Same boat here. Two 220 backs for my Bronica SQ-series bodies, plus my 67-II will take it. But for how I shoot, swapping rolls of film more often is not that terrible a problem.
I think this is the whole reason 220 film has essentially disappeared. We have a pretty solid workaround unless you are a wedding or fashion photographer who still uses rollfilm.
That, and medium format backs have become so cheap, that you can buy as many as you can carry for not too much money. I used to have 5 for my Bronica S2A system (mainly for using the Zone system or shooting different film types, but I could also preload them all with the same film for portrait sessions), and those were switchable between 120 and 220.
2 backs w/ 220 is much easier to carry than 4 backs with 120.
LikeSome of this reads like the 50W vs 100W guitar amplifier threads on another un-named forum.
J. Doe: Got to have 100W it is twice as loud.
T. Foo: But it is only 3dB louder
J. Doe: But that is twice as loud
T. Foo: 3dB is too small a difference to be much louder.
J. Doe: Still, it is twice as loud, like two 50W amps
T. Foo: Two 50W amps are only 3dB louder than one
etc...
Some of this reads like the 50W vs 100W guitar amplifier threads on another un-named forum.
J. Doe: Got to have 100W it is twice as loud.
T. Foo: But it is only 3dB louder
J. Doe: But that is twice as loud
T. Foo: 3dB is too small a difference to be much louder.
J. Doe: Still, it is twice as loud, like two 50W amps
T. Foo: Two 50W amps are only 3dB louder than one
etc...
Some of this reads like the 50W vs 100W guitar amplifier threads on another un-named forum.
J. Doe: Got to have 100W it is twice as loud.
T. Foo: But it is only 3dB louder
J. Doe: But that is twice as loud
T. Foo: 3dB is too small a difference to be much louder.
J. Doe: Still, it is twice as loud, like two 50W amps
T. Foo: Two 50W amps are only 3dB louder than one
etc...
Certainly, it’s a tradeoff, if you’re carrying equipment in the field, especially if the backs in question are heavy like Linhof backs. Much more film choice, currently, in 120.
14 years ago, I asked Ilford (strictly speaking, Harman, who owned Ilford by then) exactly this...... it would be easy to order the film alone (in a very large quantity) from either Ilford or Kodak.
Isn't the basis for this whole thread now gone in view of Disconnekt's new thread on 220's arrival plus the arrival of a Shanghai film representative on that thread?
pentaxuser
You didn't offer to order enough14 years ago, I asked Ilford (strictly speaking, Harman, who owned Ilford by then) exactly this.
The answer was an emphatic "No", as (inter alia) it was almost impossible to do it by hand fault-free, even in a film factory.
They did not mention it, but is there not also an antihalation dye behind the emulsion on 220? So the stuff they roll on 120 is not really the same starting material.
Thanks for the reply. For the benefit of any other readers, I suspect this is the thread pentaxuser refers to: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/shanghai-gp3-100-in-220-now-available.187056/Isn't the basis for this whole thread now gone in view of Disconnekt's new thread on 220's arrival plus the arrival of a Shanghai film representative on that thread?
pentaxuser
How about putting this post into the 220 Shanghai Available thread and see how the "Official Account " representative responds? If he is serious about wanting to have our feedback then testing out his desire for feedback is the best way, isn't it?Well, the interesting thing about that representative is he (?) claims that the stuff I got was not official. And yet I contacted the company directly. Also no mention/apologies/offer to make it right for the garbage defective film that I bought.
Just that this time it will be better. If they want to gain trust, they should ship out for free some sample rolls so we can verify those claims, especially seeing that the price has now be jacked up.
How about putting this post into the 220 Shanghai Available thread and see how the "Official Account " representative responds? If he is serious about wanting to have our feedback then testing out his desire for feedback is the best way, isn't it?
pentaxuser
I am unsure of "Official Account's" seemingly sudden arrival on Photrio as well and have not made up my mind as to what Shanghai's "Official Account's " function and purpose is yet but if he has read the whole thread he may have concluded or reported back to his company Shanghai that we represent fairly infertile ground on which to scatter his Shanghai 220 seeds. I fear we may not appear to be the easiest of markets in which to sell
.. but it may be that as I have said, the above conclusion has been drawn and we have reached the stage where those curious about the film and having a strong desire for 220 will go ahead and buy anyway and others having decided that Shanghai fails to met their expectations will not.
Are there any advantages to 220 other than more shots per roll? Is that what all the angst is about? Not having to reload as often? Film enthusiasts are always saying they like shooting film because it slows them down and now they want to speed up. What's the hurry? It seems to me that 12 exposures is the perfect length. Otherwise, you might as well just buy a digital camera and some 512GB memory cards.
O.K. Huss and I understand your frustrations As I said I am not trying to pass comments on the rights and wrongs here but simply summing up where we might be. However I note that Shanghai appears to want to continue its participation on Photrio in the other thread and there are signs that it may be recognising its film's shortcomings and wants to do something about it
It would look as if "Official Account" is not a film technician but a "front man" who may be the only one who has the necessary command of written English to communicate well enough with us. His reaction to our collective annoyance of his statement on XRay does at least hint at there being good intentions but clearly we may have to expect that communications may not be as smooth as is the case with Ilford, Adox etc
I think that realistically we should not expect the same kind of consistent quality that we expect from the likes of Ilford but hopefully things can only get better if Shanghai has a real desire to establish itself as a film producer
It would seem that it will be the only 220 producer for a long time to come. It may be the only company for whom its facilities allow it to even try to make 220 and not lose money
pentaxuser
Dunno Mr. Pentaxuser.
Sounds like a bit of soft expectations. If you'd rep a car parts company and a shop of enthusiasts complain about a part and you spout some malarkey you'd get laughed out of the shop.
As my Grandmother says 'Don't pour tea on my head and tell me it's raining but expect to be excused because you only speak Russian'
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?