Is there going to be 220 available again ... one day?

[K-G]

We can't read the link, because it is inside a private conversation.
If you feel that ADOX are willing to have your conversation be public, can you copy and paste the contents?

OK , I will make a try here. My original question was if ADOX could sell 120/220 size film in bulk rolls for those
who wanted to fix the 220 film themselves. :

info@adox.de

Supplying 61,5mm slittings is no problem at all but I don´t share your enthusiasm about rolling 220 film yourself.
The film also needs a spacial back coating against microscratches from the pressure plate. This we cannot provide because 120 film does not have/need this.

Kind regards,

Mirko

http://www.adox.de
http://www.polywarmtone.com
http://www.fotoimpex.de

 

[halfaman]

I bought only once 220 film and it as in Tokyo 6 years ago. It was available on all Fuji colour films (negative and positive) and some Kodak Portra. The price was good, just a little bit more than 2x120 rolls. In Europe was a total nonsense, price was triple a 120 roll.

I don't think there is an asembly machine for 220 nowadays, so this format is gone.

 

[mnemosyne]

OK , I will make a try here. My original question was if ADOX could sell 120/220 size film in bulk rolls for those
who wanted to fix the 220 film themselves. :

It appears that you can buy 600m-rolls of 61.5mm film from Foma. A Czech guy just did this recently and split up the 600m in 25m rolls that he sold on to fellow photogs, as documented in a thread in German photography forum aphog.

The material can be used to roll your own 220, and this is what most of the buyers apparently do. Rolling 120 from the bulk makes no economic sense IMO, as the price of the raw material for a roll of 120 is very close to what you pay for a finished 120 roll in Foma's webshop.

The problem of scratching has not been discussed in the relevant thread, one of the contributors to the thread is also posting here on Photrio, maybe he will report his findings. I personally have no use for 220 rolls, as I find 120 to be just the right length for my style of shooting.

 

[markbau]

Every time I used 220 film I got edge fog because of the lack of backing paper. Even when I knew what was causing it I could never eliminate it completely. In the pro lab I worked at it was quite common to see edge fogged 220 film so it wasn’t just happening to me.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Every time I used 220 film I got edge fog because of the lack of backing paper. Even when I knew what was causing it I could never eliminate it completely. In the pro lab I worked at it was quite common to see edge fogged 220 film so it wasn’t just happening to me.

Except this was not common, just in case someone might want to read it like that. I just saw 220 having its place, but had no idea of manufacturing differences actually.

If 220 requires special back coating for lack of backing paper, than obviously spooling own 220 from 120 stock isn't really an option, as some have apparently been trying. And I was only after production 220 to begin with, I have enough second thoughts about 35 spooling, but t is kind of fun.

 

[Bikerider]

On a scale of 1 to 10 I think the actual probability will be somewhere around 0.

 

[138S]

Film appears to be gaining ground in demand department and production is up. So the question is: will the 220 ever make it back to the market? I'm guessing demand would have to be not just higher but with consistent upward trend, and ... calls for 220 loud enough. While in general I still used 120 most of the time, 220 had its place too (not talking studio high pace shooting).

Perhaps holding onto some 220 holders is not such a bad idea, or ... stock up on a few that are currently still priced to sell?

In general 220 is a very Pro format.

It was great for wedding and fashion. For Genesis, Sebastião Salgado wanted to use TX400 but he used TXP320 because it was in 220, having to find a development solution to emulate TX400 from TXP320.

An MF amateur may often prefer 120.

While a Pro may not want interruptions when shooting hard it happens that an amateur may want to develop film without spending that much film.

What happens is that today's film consumption is mostly done by amateurs and enthusiasts, so it's difficult that enugh market interest is there, still if 220 had a good price advantage per shot, which it would be possible, then perhaps it would be sold well.

 

[guangong]

I used 220 only a couple of times when I first got my Rollei with 120/220 setting in 1970s. Never used it again because my shooting style with MF is not as reckless as with 35mm. 12, 10 or 8 exposures seems just right, depending upon format. Of course there’s 645 back for Hasselblad, used mainly for slides, but don’t have to shoot all at once since back can be changed.

 

[138S]

but don’t have to shoot all at once since back can be changed.

True... the 220 size has different effects depending on if camera loads film internally or in backs, I use a Pentax 67II and a Mamiya RB. Changing backs in the RB is nice, but also it is the 67II agility in a shooting. Mamiya and Pentax 645 sported both agility and backs.

I guess that 645 was more prefered by pros for the field: more shots, less weight and good agility, still 6x7 has something special.

So there is a complex interaction between camera type and the 120/220 choice. Still there is a tendence to deliver less film in the package, we see that in the kodak 10 sheets box. Rather than making 220 perhaps Alaris is planning asking EK to make reduced 120 rolls with 3 shots to be sold at same price. Better not giving them ideas

 

[Agulliver]

I saw an interview with one of the Ferrania guys who said they hoped to announce a new format this year that people wouldn't expect. Could just as well be 110 or something else, though.

It will be 127. They've made it *very* clear that their goals are in this order.

1. Perfect full in-house production of P30 in 135 cassettes
2. Introduce P30 in 120
3. Introduce P30 in 127

 

[abruzzi]

Whenever the question of other formats comes up, I always wonder if it is prudent for manufacturers to jump in. Are there enough people with 127 cameras, clamoring for film, to make an enterprise like that worthwhile? There are a lot of 220 cameras, but most of them also shoot 120, meaning you can sell to most of those people if you keep making 120, and for those dual format cameras, 220 is mostly a convenience (or people that want to spend cheap $$ on a 220 back because a 120 back is too pricy.)

