"Initiative TRI-X 400/220 Petition"

2F/2F · Mar 4, 2010

"If you were right, 220 film sales would reflect it.
They do not. Kodak is ending its 220 B+W line.
Ilford will not invest to create a 220 product.
What does that tell you?"

What it tells me is that those who make up "the market" are uneducated, as usual. What are people buying 120 for when 220 is available? Any "serious" shoot that I do with medium format would involve at least two rolls of 120. I can think of no reason to use two rolls of 120 rather than one roll of 220, unless I was simply unfamiliar with the format. I can think of reasons to use 120...but not two rolls of it as opposed to one roll of 220.

I think 220 went away because people were ignorant of it.

Alan W · Mar 4, 2010

Rolleiflexible said:
If you were right, 220 film sales would reflect it.
They do not. Kodak is ending its 220 B+W line.
Ilford will not invest to create a 220 product.
What does that tell you?

I don't know if I'm a typical user, but I shoot
Rolleiflexes and MF folders for the most part.
And a few Brownies for fun. I have over a dozen
MF cameras in my stable, mostly Rolleiflexes.
Not one of them will accept 220 film.

I've got a rapid omega,mamiya 330s,pentax 645 and 645n,rb 67 and all of them can take 220 film,and used to be well fed with hp5 back in the old days,now the 220 backs,inserts etc just lie there...waiting....

lxdude · Mar 4, 2010

Rolleiflexible said:
If you were right, 220 film sales would reflect it.
They do not. Kodak is ending its 220 B+W line.
Ilford will not invest to create a 220 product.
What does that tell you?

It tells me 220 film sales don't reflect it. It tells me 220 is, for whatever reason, less popular than 120.

I don't know if I'm a typical user, but I shoot
Rolleiflexes and MF folders for the most part.
And a few Brownies for fun. I have over a dozen
MF cameras in my stable, mostly Rolleiflexes.
Not one of them will accept 220 film.

So do all the Mamiya TLR's as well as SLR's from Mamiya, Bronica, Pentax, Hasselblad and Rollei, along with a few others, only amount to, as you said, a few percent of MF cameras in use these days? Old TLR's and folders are used more than all of those more modern cameras?

jamusu · Mar 4, 2010

Rolleiflexible said:
FWIW, I thought it a worthwhile discussion.

In the beginning it was, but now it has become worse than the film vs. digital debates that were placed in the soapbox by the moderator's. From the looks of it, this thread is headed in the same direction, and I'd much rather it be closed than placed there and be rendered useless.

Also, a couple of the responses posted earlier today within the thread were extremely distasteful. There are teenagers and women amongst us who are APUG subscribers/members. They should not be subjected to writings of the sort. With much regret I have made a formal request that it be closed.

Much thanks to my fellow Apug'ers who support the petition. It is my hope that you will continue to do as such. There is still much work to be done if we are to reach our goal of 1000 or more signatures. The petition will continue, just not here on APUG.

Dead Link Removed

Thank you,
Jamusu.

fotch · Mar 4, 2010

"I think 220 went away because people were ignorant of it."

Maybe some pro's, but not all, needed it. However, they have mostly abandon film. Amateurs including serious amateurs and snap shooters, and some pro's still shooting film evidently are not enough to come close to supporting the market.

Ilford, being a small company, probably could handle a smaller market yet, the profit just isn't there for them either.

I shot a few 220 rolls years ago and still have 2 rolls of PXP. After shooting with a 4x5, I found I took fewer but better photos. The motor drives for the 35's are almost never used.

Again, some have a specific need for longer medium format and I feel for them.

mikebarger · Mar 4, 2010

I shot a few 220 rolls years ago and still have 2 rolls of PXP. After shooting with a 4x5, I found I took fewer but better photos. The motor drives for the 35's are almost never used.

Same boat I'm in.

Mike

Rolleiflexible · Mar 4, 2010

2F/2F said:
What it tells me is that those who make up "the market" are uneducated, as usual. What are people buying 120 for when 220 is available? Any "serious" shoot that I do with medium format would involve at least two rolls of 120. I can think of no reason to use two rolls of 120 rather than one roll of 220, unless I was simply unfamiliar with the format. I can think of reasons to use 120...but not two rolls of it as opposed to one roll of 220.

I think 220 went away because people were ignorant of it.

I trust the market more than you do -- and I believe
that a market such as this, comprised mostly of serious
photographers (professionals and interested amateurs),
is most unlikely to be making uneducated choices out of
ignorance. It takes a lot of learning and money to put
a MF camera to work.

And I would disagree with your assumption that 220
film is innately better than 120. I shot about 3,000
rolls of 120 Tri-X in the making of my naked portrait
series over the past five years (on top of what I shot
for other work). I never felt inconvenienced by the
format, or wished that I could have shot 1,500 rolls
of 220 TXP instead. I don't like handling 220 film --
it's too long for my tastes to process, rinse and dry.
I respect your preference, but the market shows that
you are in a small minority on this.

Rolleiflexible · Mar 4, 2010

lxdude said:
It tells me 220 film sales don't reflect it. It tells me 220 is, for whatever reason, less popular than 120.

So all the Mamiya TLR's as well as SLR's from Mamiya, Bronica, Pentax, Hasselblad and Rollei, along with a few others, only amount to, as you said, a few percent of MF cameras in use these days? Old TLR's and folders are used more than all of those more modern cameras?

You and I might disagree about whether the MF
cameras in use today are capable of shooting
220 film, but that's beside the point. The point
is that almost no one uses 220 film any more --
that, as you say, "220 is, for whatever reason,
less popular than 120."

clayne · Mar 4, 2010

Rolleiflexible said:
And I would disagree with your assumption that 220
film is innately better than 120. I shot about 3,000
rolls of 120 Tri-X in the making of my naked portrait
series over the past five years (on top of what I shot
for other work). I never felt inconvenienced by the
format, or wished that I could have shot 1,500 rolls
of 220 TXP instead. I don't like handling 220 film --
it's too long for my tastes to process, rinse and dry.
I respect your preference, but the market shows that
you are in a small minority on this.

Meanwhile 120 is "just wait a sec while I reload." Perhaps for those unwashed types like us who also shoot 35mm, we don't find the length to be an issue since we're used to 36+ exp rolls of 135 film.

lxdude · Mar 4, 2010

jamusu said:
In the beginning it was, but now it has become worse than the film vs. digital debates that were placed in the soapbox by the moderator's. From the looks of it, this thread is headed in the same direction, and I'd much rather it be closed than placed there and be rendered useless.

Also, a couple of the responses posted earlier today within the thread were extremely distasteful. There are teenagers and women amongst us who are APUG subscribers/members. They should not be subjected to writings of the sort. With much regret I have made a formal request that it be closed.

Much thanks to my fellow Apug'ers who support the petition. It is my hope that you will continue to do as such. There is still much work to be done if we are to reach our goal of 1000 or more signatures. The petition will continue, just not here on APUG.

Dead Link Removed

Thank you,
Jamusu.

I do think it reached its nadir with that crude post and its followups, and was glad to see it was ignored by petition proponents. The poster did have cogent points, otherwise it would not have risen above the status of a troll, IMO.

I don't understand why people are so intent on repeatedly declaring the effort useless, but they do. If naysayers were always right, there would be no airplanes, cars, light bulbs, radio, television, personal computers, etc. With those and others there were people of knowledge who said they wouldn't work or wouldn't succeed. Sure, it's not identical to any of those, but the point is, if people listen to those who say something won't succeed, then it won't. If they don't, it might.

I like what one poster said about just letting the petitioners petition.

I think there was some meaningful discussion here and want to differentiate that from the potshots and simply negative comments.

nickandre · Mar 4, 2010

220 doesn't work with holgas, yashicas, seagulls, and the majority of the cheapo cameras I'm used to using.

Photo Engineer · Mar 4, 2010

I have 2 120 backs and one 220 back for my RZ and 3 120 and one 220 backs for my ETRsi. So, the 220 is not as popular with me as I can change backs quickly.

In addition, I find loading 220 backs on reels for processing much more tedious and prone to defects than loading 120. Drying is a pain due to the length of the rolls, and there are a number of other minor problems with 220 that never made it popular with me.

Now, on another tack, I am sure that Kodak has discontinued the paper heads and tails for spooling 220. If they were to restart it with the same or new products, then the manufacturing line would have to be restarted. This is not trivial due to the nature of the paper and inks used not to mention the edge feathering which caused a lot of discussion in another thread recently.

So, when the 120/220 lines for color are moving well, why displace them in any way for 220 B&W which is not moving well?

I think that the petition is fine, but one person above said that he would never use a Kodak film, but he signed the petition anyhow. If I were a Kodak marketing person reading that post, it would destroy the credibility of the petition utterly! I ask you to think about that and my previous post on why I have not signed the petition.

