go through a roll.

High prices seem to indicate a high demand. People will not pay if they have no desire for them. I personally like 220 a lot. I have been spoiled by being able to get 21 shots out of a roll of 220 by my p67-ii. I wish 220 will be back in the market. I would only buy 220 instead of 120 rolls if they were brought back by the manufacturers. Just my opinion.

mtjade2007 said:

I wish 220 will be back in the market. I would only buy 220 instead of 120 rolls if they were brought back by the manufacturers. Just my opinion.

Click to expand...

Agreed!

A roll or a pack of 5 rolls of 220 sells just about twice of the price of 120 films. So each time a sale of a 220 film is made the revenue from the sale is almost twice of that of 120 films. From the business point of view it is actually a winning sale since more film and more revenue is achieved from selling 220 films. I don't really believe in the talk that tooling for 220 production being costly hence only 120 is produced. I always buy films in a pack. If I have a choice I will choose a 220 pack than a 120 pack despite I will have to pay twice the money. .

mtjade2007 said:

A roll or a pack of 5 rolls of 220 sells just about twice of the price of 120 films. So each time a sale of a 220 film is made the revenue from the sale is almost twice of that of 120 films. From the business point of view it is actually a winning sale since more film and more revenue is achieved from selling 220 films. I don't really believe in the talk that tooling for 220 production being costly hence only 120 is produced. I always buy films in a pack. If I have a choice I will choose a 220 pack than a 120 pack despite I will have to pay twice the money. .

Click to expand...

More revenue but for the many reasons given by Ilford and other Photrio members, not more profit in relation to the investment required. I fear you are in a minority in being willing to pay twice the price of a 120. If you came in "legions" then you might persuade companies such as Ilford to invest the hundreds of thousands of pounds in re-starting 220

pentaxuser

Other than wedding and event photographers 220 was not all that popular, I did shoot 220 on occasion with my Mamiya Universal that has a pressure plate that can adjusted to shoot 120 or 220, and a Yashica 124 with similar pressure plate. In most cases 120 seemed to be the "just right" number of frames. Shanghai's new 220 is really pricey.

I shoot my NPH and Optima when I go on a trip or a vacation. The problem I ran into once was deteriorating light seals in my Fujifilm GS645w. One frame out of 32 good. Frank Marshman fixed that for me. My Bronica C2 I re-did the light seals and it’s fine now. My other cameras that take 220 are Fujifilm GS645, Fujifilm GX680IIIs, and Fujifilm GA645Zi. I have a 6x7 220 film back for my Mamiya Universal—every light seal in this camera needed to be replaced. Is there a 6x9 220 graflok film back?

When I bought the Optima the seller contacted me and said he had two more boxes asking if I was interested in them. Since then I have not seen Optima for such a low price. Kinda the same deal with the NPH I stocked up on.

I was just curious about who was shooting 220 since it seems the prices were getting to the outrageous prices. Demand vs availability.

like a few people above I have a stash of frozen 220 films. I like the idea of 220, getting twice the shots on 1 roll and for hiking and travel shots its great. I really like using 220 in my 6x17 camera as 4 shots in 120 I really just kinda took 4 shots per scene to keep it simple. with 8 shots, I spread out my roll over more scenes. the downside is none of my cameras that can use 220, and all of mine can, is that none of them have removable backs. so you are locked into that specific film for twice the shots. now usually that is not an issue as I do bring 2 cameras on most outings 1 for B&W and color. but when you have a roll of 220 velvia 50 and really need ektar or provia or portra you have to make do, but it is a problem I really wish I had to deal with more often to tell you the truth.

john

220 film was popular with wedding photographers and the like, but the selection of film types was always poor compared to the array of 120 film types available.

Sirius Glass said:

220 film was popular with wedding photographers and the like, but the selection of film types was always poor compared to the array of 120 film types available.

Click to expand...

Yes, agreed. The fact that 220 films were used mostly by wedding photographers only fewer film types were produced in 220. But I found a roll of Provia 220 in my freezer a few days ago. So I think there were still quite a few types of film made in 220 back then. Nowadays the manufacturers only make a small number of film types and formats they could just add a few 220 production lines to make them available. I believe the market is there, They could make more sales and profit will increase. I also believe there will be new weds who will like the idea of getting their wedding portraits shot with films too.

mtjade2007 said:

Yes, agreed. The fact that 220 films were used mostly by wedding photographers only fewer film types were produced in 220. But I found a roll of Provia 220 in my freezer a few days ago. So I think there were still quite a few types of film made in 220 back then. Nowadays the manufacturers only make a small number of film types and formats they could just add a few 220 production lines to make them available. I believe the market is there, They could make more sales and profit will increase. I also believe there will be new weds who will like the idea of getting their wedding portraits shot with films too.

Click to expand...

What would be the cost to a manufacturer to "add a few 220 production lines"?

The very last 220 films were made about 2015 (e.g provia, velvia) but most were dropped a few years earlier. Prices of all expired films are rising due the rising price of new film which is the comparator, whilst for 220 there is also a rarity value. No major manufacturer is likely to reintroduce 220 because its all cost -new machines/process, more sku’s and will just eat into existing sales of 120.

faberryman said:

What would be the cost to a manufacturer to "add a few 220 production lines"?

Click to expand...

I am not a film manufacturing expert but I tend to believe it would not cost much. Why? Take Kodak as an example, Kodak already had 220 production lines before. They were taken off line. I don't think they had destroyed them. They could be activated again. They could order leader/trailer paper and packaging materials from 3rd party manufacturers. I don't think in this case the cost of bringing back 220 production line would be expensive. I tend to believe the main reason 220 is not offered today is because films are like perishable produce, If the stock is not sold quickly it would be gone wasted. Unless the market shows a strong demand they simply don't give it a damn. I believe the films are coated based on orders they receive plus some short term forecast. I doubt there is any 220 order and market forecast to drive the manufacturing.

The minimum order quantity cost of leaders and trailers is a major reason that 220 isn't coming back.
And I expect that when Eastman Kodak discarded a lot of their confectioning capacity due to greatly reduced demand (the cause of the current backlog in colour 35mm ) they probably put the 220 machinery at the front of the discard list.

Ektar in 220. Count me in.

+1 here.

For the manufacturer:

• lack of market
• cost of paper
• difficulty to manufacture to avoid problems with the film laying flat

For me:

• lack of film choice
• no cost saving over two 120 rolls to purchase
• higher cost to have the film processed than two 120 rolls.

Sirius Glass said:

For the manufacturer:

• 
  
• difficulty to manufacture to avoid problems with the film laying flat

Click to expand...

Films with backing papers have larger flatness issues than plain films with same frame size.

Well there may just be signs that Shanghai is entering 220 with some determination to put more than its "toe in the water" to make things happen e.g. we have apparently seen the rise of a Shanghai website and the arrival of a Shanghai representative on Photrio who has conducted a dialogue with members, If as has been suggested on the Shanghai 220 thread it has the backing of the Chinese State then who knows?

pentaxuser