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Can't wait for 120 P30. I'm liking the 35mm that I have.

 

[Prest_400]

It'd be a fabulous option to have for travel. I use a Fuji 6x9 and sometimes I could use more than 8 frames per roll. Bought a propack of Fuji 160NS 220 a few years ago from a Japanese seller and it's in the freezer awaiting one of those trips.
Fuji had 220 available at 2x120 price until 2016, when they discontinued 160NS. I recall seeing that Pro 400 had a single run on 220 and the Slide films remained as stocks dwindled. Velvia 100 220 was available rather recently. I remember in 2014 (?) the Portras were available in 220 but with quite a bit of a price difference over 2x120.

I have a stash of 220 film, but I try to save it for if and when I ever take an overseas vacation, or when i go into the field with my 6x17 pano camera.
john

Upon the time of Shanghai GP3 returning into market there were some words about the possibility of it being manufactured in 220. Well, not much more known since other than some forum posts mentioning that.
https://www.largeformatphotography....hanghai-film&p=1348865&viewfull=1#post1348865
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/black-and-white-220-roll-film-availability.509988/

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Can't wait for 120 P30. I'm liking the 35mm that I have.

Once Ferrania makes it, it will only be sold to Falkland Islands, they need to take it slow (as per their own admission on front page).

 

[Sal Santamaura]

There's only one reason 220 film could provide a real benefit. The Contax vacuum back worked with it to enable a truly flat film plane in an interchangeable-back medium format camera. Other approaches tried to "hide" reverse-curl-roller-induced bulges between frames (Rollei 6008 645 backs, for example), but nothing cured the problem like vacuum.

OK, now Hasselblad fans can do what they've done for decades, namely, attack me for suggesting that their film backs cause stripes of unsharpness in negatives made at large apertures with short focal length lenses. Here's a classic "shoot the messenger" example:

https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/how-to-reach-max-film-flatness.9969/​

As to whether 220 will ever be sold again, I boldly predict the answer is "no." Neither the film nor an interchangeable-back camera that can take advantage of it (one with a vacuum back) are likely to ever have the potential market size that would justify manufacturing them.

 

[mshchem]

Once Ferrania makes it, it will only be sold to Falkland Islands, they need to take it slow (as per their own admission on front page).

Thanks! I needed a bit of humor.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I like 220, but I don’t see it coming back. I have a stash of TXP220 purchased from the last batch and frozen, and a 6x7 220 insert for my Linhof 2x3 and 4x5 rollfilm backs, as well as a Sinar Zoom II back that can handle 220, and like a few people who have posted above, I save it for travel when I’m likely to be shooting mostly the same film at the same speed most of the time. When I run out, the 220-only insert will join the sheet film pack and all the other obsolete rollfilm formats.

 

[removed account4]

its like buying 110 film one's better off cutting it down and rolling it up..
you know, like if you were going to grow your own dental floss instead of buying it pre packaged,
at least you will need a pigmy pony or zirconium encrusted tweezers .. just a ruler and some scissors.

 

[Lachlan Young]

The biggest advantage of 220 is it reduces the number of Pentax 6x7 bodies you need to haul around if you don't find fiddling with the spool releases every 10 shots conducive to your working practices - and 32 shots a roll off 645 is nice to have.

 

[MarkS]

220 was a professional format made for wedding shooters; thus the "cost over 2x a roll of 120" was not an issue; they were building the cost into their fees. The wedding photographers will not be going back to film, and no manufacturer will be willing to gear up for a non-existent market.
One might as well wish for a renaissance of perf'd 70mm in cassettes- another medium format option that never quite made it. Such is life.

 

[markjwyatt]

When I was shooting weddings mainly in the 1980s (into the 90s) I mainly used 220 (VPS III). I was using a Mamiya 330f and a 220f, and without 220, it would have been painful. For casual shooing, especially B&W, 120 is probably better.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

220 was a professional format made for wedding shooters; thus the "cost over 2x a roll of 120" was not an issue; they were building the cost into their fees. The wedding photographers will not be going back to film, and no manufacturer will be willing to gear up for a non-existent market.
One might as well wish for a renaissance of perf'd 70mm in cassettes- another medium format option that never quite made it. Such is life.

I don't think 70 compares to 220. A lot of cameras were double duty 120/220 with no extras needed. 70 was nitche product all along and required extras, sometimes expensive extras.

I also never looked at 220 as pro set up either. It was surely used by them and your point on cost is valid, but lots of amateur shooters were buying it and carried some portion of the demand.

 

[Thorpelyon]

This eBay seller is selling hand rolled 220. I bought a few, and discovered the negs were perfed on one side. Emulsion is Lucky/Shanghai.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/5x-Lucky-2...946515?hash=item2adad3e613:g:LHUAAOSw6Ppdv8-k

 

[Luckless]

This eBay seller is selling hand rolled 220. I bought a few, and discovered the negs were perfed on one side. Emulsion is Lucky/Shanghai.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/5x-Lucky-2...946515?hash=item2adad3e613:g:LHUAAOSw6Ppdv8-k

Cut down 70mm roll film? It is a shame more unperforated bulk stock isn't more readily available on the market...

 

[Thorpelyon]

Cut down 70mm roll film? It is a shame more unperforated bulk stock isn't more readily available on the market...

Yeah, I figure it's sliced-up perfed 70mm.