PE

mikebarger · Mar 4, 2010

Ron, you must not have read one of the above posts...... 220 is superior to 120 in every way.... Those of us using 120 are just part of the great unwashed.

Mike

MattKing · Mar 4, 2010

FWIW, in my earlier post when I made reference to 220 capable cameras, I was intentionally limiting my list to cameras that I knew to be capable of using 220, without the purchase of special purpose backs and inserts.

In other words, those cameras that could be fed 220, without special effort.

In my case, I have two of those cameras, and 220 inserts for two more cameras.

I also have Patterson compatible reels, so I can develop 220. I just have never shot much higher speed B & W in medium format, and therefore never learned to use TXP.

I do regret not shooting Plus-X in 220, when it was available.

Matt

jamusu · Mar 4, 2010

Digital technology did not kill analogue photography as many people seem to believe. Analogue photographers such as those who are doing all that they possibly can to stop this harmless petition from succeeding are the reasons that analogue photography is in the shape that it is in. As analog photographer's we are the minority in a world that is dominated by digital technology.

As the minority, it seems as though we would stick together and set aside our egos, but many have chosen to do the opposite and attack those who do not share the same views that they have. Not only has it occurred in this thread, but on many others that I have read as of late. What purpose does such behavior serve? Is it done for a false sense of dominance, a method of displaying one's superiority and self worth to the masses?

It literally sickens me with the direction this thread has taken, which is why I requested that it be closed. I have posted it on other websites that are primarily composed of digital photographers and to my surprise there was no backlash. Those who did not support the petition did not make negative post's of why it should not be signed or how it does not make since. They just did not sign it, simple as that.

To make matters worse, I would have expected them to be more negative with their responses, but to my utter disgust it is my fellow Apug'ers, those who profess to love film and analog photography who are most negative and oppositional. The Apug that I was once proud to be a subscriber/member of no longer exists. What has become of this website?

Jamusu.

mikebarger · Mar 4, 2010

You provided a link to the petition, looks like the thread here is a discussion of 220's viability. Are any of the posts on the petition actually negative?

Mike

Ken Nadvornick · Mar 4, 2010

jamusu said:
What has become of this website?

There are a lot of very large egos that live here. And needing to have the last word and to have your word be perceived as "right" above all other words only comes with that particular territory.

Your petition is good. My Yashica MAT-124G has an adjustable pressure plate. I signed your petition yesterday.

I didn't previously use 220 because I preferred the 400TX emulsion. If 220 400TX becomes available I would need to string a new drying wire up near the ceiling of my darkroom to handle it. And find some 220 reels.

I would do that.

I am under no illusions that my potential very modest purchases of a 220 400TX product would sway any decision makers at Kodak. I'm no Sanders - either quantity-wise or, sadly, quality-wise.

But I would use it at my modest levels in preference to 120. And right now it would be the only Kodak film I would be using. My last remaining eight rolls of Kodachrome in the freezer currently hold that soon-to-be extinct honor.

However, what I can't stand is to be anywhere around people who take the easy way out. Who always spout "No, no ,no..." at first mention, then walk away from a challenge without even trying. Without even thinking about trying. And who want to make sure nobody else even thinks about trying either. But success or failure aside, there is nobility in the attempt.

For the third time on APUG, I offer the following quote. Sadly, there are a handful on this thread for whom this will also be the third time to read it. And you know who you are:

"It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things." -T.R.

That is why your petition is good.

Ken

lxdude · Mar 4, 2010

mikebarger said:
You provided a link to the petition, looks like the thread here is a discussion of 220's viability. Are any of the posts on the petition actually negative?

Mike

Yes. Definitely. Some went so far as to call it a waste of time.

lxdude · Mar 4, 2010

I think that the petition is fine, but one person above said that he would never use a Kodak film, but he signed the petition anyhow. If I were a Kodak marketing person reading that post, it would destroy the credibility of the petition utterly! I ask you to think about that and my previous post on why I have not signed the petition.

PE

I would hope it would not destroy the petition's credibility if it's balanced by other comments. Every petition has frivolous entries and I figure Kodak knows to discount for that. I appreciate the signer's desire to help, but it doesn't if he then says he won't use it.
Your earlier statement regarding why you won't sign the petition made complete sense to me. Your reasons are principled.

SilverGlow · Mar 4, 2010

jamusu said:
Digital technology did not kill analogue photography as many people seem to believe. Analogue photographers such as those who are doing all that they possibly can to stop this harmless petition from succeeding are the reasons that analogue photography is in the shape that it is in. As analog photographer's we are the minority in a world that is dominated by digital technology.

As the minority, it seems as though we would stick together, but many have chosen to do the opposite and attack those who do not share the same views that they have. Not only has it occurred in this thread, but many others that I have read as of late. What purpose does such behavior serve? Is it done for a false sense of dominance, a method of displaying one's superiority and self worth to the masses?

It literally sickens me with the direction this thread has taken, which is why I requested that it be closed. I have posted it on other websites that are primarily composed of digital photographers and to my surprise there was no backlash. Those who did not support the petition did not make negative post's of why it should not be signed or how it does not make since. They just did not sign it, simple as that.

To make matters worse, I would have expected them to be more negative with their responses, but to my utter disgust it is my fellow Apug'ers and those who profess to love film and analog photography who are the who are most negative and oppositional. The Apug that I was once proud to be a subscriber/member of no longer exists. What has become of this website?

Jamusu.

Jamusu, yes you are right....we HATE film, and that is why we we spend a lot of time here on APUG. Gosh man, get a clue....we love film too but many of us hate ideas that do NOTHING for our beloved film. Analogue is dying because of digital, plain and simple. Another contributing factor is that us film users don't shoot enough, don't buy enough...and at the end of the day, that is killing off film.

You wrote many times that the petition you want us to sign will show how many users of film there are but get a clue man, that has already been done, and if you want to know the answer, just ask Kodak, the people that are discontinueing the 220 film...

You come up with a cookie half baked idea, then you lash out at the more objective members here for not going along with your idea.

You really are pathetic...get a grip, get some film and get your shoot on, man....F8 and be there...and stop with this pitty party already...post some of your work and lets celebrate the fact that now, today, we can still shoot film and have a grand time...

Do I hear an amen out there?!?

Here is a picture specially to you:

Dead Link Removed

Ken Nadvornick · Mar 4, 2010

SilverGlow said:
Do I hear an amen out there?!?

No.

Photo Engineer · Mar 4, 2010

lxdude said:
I would hope it would not destroy the petition's credibility if it's balanced by other comments. Every petition has frivolous entries and I figure Kodak knows to discount for that. I appreciate the signer's desire to help, but it doesn't if he then says he won't use it.
Your earlier statement regarding why you won't sign the petition made complete sense to me. Your reasons are principled.

I would hope so as well, as I really wish it would succeed, but things don't always go the way we wish, but rather the reality sets in and things go that way instead.

You see, on a quick read, one is often biased by the tenor of the comments and I am reading this as if I were a Kodak marketing guy trying to do his job with a quick perusal of comments. Well, I guess I have some degree of ability in that respect, but many APUG people won't give me that.

Yeah, I think I know how many people at EK might take this thread.

PE

jamusu · Mar 5, 2010

SilverGlow said:
Jamusu, yes you are right....we HATE film, and that is why we we spend a lot of time here on APUG. Gosh man, get a clue....we love film too but many of us hate ideas that do NOTHING for our beloved film. Analogue is dying because of digital, plain and simple. Another contributing factor is that us film users don't shoot enough, don't buy enough...and at the end of the day, that is killing off film.

You wrote many times that the petition you want us to sign will show how many users of film there are but get a clue man, that has already been done, and if you want to know the answer, just ask Kodak, the people that are discontinueing the 220 film...

You come up with a cookie half baked idea, then you lash out at the more objective members here for not going along with your idea.

You really are pathetic...get a grip, get some film and get your shoot on, man....F8 and be there...and stop with this pitty party already...post some of your work and lets celebrate the fact that now, today, we can still shoot film and have a grand time...

Do I hear an amen out there?!?

Here is a picture specially to you:

Dead Link Removed

Thank you for continuing to prove my point.

Jamusu.

SuzanneR · Mar 5, 2010

Ok... looks like everything has been said that needs to be said, and then some. Closed per OP's request.

"Initiative TRI-X 400/220 Petition"

2F/2F

Alan W

lxdude

jamusu

fotch

mikebarger

Rolleiflexible

Rolleiflexible

clayne

lxdude

nickandre

Photo Engineer

mikebarger

MattKing

Moderator

jamusu

mikebarger

Ken Nadvornick

lxdude

lxdude

SilverGlow

Ken Nadvornick

Photo Engineer

jamusu

SuzanneR

Moderator

"Initiative TRI-X 400/220 Petition"

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency