"Initiative TRI-X 400/220 Petition"

[jamusu]

"Initiative TX 400/220 Petition"

When Kodak cancelled TXP 320 (120/220) they brought to an end the era of black and white film photography in 220 format. This drastic decision led to my creating an online petition asking that they manufacture TX 400 (120) in 220 format also. It is my hope that you will sign the petition just as I and other "Film Users" have.

If you choose to sign the petition, if it is not too much of a problem, I ask that you write in your own words how much this film is needed so that Eastman Kodak can gain a better understanding of our request. This can be done in the section that reads, "I support this petition".


The link to the petition is as follows:

www.petitionspot.com/petitions/TX400220/

Thank you,
Jamusu.

 

[Chazzy]

Thanks very much. It has to be tried.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Signed.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

James, I've signed as well. It's a good idea to ask for an emulsion that they DO plan to continue in 220 format. Seems a logical solution, if they'll listen.

Never, ever hurts to try.

- CJ

 

[MikeSeb]

Sigh. Best of luck.

 

[jim appleyard]

Signed.

 

[MattKing]

I've signed as well.

Thanks James for your efforts.

Matt

 

[Ektagraphic]

Signed. Thanks!

 

[mbsmith]

Done. Here's hoping.

 

[AgX]

Kodak do not seek petitions, but cash.

 

[mikebarger]

It will be interesting to see how many 220 B&W users are out there.

Mike

 

[SuzanneR]

Signed... hopeless romantic for 220 format, but I'm not particularly optimistic that we'll see it happen. *sigh*

 

[lxdude]

Kodak do not seek petitions, but cash.

Yep. But we can't buy it if it doesn't exist.

Signed.

 

[36cm2]

Signed. Kudos on your activism.

 

[dbonamo]

Signed

 

[Roger Thoms]

Done, good luck.

Roger

 

[K-G]

I have just signed the petition. It is a good initiative and I certainly hope that it can be realised. I understood from a coment by "photo engineer" in another thread that a problem is that 220-film has to be coated on a thinner film base than 120-film in order to get all the film safely onto a standard spool. I think this is one reason why Kodak is discontinuing the TXP 320 in 220 size. Then there is one film base quality less to keep track of.
If Kodak does not start making any B&W film in 220-size it may perhaps be possible to convince them to supply TX-400 in 100 feet rolls or similar so we can wind our own 220 film even if it will be slightly shorter than the standard type.
Let us hope for the best .

Karl-Gustaf

 

[payral]

Signed

 

[photo8x10]

Signed

 

[theseasideartist]

Count me in.
DMW

 

[lxdude]

I understood from a coment by "photo engineer" in another thread that a problem is that 220-film has to be coated on a thinner film base than 120-film in order to get all the film safely onto a standard spool.

Not according to Kodak's technical publications. They state that 120 and 220 are coated on a 3.9 mil (.1mm) base.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Even though the ten rolls I ordered got lost by the US Post Office and I cannot get it replaced.

I sighed.

Steve

 

[SuzanneR]

Not according to Kodak's technical publications. They state that 120 and 220 are coated on a 3.9 mil (.1mm) base.

There are a number of hurdles to overcome in the manufacture of 220 format film. It would be interesting to know if 220 format Tri-x 400 would have sold better than the Tri-x 320, but I fear this may be a lost cause... I've signed this petition (and signed a French petition asking that Tri-x 400 be manufactured in 22o a couple of years ago) and understood at that time that the market for this format was too small for the unique problems it presents in in its manufacture.

I'll tell you though... I sure would buy a boatload Tri-x 400 in 220 if I could.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Kodak do not seek petitions, but cash.

Given. And agreed. Just the same, DONE.

 

[jgjbowen]

signed