Cost analysis: 120 vs 220 Portra

DanielStone · Nov 22, 2014

As of my writing this, I've come to a big query or cost analysis of 120 vs 220 Whuuuuuut?

Portra 160 (120) $5.50/roll
Portra 160 (220) $14.79/roll

Portra 400 (120) $5.79/roll
Portra 400 (220) $15.19/roll

What gives, Kodak/Alaris? Does the 220 option give you better pictures (saying this knowing full well it doesn't, technically)? Or does it have a sprinkling of special pixie dust to bless your future exposures ? I can understand a "slight" premium, say 10%. But ~260% premium price-wise over 120? Wow, that takes some cojones...

Ektagraphic · Nov 22, 2014

I noticed this and I just assumed that they sold less off the 220, making the price go up. I guess maybe it is a matter of paying for the convenience of not having to reload. But, when having the film processed, it may be more economical in processing to have 220. Not sure that it would balance it out though.

Sirius Glass · Nov 23, 2014

There is not a cost advantage to shooting 220 over 120. I kept checking for several years. The choices of 220 film types is more limited.

MattKing · Nov 23, 2014

220 requires a special run to imprint edge printing, a special run to cut, special leaders and tails rather than standard backing paper and different packaging.

When volumes were high, those additional costs weren't particularly large, on a per roll basis.

But with low volumes ....

The cost of the actual film is very low. It is all the rest that makes the real difference.

I expect that the same sort of considerations are behind the relative increase of 100 foot bulk rolls of 35mm film.

fretlessdavis · Nov 23, 2014

There are some labs that charge the same for a develop only on 220 (Dwayne's I think is one of them). That would bring the cost of 1 220 roll vs 2 120 rolls pretty close.

Also, keep in mind, that if you're looking at buying film backs, 220 backs for all cameras seem to be going dirt cheap these days, so if you don' shoot too much C-41, like myself, it may even be a little cheaper at first. For example, A24 backs can be had on KEH in the $60-$80 range in EX condition, and A12 backs in EX condition are damn near $200 or more.

wiltw · Nov 23, 2014

From my wedding shooting days, my own memory of 220 was that it was simply about double the price of 120...consulting an old copy of Shutterbug from 2005 that I keep only for pricing 'in the old days', B&H price for 220 was indeed 2x the price of 120, and that was true of just about every brand of film.

Slixtiesix · Nov 23, 2014

Regarding the quality I remember a Zeiss statement some years ago that the film flatness with 220 is better, thus sharpness may be slightly more (But personally, I think that focus accuracy is a more decisive factor in this regard anyhow). The prices of 220 film compared to 120 film are indeed ridiculous now and though I always wanted to shoot it, it does not make any sense from a financial standpoint. My lab charges almost the same price for developing one 220 as they do for two 120, so no savings here either. Only 12 frames can be a bit limiting at times...

benjiboy · Nov 23, 2014

One thing you are paying for is the convenience of not having to reload after every 10 or 12 frames.

Old-N-Feeble · Nov 23, 2014

As others stated it's mostly due to sales volume but keep in mind too that 220 requires paper attached at both ends, unlike 120.

Prest_400 · Nov 23, 2014

benjiboy said:
One thing you are paying for is the convenience of not having to reload after every 10 or 12 frames.

And for travel where it can be nice to have double capacity per roll, half the volume of rolls needed compared to 120.
Got a Fuji 6x9 and on trips I do see that 220 offers nice features, 16 exp per roll.
However, 220 is very limited in availability and pricey.

I did look once a web of a seller on the wayback machine (archive.org) and back in 2009 E100G in 220 was very reasonably priced (and other films in 220 as well). Pro C41 and E6 film in 120 at 2.5-3 GBP a roll. My bad!
I do accept the price increases and less options because after all that is how things go. But it is interesting to see the evolution.

Sirius Glass · Nov 23, 2014

benjiboy said:
One thing you are paying for is the convenience of not having to reload after every 10 or 12 frames.

That is why I have multiple preloaded film backs when necessary.

film_man · Nov 25, 2014

Sirius Glass said:
That is why I have multiple preloaded film backs when necessary.

Yes but then you're not only carrying twice as many rolls but more backs as well. Shame 220 is so expensive to buy...in the UK you're looking at 3x as much for 220 vs 120.

Nuff · Nov 25, 2014

Just to add, 220 is cheaper in Japan.

120: 3610 yen
220: 6720 yen

Although trix is a rip off here. Supply and demand I guess, not to mention profit margins...

Hatchetman · Nov 25, 2014

DanielStone said:
As of my writing this, I've come to a big query or cost analysis of 120 vs 220 Whuuuuuut?

Portra 160 (120) $5.50/roll
Portra 160 (220) $14.79/roll
..

At those prices, you know the 220 will be off the market in short order.

DanielStone · Nov 26, 2014

Hatchetman said:
At those prices, you know the 220 will be off the market in short order.

Which, if actually happens, will be a really bad day for some wedding shooters I know. They use 220 simply because it allows them to shoot faster, and with less bulk... Commercial photographers w/ assistants, and shooting on a tripod, usually have a second chance. Weddings, not so...

Kodak/Alaris better get the news asap. From talking with some others both here and off-forum/offline, many more would shoot 220, if the price differential were not as wide as it currently is(nearly 3x). Double is understandable. Double(due to "double" the film) plus a small "convenience" charge of say, 10%, is understandable, and to some, well worth it. Kodak/Alaris needs to get the picture, cuz right now I'm seeing another dastardly priced gameplan if they intend on continuing to offer the 220 format in the Portra emulsions(I'd buy Ektar 100 in 220 if their pricing was more in line with 120 per sq. in)

-Dan

BrianShaw · Nov 26, 2014

DanielStone said:
Which, if actually happens, ...

When, Dan, not if.

p.s. I'm surprised to hear that you know wedding shooters still using film, and 220 at that. The last wedding that I was involved with was 18 years ago and it took quite a bit of talking to get the photographer to use MF film. He did and our album looks much better as a result. The photographer was also happy but a bit amused to be catering to the whims of a dinosaur... and that was 18 years ago so I can't imagine how queer that request would seem today.

Sirius Glass · Nov 26, 2014

I gave up waiting a while ago.

Cost analysis: 120 vs 220 Portra

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency