220 Film Question

[Brick Kyle]

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.

 

[JPD]

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 are a few Fujicolor 400 NPH in 120 5-packs sold on ebay. They went for:

1. £20
2. $55
3. £19.50

The sellers with most luck selling their stuff use the auction option and a low starting price. Then you get what people are willing to pay. There are too many "Buy it now" listings with ridiculous prices, and they just don't sell.

 

[Bazza D]

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.

 

[wiltw]

The 220 format largely stopped manufacture in 2015. A very limited of variety emulsions might be available (B&H currenly has none); in 2009 only one B&W emulsion was in that format.

Looked in in a 2003 edition of Popular Photography, a 220 roll os Fuji NPH went for $4.89

Pros were a big consumer of 220, particularly for event/wedding coverage, and now photographers are predominantly dSLR shooter delivering thousands of photos is many cases, compared to the hundreds of photos in the film days. It can be somewhat hard to find 120 film inserts and comparatively easy to find 220 insterts for the same back, since film is gone.

 

[M Carter]

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.

Next to the search box is a link that says "advanced", which takes you to the form where you can choose "sold", "completed", and so on.

Often choosing "completed" gives you more info - you'll not only see what sold, but what didn't, so sometimes you can suss out if it's a price issue and so on.

 

[M Carter]

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.

May be that people don't have 220 backs or cameras with the convertible setup. I have some 220 backs for my RB since 120 works fine in them and they're much cheaper these days.

 

[voceumana]

I don't know why you'd get laughing emoji's as a response, as there is nothing wrong with 220--it's just out of date film and no longer being produced. That said, out of date film is often sold. So I don't get the laughter. Personally, I wish 220 were still available.

 

[reddesert]

There is a fine line between rare collectible and marginally-useful white elephant, and expired color film (even if freezer kept) is definitely somewhere on that line. 220 film all the more so because not all cameras can use it. 220 film is out of production largely because its target market moved away from film. Offering it for a high price per box (was that $150 per 5-pack, or per box??) might get a range of responses.

 

[itsdoable]

I use 220 film, and I would not pay $150 for a 5 pack, that's just silly.

 

[BobD]

I tried selling on Facebook but got a bunch of laughing emojis- is there something wrong with 220 film?

There are plenty of digital point-&-shooters who think that users of film are, in general, hilarious old fuddy-duddies deserving of ridicule.

 

[wiltw]

I use 220 film, and I would not pay $150 for a 5 pack, that's just silly.

Reminds me of toilet paper hawking last year!

 

[mshchem]

Wedding photographers loved this stuff. I always thought 220 was just too long!

 

[wiltw]

Wedding photographers loved this stuff. I always thought 220 was just too long!

30 shots on 645 camera vs. 36 shots on 135....then 36 exp cassettes for 135 must be too long, too!

 

[OrientPoint]

I love 220 film - don't ask me why. I bought 4 rolls of Fuji 400h for $10/roll on Ebay a few weeks ago. Sometimes 220 goes for less than its 120 equivalent, sometimes at it sells for a premium. I don't think there's much sense to it. 400h is expensive now because it was just discontinued and lots of people decided it was special once you couldn't get it any longer (says the person with a bunch of it in the freezer). If your 400h 220 was actually stored frozen and is in good shape I think $20/roll is on the high end of fair, but that's just my opinion. Personally, I don't think I'd pay more than $15/roll for it, but only because I like shooting long rolls. Of course, your mileage may vary... good luck!

 

[mtjade2007]

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.

 

[mshchem]

30 shots on 645 camera vs. 36 shots on 135....then 36 exp cassettes for 135 must be too long, too!

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.

 

[mshchem]

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.

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.

 

[MattKing]

I can never understand why 220 format went away over the years.

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.

 

[Huss]

I wish they still made 220 film. Actually Shanghai recently introduced GP3400 in 220, and I bought some, but the quality is lacking. Not of the emulsion itself, but the putting together/handling of it which resulted in scratches on the film, and using 120 leader paper instead of 220.

Anyway, 220 is perfect for 6x9 cameras (16 shots per roll), and I love it in the field or on set for 6x4.5 cameras as you get 32 exp per roll.

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.

BUT, there are people out there who pay MORE for old film than new film. Their choice.

Check the sold listings on ebay for actual prices. This one for Fuji 400 NPH 220 in March sold for $11/roll.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1746432135...=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

Another one in March sold for $25 for one roll.

Going by that, you're looking at $55 to $125 per box of five.

 

[wiltw]

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.

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!

 

[wiltw]

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.

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!

 

[wiltw]

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.

From 2003 Calumet Photographic catalog:

120 Portra 400NC, pro 5-apck = $23.69
220 Portra 400NC, Pro 5-pack = $47.59​

From 2003 B&H ad in Popular Photograhy:

120 Portra 400NC, pro 5-apck = $20.95
220 Portra 400NC, Pro 5-pack = $41.95
​

Wow, film price for 120 is almost doubled 2003 vs almost 20 years! Meanwhile what they pay for the gear is about 10-20% of the original price!

 

[MattKing]

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!

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!
More importantly, the automated machines that put all of that together no longer work, and the cost to rehabilitate or replace them wouldn't be repaid for from profits for many years - again many years of interest expense.
Just buying the backing paper for 120 costs Harman/Ilford more than it costs to make the film that goes with it.
Any attempt to replace the machines with a manual approach is really expensive, and has real problems with quality control.
220 sales volumes can't support that.

 

[itsdoable]

If you came from Large Format, a 120 roll was lots of film.

If you came from 35mm, then the 220 was just about right.

220 had the one disadvantage of having no backing paper, which meant that there was a higher change of scratches from the pressure plate. The pressure plate had to be anodized/painted black as well, as there was no remjet layer on the film.

 

[wjlapier]

NPH is great film IMO. When I developed my first roll I begin a search for more and more. I came across a seller who sold me boxes of 220 for $65 shipped. My freezer is packed. I never really liked 400h. Or Portra.

Another great film IMO is Agfa Optima. Plenty of this film in 220 in my freezer.

Yeah, $150 for 5 rolls of 220 NPH is way too much.

Btw, anyone know why so much Fujifilm is sold as NPH though it’s not? Even 400h is often sold as NPH. Even Superia.