There are a few Fujicolor 400 NPH in 120 5-packs sold on ebay. They went for:I see that Fujifilm pro400 120 film is discontinued and is selling for $150+ per box and I tried selling for around that price but have had no leads. Is there a reason that 220 is so unpopular? I can't find anything like it on eBay or any other selling sites.
There is none currently listed on eBay. However, search for the item, then in more options or categories, I not sure where or what they call the actual selection is; It is on the left hand side online and in a drop down in the app, select sold items. It will give you a history of 6 months of recent eBay sales. There are some recent sales you can compare.
Hi all!
I just bought an older camera and it came with a couple boxes of 220 film that has been freezer kept- Fujifilm 400nph
I shot a few rolls and home developed them and it seems to be in great working order. I am wondering if and what the value would be to sell a box of this would be? I tried selling on Facebook but got a bunch of laughing emojis- is there something wrong with 220 film? I see that Fujifilm pro400 120 film is discontinued and is selling for $150+ per box and I tried selling for around that price but have had no leads. Is there a reason that 220 is so unpopular? I can't find anything like it on eBay or any other selling sites.
I tried selling on Facebook but got a bunch of laughing emojis- is there something wrong with 220 film?
Reminds me of toilet paper hawking last year!I use 220 film, and I would not pay $150 for a 5 pack, that's just silly.
Wedding photographers loved this stuff. I always thought 220 was just too long!
Absolutely! I long for the good old days of 20 exposure rolls.30 shots on 645 camera vs. 36 shots on 135....then 36 exp cassettes for 135 must be too long, too!
Pentax debuted the 67 with 220 capability. I not sure if it was the first. Goes along with the "I'm a giant 35mm camera" . 220 is relatively short lived, debuted in 1965, was all but dead by the time digital came along. Was always a low volume product.I can never understand why 220 format went away over the years. I actually prefer buying 220 whenever available over 120 mainly for the reason of getting twice the number of shots in a roll. For me 120 is simply too short. Changing film on my Pentax 67-ii every 10 shots is a major productivity problem of this camera. I really don't understand why people reject them. I can imagine that Kodak could make more profit from selling 2 120 rolls than 1 220. But why the demand disappeared from the market? I am not short of 220 films any way. I have a lot of expired 220 films in my freezer that will supply me 220 rolls for a long time to come. I don't call them expired films. I call them fresh new unknown type films. They don't expire.A 10 years expired Portra 400NC is now called Portra 400NC-10.It is a fresh film.One year later it will be a Portra 400NC-11, another different fresh film again. It's a rare film with little availability.
The equipment used to manufacture it (the automated assembly paper leader, paper trailer and film) wore out and, with the precipitous decline of usage (particularly in the professional community, who were the main users), the cost to restore or replace the equipment became un-economic.I can never understand why 220 format went away over the years.
So just as 135 comes tody in 24 or 36 exp,120 rollfilm comes in 120 or (no longer)220. But it appears you really want the even shorter roll that existed 50 years ago!Absolutely! I long for the good old days of 20 exposure rolls..
I mostly shoot medium format, in 120, I have some 220 squirreled away. Need to use it up in 6x9 format. Kodachrome was offered in 18 exposure rolls at the beginning. That way it didn't spend a year or two in an amateur's camera.
Interesting...they can still make 120 full length backing paper, but it was too expensive to deal with cutting that to the right length for 220 end-only paper!The equipment used to manufacture it (the automated assembly paper leader, paper trailer and film) wore out and, with the precipitous decline of usage (particularly in the professional community, who were the main users), the cost to restore or replace the equipment became un-economic.
In addition, the minimum order requirements of the remaining manufacturer with the capability of making the paper leader and paper trailer are a huge barrier - several years supply had to be ordered and paid for ahead of time.
As it is double the length of 120 film, the cost was and can be double that of 120 film. People do pay more for it. Portra 400 120 (not 220) is currently $48 for a 5 pack. I paid in the recent past that for expired 220. I always figure out to pay 50% of new cost for film.
Going by that, you're looking at $55 to $125 per box of five.
It is more complex than that. They would have to do a separate run, because the printing is different, and the product of that run would give them expensive, already paid for inventory that would last them (and cost them interest expense) for many years. They can't afford that!Interesting...they can still make 120 full length backing paper, but it was too expensive to deal with cutting that to the right length for 220 end-only paper!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?