Ektar 100 in 220?

Steve Smith · Aug 18, 2010

hrst said:
it's also an undoubtable fact that when you have 120 film in your camera with less exposures, you shoot less frames than when you have more exposures available. With 220, you also have to shoot more before you can change the film to your camera (if you don't have multiple backs). This makes you use more film.

You may be correct but that is probably not enough to convince a manufacturer to produce a product in 220 as well as 120 (and it's fewer frames, not less frames!).

Steve.

andrewkirkby · Aug 18, 2010

I buy Fuji and Kodak slide films in 220. They are still selling it.

It means I can carry twice as many exposures in the same space. Very important while traveling.

6x9 · Aug 18, 2010

I shoot 6x9 only in medium format. I vote for more 220! I rather carry my camera and 20 rolls of 220 then my camera and 40 120 rolls.

benjiboy · Aug 18, 2010

michaelbsc said:
Sure they could do it if they wanted to. But Ilford's objective is to make a profit, not to make film. Making and selling film is the vehicle they use to make a profit.

Why don't we petition the government to purchase them a confectioning machine to support our art use of film?

I agree entirely Kodak exists to make a profit for their shareholders too, and they know their business or the company wouldn't have lasted so long, and they obviously don't think it's in their commercial interest to manufacture it.

michaelbsc · Aug 18, 2010

6x9 said:
I shoot 6x9 only in medium format. I vote for more 220! I rather carry my camera and 20 rolls of 220 then my camera and 40 120 rolls.

All of my 6x9 have a red window.

Do you have something that does not? Can you tell me what camera it is?

Sysygy · Aug 18, 2010

Maybe Kodak does not want any of the Portra 220 sales to be bled off by Ektar in 220. I know they are different films. But my last order was some Portra specifically to have some 220.

Sirius Glass · Aug 18, 2010

Boy that dead horse is really beginning to smell.

Steve

6x9 · Aug 18, 2010

michaelbsc said:
All of my 6x9 have a red window.

Do you have something that does not? Can you tell me what camera it is?

The Fujis.

Ektagraphic · Aug 20, 2010

I just picked up a pack Portra 400VC in 200. It will be my first 220 experience. We'll see how it goes.

Q.G. · Aug 21, 2010

Ektagraphic said:
I just picked up a pack Portra 400VC in 200. It will be my first 220 experience. We'll see how it goes.

I think i can safely predict (assuming you already know and like the emulsion - i can't predict whether you will or not else) how it will go: you will notice that you have to change film less.
Also that you have to carry fewer rolls of film.

2F/2F · Aug 21, 2010

The posts about how making 220 is not all that different from making 220 may be true, but ignore the market.

If 220 was profitable, it would likely be done.

The problem is lack of demand, the way I see it...and the lack of demand comes from ignorance of the product.

You would be surprised just how many medium format film photographers are out there who don't even know 220 exists, or who know it exists, but have never used it, because they simply don't know that it is the same, only better for most purposes. I know people who will shoot roll upon roll of 120, using a film that is available in 220, with the same development to be performed on all the rolls, while their 220 inserts for their back sit in their camera bag never to be used again. Then they will pay $6 per roll to develop the 120 rolls, instead of paying $8 per roll to develop half as many 220 rolls. When I ask why, they have no answer, but continue to go on using 120 only.

120 is the more versatile film, as I cannot think of a camera that shoots 220, but not 120, but I can think of plenty cameras that shoot 120 only.

...but with all the people out there who own relatively modern medium format cameras like Hassies, RB/RZs, Bronicas, Pentaxes, etc., and the fact that these people very often (if not most of the time) shoot more than 10 to 15 shots in a shoot (sometimes shooting dozens to hundreds of pix, in fact), all intended for the same type of development, the lack of use of 220 film amazes me.

Q.G. · Aug 21, 2010

2F/2F said:
[...] I know people who will shoot roll upon roll of 120, using a film that is available in 220, with the same development to be performed on all the rolls, while their 220 inserts for their back sit in their camera bag never to be used again. Then they will pay $6 per roll to develop the 120 rolls, instead of paying $8 per roll to develop half as many 220 rolls. When I ask why, they have no answer, but continue to go on using 120 only.

I have an answer to that: over here, 220 film costs more per roll than two rolls of 120.
And having a roll of 220 processed costs exactly twice as much as having a roll of 120 film processed (same 2x costs also applies when you do it yourself).

So bottom line, using 220 film costs more.
And for many, many things, a roll of 120 film is too long already.

So it does not amaze me that i don't use 220 film more at all.

I still do though, when having to carry a good amount of film, and will expose a good amount to before having any of it processed.
I'm still undecided about whether i like Ektar, but am quite happy with Portra, which is still available in 220. I would love to have T-Max in 220 too though.

hrst · Aug 21, 2010

2F/2F said:
The problem is lack of demand, the way I see it...and the lack of demand comes from ignorance of the product.

You would be surprised just how many medium format film photographers are out there who don't even know 220 exists, or who know it exists, but have never used it, because they simply don't know that it is the same, only better for most purposes.

You are now at the heart of the problem.

This happens every now and then in all fields, some products just don't "catch fire". It's sometimes quite an uncontrolled, almost random process.

And, I'm not ignoring the marketing aspect, quite the opposite. I've been saying it's just the marketing. And furthermore, as the marketing has to change anyway, there could be a new possibility for some 220 films at the same time. People buy more and more from big stores via Internet, so store shelf space doesn't matter anymore, as doesn't minimum order amounts that are problematic with small, local stores. But in addition to this, people should be told that 220 film exists! It's a great format, not for all but for many.

benjiboy · Aug 24, 2010

All I can say is don't hold your breath waiting for it.

TSSPro · Aug 24, 2010

It would be great...but....I dont think that it will happen any time soon. It may be worth a try, though.

Ektagraphic · Aug 24, 2010

Let's all go on a Kodak 220 craze, if you like the films available, and then they might have reason to do it with Ektar.

Sirius Glass · Aug 24, 2010

benjiboy said:
All I can say is don't hold your breath waiting for it.

That is why "When Sonny gets blue". Apologies to Mario Lanza.

Ektar 100 in 220?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency