Ektar 100 in 220?

[aoresteen]

I just got off the phone with Kodak Professional (1-800-242-2424 option 13 - B&W gets you to the pro color division guys).

I asked about Ektar 100 in 220 rolls. He said it was possible but didn't know if it was in the plans. Every call get tracked and are reviewd by production managers.

So if you are interested in seeing Ektar 100 in 220 rolls, give Kodak a ring and ASK them for it. It can't hurt!

 

[PhotoJim]

I'm not going to get greedy! I imagine if it's highly successful in 120, 220 is well possible.

 

[E76]

I agree—let's not get ahead of ourselves! For the time being (and foreseeable future), I'd be satisfied if medium format film only came in 120 format.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I agree—let's not get ahead of ourselves! For the time being (and foreseeable future), I'd be satisfied if medium format film only came in 120 format.

What he said!

Steve

 

[Chazzy]

I agree—let's not get ahead of ourselves! For the time being (and foreseeable future), I'd be satisfied if medium format film only came in 120 format.

And I'd be satisfied if 220 were available in every emulsion!

 

[Edwardv]

I am still waiting for the return of 220 in Plus-X.

 

[aoresteen]

But guys, if we don't ask for it, how will Kodak know that we want it?

 

[Q.G.]

Quite right.

 

[sidearm613]

I just want more B+W 220 choices for me! How about some plus-x, FP4, Pan F+, or one of the more specialty emulsions (Efke 25...) in 220. Oh, I'll keep dreaming.

 

[Ektagraphic]

Write a letter to Kodak! It may be effective if they get enough....I am doubtful that will say yes.

 

[Chazzy]

I am still waiting for the return of 220 in Plus-X.

That would please me a good deal more than Ektar 100 in 220, but then, I think that everything should be available in 220.

 

[Edwardv]

That would please me a good deal more than Ektar 100 in 220, but then, I think that everything should be available in 220.

Hear! Hear! Another around of drinks for every film in 220.

 

[LightMiner]

Reason for 220

I really, really prefer 220 because I get the dinky CD horrible scan at time of processing, particularly if using negative film as otherwise I have no idea what I have and don't own a scanner. When I find images I really like, I have them drum scanned and sometimes rent a flextight at a local place. But in the short term I use the 3 - 5 MB images on the CD scan at time of processing - which is 20 or 25 bucks per CD or something like that. It doesn't matter if its 120 or 220. So, if I go out for a 3 or 4 day shooting trip and come back with what would either be 6 rolls of 220 or 12 rolls of 120, it costs *a lot* more if I'm using 120.

And obviously, if you do 6X9, 6X12 or 6X17 then 220 rocks! And I do rent a 6X17 on ocassion.

I do have to say, though, after years of exposure and f-stop bracketing with the same camera (and going through tons of 220 because of all the bracketing ) I'm getting to the point where I take very very few pictures, and a high percentage of them come out well. My 'digital' brothers and sisters on the other hand shoot at anything that moves or doesn't move and have a very low percentage of keepers. It is all very interesting... (I don't think the shotgun approach is bad, but I do find the difference interesting. It is a hobby after all, whatever makes people happy!)

 

[Aurelien]

I agree: larger choice of film in 220 would be wonderful. In particular in B&W, where only txp 320 is available. Plus X would be a great choice.

 

[benjiboy]

I doubt it, at a time when most manufacturers are thinking of discontinuing 220 film because of the low sales volume, I'll just be happy that they continue to make it in 120 if the level of sales justify it .

 

[Sirius Glass]

I doubt it, at a time when most manufacturers are thinking of discontinuing 220 film because of the low sales volume, I'll just be happy that they continue to make it in 120 if the level of sales justify it .

Ditto.

When I pickup up MF again, I wanted to shoot 220 but the selection of available films was not.

Steve

 

[bagdad child]

Somewhat off topic but hopefully useful..

A few observations after my first roll of Ektar 100 in 120 shot and scanned. Be careful about underexposing shadow areas in a scene if you don't intend to have black shadows with very little or no detail. One stop of underexposure in shadows worked out ok for my taste but not more. Please note that a high-end scanner may give different results compared to my ones. I overexposed a few shots by about two stops (metering sunlit areas) to have good shadows and the highlights looked great. Box speed is fine for backlit scenes with low contrasts. I have read that some people rate it at 64 or 50, but I would say you should rate it according to the scene and conditions. Sometimes it will be iso 25 and sometimes box speed. Colors are beautiful but not necessarily natural. I photographed mostly violet and purple colored flowers, green leaves and grass and blue skies. The colors pop in a strange cold manner. I like it but you need to judge for yourself. The film scans very well.

 

[Chazzy]

I'm another person who would be happy if Kodak could offer more emulsions in 220. But increasing the number of black and white options would take priority for me over Ektar 100.

 

[Q.G.]

Indeed. I want TMax in 220 badly!

 

[Chazzy]

Indeed. I want TMax in 220 badly!

I'm a little surprised that Kodak didn't offer the new TMax 400 in 220, since Kodak seems to push their TMax films and the latest version ought to have wide professional appeal.

 

[Athiril]

I would settle for Royal Gold 25 in 120, not Ektar 100!

 

[Sysygy]

Dear Kodak,
Thank you for Ektar. Please make it in 220.
Sincerely,
Sysygy

 

[Athiril]

Take a MF shooters poll and ask them how many of them use 220.

 

[hrst]

Take a MF shooters poll and ask them how many of them use 220.

That would be unfair, because you cannot use products that do not exists. You should ask how many would use 220, or are using 220 of those products that are sold in 220, which is quite rare.

I would like to use 220 in my Mamiya 7 for most films.

And, as we know, it's not a matter of manufacture, but more like a matter of organization of the packaging and retailer chain.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Like it or not. 220 is slowly dieing. There is not hope for a change.

Steve