MattKing
Moderator
Are you sure they aren't manually re-cutting 120 backing paper? Doable, but the markings are wrong, and not practical for anyone like Kodak and Harman.
Is 220 film never coming back?
-
A
- Thread starter hankchinaski
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Two Graflex 6x9 film backs for Graflex RB 6x9 (2x3)
- Started by Alex Varas
-
For Sale Nokton 40mm f/.14 SC for Leica M cameras.
- Started by Alex Varas
-
For Sale Nikon F2AS + Nikkon 50mm f/1.8 Ai - CLA'd in July 2025.
- Started by Alex Varas
-
Sold Fujica Super Fujica-6 folder, 6x6
- Started by Dan Daniel
-
Want to Buy WTB: "As Maine Goes" by John McKee
- Started by TheTrailTog
Forum statistics
Are you sure they aren't manually re-cutting 120 backing paper? Doable, but the markings are wrong, and not practical for anyone like Kodak and Harman.
I don't know if film would work as a leader--maybe. I've never done this--I like the shorter rolls--but if I did I'd just save some 120 paper from previous rolls, cut them to length, and use a sharpie to pen in the arrow (as Donald said the specs are out there somewhere.) For slitting film, I believe a member here build film slitters. He has an ebay listing here:
Film slitter to cut any roll film (current or vintage size) to any smaller size | eBay
Whatever you call it, it cuts a roll of film down to a thinner roll of film. It is available in whatever size you can image -- just about. What makes it so great is that it is custom-made for your needs!
www.ebay.com
He might be able to build one.
EDIT: Forgot to mention, the Ilford ULF sale comes up once a year. You can see last year's item list here:
Oh, you will want trailer paper unless you want to pull the roll out of the magazine in a darkroom.
Last edited:
No, it's thicker than paper so you wouldn't be able to get the full length of film on the spool. Film also isn't opaque enough to prevent fogging.
That is why you should have a Hasselblad instead.
might consider…
Go ahead, you know that you always wanted it.
Well yes, I’ve always wanted that Swedish beauty, but being a lazy Hank, I wanted a camera with a meter. So lo and behold, I start seeing these H2 on eBay for 1.5k euro and I think to myself “delicious”! And the Zeiss lenses, so sharp!
I was all happy and dandy, until the moment I start looking for film backs. I found exactly one, in New Zealand or something like that, for…1.5k euro.
That was the end of the love story.
So now I’m stuck with my overweight German girlfriend, the 6008, breaking the scale at more than 5 kilos with a Distagon and a prism finder.
Thinking that I could have had a sleek Japanese, the sexy Mamiya C330…
Last edited:
I had inherited a Mamiya C330 with the 65mm, 80mm and 250mm lenses, prism, and every accessory in the known world. I could never become one with it. I had older lenses that had the aperture settings on one side and shutter speeds on the other. I was flipping it from side to side. It was too fiddly for me. The Hasselblad is much more compact and less fiddly. Plus once the shutter speed and aperture are set, one can rotate both the shutter speed and aperture together to the different combinations of the same exposure.
From what @Huss reported, this was exactly what they did for their first run of 220, but I've got an exposed and unprocessed roll next to my laptop right now, and it's clearly printed with 220 on the tail paper -- and it's not an overprint, it's inline with the edge stripes and appears to be the same ink. I recall it being marked as 220 at the head, too (not going to open a sealed roll to check, though -- I will have the head and tail papers in a couple weeks when I get that roll processed).
Excellent results, love the first pic!
Maybe, and I'm serious, one of the manufacturers, would/could offer a limited, handmade run at some ridiculous high price. Would people pay $40 / roll for 1000 rolls. It still wouldn't be worth Ilford's or Kodak's time.
Maybe Catlabs would take this on?
I suspect it's going to be a roll your own thing. I was never a big fan of 220, too long.
Maybe Catlabs would take this on?
I suspect it's going to be a roll your own thing. I was never a big fan of 220, too long.
From the point of view as a Hasselblad user, with several 220 backs, which can be loaded with basic rolls of blacked out darkroom loaded backs, with basic lead and tail of scraped film remains.
All that is needed is a decent dark changing bag, with light proof plastic or metal containers, with caps, so a paperless roll can be unloaded from a 220 back, inside the changing bag, labeled with masking tape, and, if you are compadent at loading previously prepared rolls of film, do so in the field.
Likewise, 70mm film cassettes with used leaders can be used in the field, cassette to cassette as normal, with the polymer leader substitution for paper and, as always, a shorter lenght of film, ie, 24 frames, can be loaded.
All that is needed is a decent dark changing bag, with light proof plastic or metal containers, with caps, so a paperless roll can be unloaded from a 220 back, inside the changing bag, labeled with masking tape, and, if you are compadent at loading previously prepared rolls of film, do so in the field.
Likewise, 70mm film cassettes with used leaders can be used in the field, cassette to cassette as normal, with the polymer leader substitution for paper and, as always, a shorter lenght of film, ie, 24 frames, can be loaded.
220 is never coming back, at least from either Kodak or Ilford. It's been gone close to 20 years now, note what Simon at Ilford said back in 2006 in this thread:
www.photrio.com
In further follow ups Simon said that the 220 was coated on a different base than 120, and even before being discontinued the sales of 220 were minuscule compared to 120. Even if their 220 machine was in working order, it wouldn't be an economically viable product to produce.
220 Film Petition / Reply From ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology
Dear Customers : We have received your petition for the return of ILFORD 220 roll film, we deeply respect the fervour and passion shown and the great effort that has been expended to assemble such a list of renowned photographers who would like to see this format re-introduced. We have...
www.photrio.com
In further follow ups Simon said that the 220 was coated on a different base than 120, and even before being discontinued the sales of 220 were minuscule compared to 120. Even if their 220 machine was in working order, it wouldn't be an economically viable product to produce.
MattKing
Moderator
I don't think Simon ever said that the 220 was on a different base. There may have been different anti-halation employed.
Probably necessary. The black surface of backing paper makes an excellent antihalation, but isn't present on 220. In fact, if the thickness is within range, it might work better to cut the 220 pancakes from the same master rolls that become 35 mm.
He did in this post. Apparently there is an anti wear/scratching layer on the backside to prevent scratches from the pressure plate. 120 doesn't need that because it's protected by the backing paper.
220 or it's later than you think
This is not a rumor based thread. I was checking to see what's available in 220 roll film and found just a couple of color films out there. No b&w 220 at all but I never shot it that much anyway. Anyone have something I might have missed? I see the Kodak color films at Freestyle and B&H. Curt
www.photrio.com
Cutting bulk 64 and 70mm films should no need additional backing as they are primarily used in machines that do no require backing papers.
MattKing
Moderator
He did in this post. Apparently there is an anti wear/scratching layer on the backside to prevent scratches from the pressure plate. 120 doesn't need that because it's protected by the backing paper.
220 or it's later than you think
This is not a rumor based thread. I was checking to see what's available in 220 roll film and found just a couple of color films out there. No b&w 220 at all but I never shot it that much anyway. Anyone have something I might have missed? I see the Kodak color films at Freestyle and B&H. Curt
I think we are using "base" differently. I take "base" to be in reference to the type and thickness of the substrate itself. I think Simon was, as you are, factoring in the different additions to the substrate, made necessary because of backing paper, or the lack of it.
The anti wear coating layer was probably used with 135 film as well.
Possibly also another example of the differences in nomenclature on either side of the pond.
FWIW, as far as I can tell, all the Kodak 120 and 220 films (when both sizes were available) were coated on the same substrate - 3.6 mil acetate for the still films, and 3.9 mil acetate for the transparency films.
From other things Simon said I took it to meant the substrate, and that the 220 substrate also had an additional coating for abrasion resistance. I could well be wrong though.
Never the less, it's clear that 220 is a significantly different product than 120, and that makes its reintroduction cost prohibitive. Simon said that back in the pre-digital days that 220 sales were less than 5% of 120 sales, and I would imagine that market is even smaller now if 220 was to appear.
Never the less, it's clear that 220 is a significantly different product than 120, and that makes its reintroduction cost prohibitive. Simon said that back in the pre-digital days that 220 sales were less than 5% of 120 sales, and I would imagine that market is even smaller now if 220 was to appear.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,759
- Format
- 35mm
I don't think the Linfof 220 will accept 120 film.
I bought some 220 b&w (fresh date) film on eBay last year but haven't used it yet.
I bought some 220 b&w (fresh date) film on eBay last year but haven't used it yet.
That'll be the GP3 we've talked about. Hopefully what you got a year ago was after they started full production, rather than the "prototype" product that was apparently hand rolled with recut 120 backing.
The Linhof 220 was very clever. You could move the pressure plate to 120 or 220 positions to let you use either type of film. My Fuji GW690II has the same capability.
What a great idea. Could be the right kind of visionary to see such a project through! Perhaps a Photrio petition with endorsements from Photrio mods/management might provide the incentive.
Our studio liked having the original 12 backs as one could use either 120 or 220.
Hassy even made a 220 plug for the viewing window
The OP said: "pain in the eye it is to change roll every 12 photos"
Even more so if using a Linhof 617 (only 4 shots on 120).
Even more so if using a Linhof 617 (only 4 shots on 120).
What would really be cool, DAYLIGHT RELOADS FOR 35mm CASSETTES! Back in the day you could buy paper wrapped 35mm reloads, film on a center spool without the outer metal cassette. You opened up your cassette, removed the empty spool, slipped in the reload, with it's paper tongue hanging out, after buttoning up the cassette you pulled the paper tongue and out popped the film leader.
We could sell it as a lower carbon footprint version, use 100% post-consumer recycled plastic and paper.
EcoChrome!
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |