220 Film

[Marvin]

I have looked at some of the photo web sites and it seems that 220 film is getting scarce. A local camera store had 2 nice Bronica ETRSi 220 backs for $35.00 each but I am wondering if it will soon be hard to find 220 film for them.
Marvin

 

[Q.G.]

It already is. That's why these backs are so cheap.
Only B&W film still available i know of is Tri-X 320.

I don't like Tri-X, so i only run colour film through my 220 backs. Only one available in 220 i like is Kodak's Portra.
But for how long that will remain available in 220 ... ?

 

[erikg]

It is scarce and choices are limited. Good deals can be had for 220 backs, but only if you like the film choice out there. Otherwise not such a good deal.

 

[Q.G.]

Oh, and...

At least where i know where to get some, 220 film costs more per frame (not less as one might expect) than 120 film.

 

[photomem]

While at imaging Usa, I spent quite a bit of time talking to the Kodak film rep. He told me that the 220 stocks are being rundown and then most likely discontinued. Apparently 120 is going to be the only MF available soon, at least from Kodak.

 

[nickandre]

I've heard you can run 120 through some 220 backs.

 

[Q.G.]

You can, but spacing will be wide, and you'll not get the expected number of frames on a roll.

 

[Tony-S]

220 is still widely available in color. That's all I have my 220 back for - Velvia 50.

 

[DanielStone]

damn....

I thought that the 88 rolls of 400vc 220 I just won through fleabay would last me the rest of my dang life :confused:

when I got my RZ, I scorned 220 film, thinking it useless. Now, I love the crap out of these 20-exposure rolls! Hell, slap a 6x4.5 back on the ol' boy and get a good 30 frames per roll!

hot dang, that's a sweet camera, I must say!

guess it's time to load up on TXP and 160vc....

another lightening of the pocketbook. alas, as a photography major, I feel this quite often :rolleyes:

-Dan

 

[Trond]

Many colour films are available as 220. Easy to get on mail order. I use Provia 100f and E100VS as 220.

 

[AgX]

Aside from customer request for type 220, another issue is that not all manufacturers have still got type 220 converting machinery.

 

[A_M_Johnson]

I keep hearing that 220 is getting scarce too. However, I am able to get as much as I want both color and B&W in several different speeds and mfrs.

 

[Chazzy]

By all means, buy those 220 backs and order all the 220 film that you can use. Otherwise, it is a certainty that the options will continue to dwindle. 220 is a much more convenient option than 120.

 

[DonaldJ.]

i shoot 220 color because of the developing costs, i only pay a quarter more for 220 developing. its very cost effective for me. i came across alot of fuji 400H and NPS 160 in 220, i only put BW through my 120 back.

with bronica SQ backs from experience you can put 120 through a 220 back fine, spacing was fine. you just have to shoot a few blank frames to get the paper to unwind at the end of the roll.

 

[erikg]

I keep hearing that 220 is getting scarce too. However, I am able to get as much as I want both color and B&W in several different speeds and mfrs.

Like the Model T, you can get any type of b&w you want just as long as it is Kodak Tri-X!

Color you have more choices from two manufacturers.

 

[A_M_Johnson]

Like the Model T, you can get any type of b&w you want just as long as it is Kodak Tri-X!

Color you have more choices from two manufacturers.

I realized that after seeing the posts in my other thread. I must have been confusing past LF or 35mm conversations with 220.

 

[rwboyer]

damn....

I thought that the 88 rolls of 400vc 220 I just won through fleabay would last me the rest of my dang life :confused:

when I got my RZ, I scorned 220 film, thinking it useless. Now, I love the crap out of these 20-exposure rolls! Hell, slap a 6x4.5 back on the ol' boy and get a good 30 frames per roll!

hot dang, that's a sweet camera, I must say!

guess it's time to load up on TXP and 160vc....

another lightening of the pocketbook. alas, as a photography major, I feel this quite often :rolleyes:

-Dan

Be very very glad you are not addicted to 8x10 film.

RB

 

[Ektagraphic]

I would go for it. It is nice to shoot a days worth of photos and only change film twice at most.

 

[guyjr]

I picked up a couple 220 backs (one each for my RZ and 501CM), along with some Velvia 50 in 220. The cost per frame may be a bit more, but the convenience, especially in the RZ, of not having to change rolls as often, more than makes up for the extra cost. Plus the small incremental cost when developing (I do all my development at home now) - just need mix up an extra 100ml to dev the 220 roll, and when I'm done, I have twice as many shots in the same amount of time as one 120 roll (slide dev, even with a Jobo, takes forever!)

 

[Cainquixote]

glad to see you here amj. how is the rb treating you

 

[DanielStone]

Be very very glad you are not addicted to 8x10 film.

RB

soon my friend, very soon .

dusting off the 8x10 I got with some darkroom equipment a few years back.
received my first 4 8x10 holders last week, just need some Efke 25 to put into them now !

-Dan

 

[SFC]

The discontinuation of 220, if it is really going to happen, would seem to be a deliberate attempt to kill MF once and for all. Maybe Kodak wants to sell imaging chips.....
I can't imagine a professional using Portra at a wedding to chose 120 over 220, especially with interchangeable backs. Isn't it cheap to make 220? After all, it doesn't have a backing.

 

[MattKing]

As I understand it, the problem with 220 is that all of the finishing equipment (the equipment that spools and applies backing paper to the ends) is incredibly antiquated, and there are no replacements on the horizon that can be obtained at a cost that is economic, given the low volumes.

There are posts here on APUG from Simon Galley of Ilford to the effect that their 220 equipment has deteriorated to the point of un-usability, cannot be repaired, and cannot be replaced at prudent cost.

There are also posts here on APUG to the effect that there may only be one supplier of backing paper left, and that their viability is in question.

I don't think that this is a deliberate decision.

Matt

 

[Q.G.]

[...] Isn't it cheap to make 220? After all, it doesn't have a backing.

It has a paper leader and a paper trailer. So two pieces of paper to attach instead of one.

There are also posts here on APUG to the effect that there may only be one supplier of backing paper left, and that their viability is in question.

That would also affect 120 film, of course.

But paper is made in countless places, and i can't imagine that it would be difficult to get some. Is it?