Ilford and 220, for film resurgence?

Color neg in 220 is easy peasy just point and click whatever you desire. The 70mm B&W stuff I have acquired cheaply took a very long time to acquire. Now I am set well for a good while. But I will prolly get some of the 220 Shanghai B&W just because it's available and I have six 220 backs from when I was shooting weddings I am holding back on shooting my stock of B&W 220 film. I have about fifty rolls left, loaded up when I could and it was going away

guangong said:

Odd, but I never felt limited to only 12 frames to a roll, and I have been using my Rollei since about 1970. Very easy and fast to reload a Rollei. Why would anyone want to carry two Rolleis? One reason I use a Rollei is for the simplicity and little baggage. If I want to lug around a lot of stuff I use my Hasselblad.

Click to expand...

There was a time when Walker Evans traveled with three Rolleis-- a Wide, Tele and 80mm.

Arthurwg said:

There was a time when Walker Evans traveled with three Rolleis-- a Wide, Tele and 80mm.

Click to expand...

I can imaging him walking down the street with the three of them hanging around his neck. Now that is eye candy.

Arthurwg said:

There was a time when Walker Evans traveled with three Rolleis-- a Wide, Tele and 80mm.

Click to expand...

“Travelled with “/is a lot different than hanging them around the neck. Right now travellingn with Plaubel Makina, Fuji gf670, and two Leicaflexes with three lenses, but don’t carry around all at once. Although possible he carried two in shoulder bag, while one in use. Of course, all is a question of personal choice. Depends upon one’s working habits.

Arthurwg said:

There was a time when Walker Evans traveled with three Rolleis-- a Wide, Tele and 80mm.

Click to expand...

I recall it was a set of 2 of each in a custom fitted case.

Lachlan Young said:

I recall it was a set of 2 of each in a custom fitted case.

Click to expand...

Now that's a lot of Rolleis!

One reason I use Rollei is for ease and agility when in use. Instead of Carrying a bunch of Rolleis, a Hasselblad with three lenses would be much lighter and easier to carry. By the way, what is the source of this story? Just curious.

guangong said:

One reason I use Rollei is for ease and agility when in use. Instead of Carrying a bunch of Rolleis, a Hasselblad with three lenses would be much lighter and easier to carry. By the way, what is the source of this story? Just curious.

Click to expand...

A wise man carries a Hasselblad with three lenses instead of three Rolleis around his neck.

Source of this thread? OP probably had strong onions and tainted garlic for breakfast, but no facts to speak of.

Developing Long Roll 70mm by Nokton48, on Flickr

70mm Kindermann dev tank filled with Kodak Surveillance film up to 70 exposures now ready to develop. Single Paterson 70mm reel hacked by me to fit) fully loaded with 24 exposures Kodak Aerial Recon Film (this is the razor thin stuff comes in 500 foot roll). Tall Paterson System 4 (hacked by me) holds two 70mm 24 exposure length rolls, plus a roll of 35mm Eastman XX movie film.

This Kindermann tank is a chemistry hog (requires nearly a full gallon) and is -very- slow to fill and dump. Allow at least a minute for filling and draining. Also weighs a ton when full. A unique tool.

All tanks are fully loaded and ready to soup. This is a bit of film! and will help clear some backlog

B&H has 70mm HP5+ in stock for $229. I bought a roll last year, when it was being discounted to $169.

This is no savings over 120. Advantage is I am rolling 24 exposure rolls to feed my Blads. A 220 length roll is what I am after and this is fresh stock in stock NOW

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1139150-REG/ilford_1174821_hp5_plus_black_and.html

Nokton48 said:

B&H has 70mm HP5+ in stock for $229. I bought a roll last year, when it was being discounted to $169.

This is no savings over 120. Advantage is I am rolling 24 exposure rolls to feed my Blads. A 220 length roll is what I am after and this is fresh stock in stock NOW

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1139150-REG/ilford_1174821_hp5_plus_black_and.html

Click to expand...

This is no savings over 120. Thank you, that is the point that hangs me up. Also I would only use 24 exposures on vacation.

he is rolling 24 since the 70mm-system( be it jobos 2517-reel or the altered jobo 2500/ paterson 4-reel-workaouround) needs this lenght around 172cm. never devellopped more that one piece of 70mm film in C-41 processing using testdrum 2820(made for 10 x20cm prints). yes on CPA2. tilting possible with lid. 500ml. . is it safe? have seen rolllers made for 2500-system.

I just rolled out a 220 in 160NC. Only issue with self rolling from 70mm is the availability of 70mm and taping the backing paper in the dark. If someone has a solution I'd be glad to hear it.

Kingswood Gardens Hassy 30mm Distagon Fisheye 1 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Frog Pond, Kingswood Gardens, Mansfield Ohio. Kodak 70mm WL Surveillance Film, ADOX Borax MQ dev, Hasselblad 500C/M 30mm T* Distagon, Handheld exposure. Arista #2 8x10 Matte RC paper, Multigrade dev. Processed in 70mm Kindermann Dev Tank

Kodak Surveillance reminds me a lot of the older Tri-X emulsion. The sun was just out of the frame upper left corner. The circular garden works well with the Hassy Fishy lens.

This was a fun shoot! More from this trip forthcoming.

Well, if somebody didn't mentioned it, I never knew that a topic (thread) about 220 film extists.
This topic amazes me... isn't the 220 just a double lenghth 120 film? Dosen't is uses the same size backing paper as a 120 film?

nokia2010 said:

Well, if somebody didn't mentioned it, I never knew that a topic (thread) about 220 film extists.
This topic amazes me... isn't the 220 just a double lenghth 120 film? Dosen't is uses the same size backing paper as a 120 film?

Click to expand...

The paper is different. Instead of having a single piece of paper behind the film, there are two separate pieces of paper . At the beginning there is paper leader, then unbacked film, then a separate paper trailer.

nokia2010 said:

Well, if somebody didn't mentioned it, I never knew that a topic (thread) about 220 film extists.
This topic amazes me... isn't the 220 just a double length 120 film? Doesn't is uses the same size backing paper as a 120 film?

Click to expand...

220 film was used by some professional photographers, but most of the 120 film users did not take to it because:

• A 220 roll cost more than twice as much as two 120 rolls
• A 220 roll development cost more than two 120 rolls to develop
• The selection of films was very limited

Why to cost more then twice?
I would like 220 film if I would have a camera with detachable back.

nokia2010 said:

Why to cost more then twice?
I would like 220 film if I would have a camera with detachable back.

Click to expand...

Hasselblad. I looked into 220 film when I bought my Hasselblad about 10 years ago and the limited film choices and the cost made it not worth it to buy the 220 backs which at the time were cheaper than the 120 backs.

Limited choice becuase of limited demand?
One thing puzzles my mind: filmpack users are less in number then the potential user of 220 film. But they still made filmpacks. How come that? Or the filmpack requires less technology?
And the backing paper is such high tech that I can't be made by the film companies themselfs?

nokia2010 said:

And the backing paper is such high tech that I can't be made by the film companies themselfs?

Click to expand...

Once they did - when Kodak was far, far, far bigger than it now is, and the sales volumes were far, far, far bigger than they are now.
It is quite complex stuff - it is thicker in the middle then at the edges, and it and the ink printed on it has to be lightproof and cannot interact chemically with the film emulsion that is pressed against it when the film and backing paper is wound on to the spool.

My recent 220 experiment was a success. This is some 70mm 160NC slit down and rolled onto some home cut 220 leader and tail. I shot it through my Bronica S2 with no issues. I don't think I'll try it again anytime soon though.

nokia2010 said:

But they still made filmpacks. How come that? Or the filmpack requires less technology?

Click to expand...

When film packs were introduced (in the 1920s), they were a significant step forward from glass plates and single (or double) sheet film holders. Load your camera once, and get up to sixteen exposures in rapid succession, plus it was possible (for an experienced darkroom worker) to "rob the pack" -- remove exposed frames for processing while leaving unexposed film still in place for future use (this is more or less possible with 35mm or 70mm, but surely not with 120 or 220). Film pack wasn't "standard" in any way, however, except to its own standard. A 4x5 pack film was larger than 4x5 sheet film (so needed special equipment), on thinner base than 120 (to be flexible enough to pull around a 180 degree bend inside the pack when the tab was pulled after exposure), and the paper on the tabs and backing had to meet most of the same standards as 120 backing (it was in contact with the emulsion in the pack, both before and after exposure, and had to at least prevent print-through from what might be a gross overexposure to the next frame).

What I've read was that Kodak continued to produce, package, and sell pack film until the two women who'd been hand assembling the packs since the 1950s retired. At that point (in the early 2000s) it was no longer cost effective to train replacements for them, with film sales on the wane. Film pack was big in the press camera era -- an experienced press photographer could zip off sixteen frames with a Speed Graphic in very little more than a minute, and swap packs in thirty seconds or so to ready another sixteen frames. Once press photographers had all switched to smaller film, film packs became a niche item.

Uh, what's the difference between a film pack and a sheet holder?

nokia2010 said:

Uh, what's the difference between a film pack and a sheet holder?

Click to expand...

Fourteen exposures before having to swap backs...

Seriously, a film pack loads sixteen exposures into a package about the same size as a double dark slide film holder. Load the pack holder, pull the first tab and tear it off, you're ready to expose. After each exposure, pull the lowest numbered tab visible and tear it off. When you run out of tabs, all the film is protected behind the spring plate in the film pack, so you can open the pack holder, take out the exposed pack, and load another. The film pack holder generally has its own dark slide, as well, so you can take it off the camera without fogging a frame.

IMO, film packs were the best possible way to use a press camera (or a plate camera, for that matter), especially if you have a rangefinder calibrated for the mounted lens. With film packs, 4x5 was faster than red window 120, comparable to lever-advance 120 backs -- but with more than twice the image area of even 6x9 cm 120 film.