Is there STILL no hope for 220

[Wayne]

The 220 backs also work fine as 120 backs.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

The 220 backs make great bookends, doorstops, ship ballast, jettys and artificial islands. If you think that the 220 film market will ever improve, I have some Florida swamp land and a bridge in New York to sell you. Also a Nigerian prince wants to transfer money through your personal checking account.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The 220 backs also work fine as 120 backs.

With Hasselblad as long as you are willing to only get 11 photographs out of a 12 exposure roll. I do not know about other cameras. How about pouring out one liter for gas for every twelve liters that you buy? Or let your spouse sleep with someone else after you have had sex eleven times with him/her?

 

[Theo Sulphate]

The better multyexposure alternative to type 120 is type 70mm.

I would buy a Hasselblad 70mm magazine immediately if it were now possible to buy film for it conveniently (spooled and packaged). That must've been the case many years ago.

I would've thought wedding photographers would love 70mm and all the frames that can be shot on one roll, but perhaps that itself is the problem: they don't want to risk losing all those frames if something goes wrong in development.

 

[Roger Cole]

A somewhat related reason for the decline of 220 may be that 120 film inserts and backs are fairly inexpensive nowadays. I've acquired enough inserts for my Bronicas and Mamiya that I often don't have to reload for a day of shooting.

This. Most medium format cameras have interchangeable backs or at least quick change inserts.

And in the ones that don't, 220 sometimes leads to having the wrong film in the camera.

I have some 220 in the freezer that came in a box of film I bought off eBay, and the rolls I've shot were fine. I shot one or two in my Yachicamat 124 and sometimes did have the "wrong" film in when I wanted another. I also bought a 220 insert for my M645 Pro since they are so cheap and that works better since I can just swap backs.

It was a fairly limited market format even when film ruled. I wouldn't expect to ever see it made again.

 

[Roger Cole]

In all, had I loaded a roll of 220, I most likely would have shot the entire roll, but I passed on at least 14 frames that I would have taken if I had them ready and waiting in the camera, but instead they were left behind because I was 'nearly out of film'.

And on my way back to the house? Well the clouds shifted a little more, and formed a texture that would have been far better than the one that I had settled for in the end.


At the time I owned 36 blank frames of 120 film waiting to be exposed, but I left 2 rolls at home because I "didn't want to be wasteful" and photograph that many rolls at a time. (And I don't like the idea of leaving half spent rolls in the camera.) And because the companies selling me black and white film only wanted to sell me them in sets of 12 rather than 24? Well, I took 12 and left more than that behind.

Honestly that sounds more like your problem than the film makers' problems. When it's been available 220 has cost at least twice as much and often more than that compared to 120 so there's no cost savings. The only real downside is whatever amount of time it takes to change the film. Just take more film with you.

I almost always leave film in my cameras. I have two 35mms and the Yashicamat loaded now. Haven't used the 35mm ones since Christmas or the Yashica in two weeks.

 

[albada]

12 frames on 120 is enough? Yes, if you're a thoughtful shooter. But when I have 72 frames on 35mm in half-frame format, I find that I switch to a digital mentality of shooting profligately in a way that I would never do with 120. With 36 shots in full-frame 35mm, I find that I'm biased more towards thoughtfulness.

Mark Overton

 

[Roger Cole]

Much depends on your style. I find 36 in 35mm almost intolerable. Rolls sometimes stay in my camera for months - thank goodness I have multiple bodies. 12, or 15 on my 645. are about perfect and sometimes even 15 feels like too many.

Then again I shoot 4x5 and nothing will slow you down like large format, and I find the habits tend to carry over. I shoot less smaller format film when I'm out than before I started shooting sheet film, but with a much higher percentage of keepers/negatives I want to print.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Much depends on your style. I find 36 in 35mm almost intolerable. Rolls sometimes stay in my camera for months - thank goodness I have multiple bodies. 12, or 15 on my 645. are about perfect and sometimes even 15 feels like too many.

Then again I shoot 4x5 and nothing will slow you down like large format, and I find the habits tend to carry over. I shoot less smaller format film when I'm out than before I started shooting sheet film, but with a much higher percentage of keepers/negatives I want to print.

If you travel to a place of great scenic interest, I don't see a reason not to burn through a roll of 36 exposures in 35mm (if that's your one and only camera and you don't see the opportunity of returning), but the gist of what you are onto is understood — it is an annoying format to use. I have always been very slow with medium format, while others using LF have appeared to be speeding! I noted on eBay here in Australia there are a couple of sellers still dealing with 220 film (legacy stock), mainly Provia 100F. But the expense of the stuff, vs 120, is alarming. I have never used 220 in my Pentax 67 (120/220 switch). Quite happy and contented with 120. Just so.

 

[Roger Cole]

Oh sure. I've spent something like 10 days in New Orleans during Mardis Gras and burned through multiple rolls of 35mm slide film per day. SOMETIMES yes, 36 is fine and 72 would be even better. But most of my shooting isn't travel or big events where I burn lots of film. Some people do that sort of thing more often.

 

[Ian Grant]

OTOH i bought some 220 Portra and then i found that my lab will charge me double for developing the negative, so where's the benefit?

It does use double the chemistry

Ian

 

[AgX]

And it uses twice the space in a hanger.

 

[Wayne]

With Hasselblad as long as you are willing to only get 11 photographs out of a 12 exposure roll. I do not know about other cameras. How about pouring out one liter for gas for every twelve liters that you buy? Or let your spouse sleep with someone else after you have had sex eleven times with him/her?

Not with Mamiya 6x7. You still get 10 per roll as usual. I wonder why Hassies get reduced frame count? Can you start/end the film at a different spot?

 

[Luckless]

Honestly that sounds more like your problem than the film makers' problems. When it's been available 220 has cost at least twice as much and often more than that compared to 120 so there's no cost savings. The only real downside is whatever amount of time it takes to change the film. Just take more film with you.

I almost always leave film in my cameras. I have two 35mms and the Yashicamat loaded now. Haven't used the 35mm ones since Christmas or the Yashica in two weeks.

You really rather missed my point there. I don't want to carry two rolls of film on a simple photo walk. I don't want the risk of dropping or losing a roll while fiddling with them out in the cold and the wet. (It can be bad enough trying to set up and adjust the camera this time of year.) Or the risk of damaging film while it is stashed away in a pocket rather than securely stored in the nice protective camera (Which is something I need to carry with me anyway to use the camera, and I have no desire to bring yet another piece of gear just to store film in.)

I got to go out on my photowalk, and take photos. I got what I wanted out of my afternoon. However the film maker sold half the film they could have for the day. And it sure doesn't hurt me to buy only half of what I otherwise could have, so I fail to see how this is only my problem and in no way a problem for film companies.


My core point is that the idea that 220 film cannot possibly be viable or marketable is a silly concept. It is by no means a silver bullet and sure fire thing, but if someone were able to offer a very nice emulsion in both 120 and 220 while minimizing their own general costs? Well then they have something they can market aggressively and use to potentially get one up on everyone else who refuses to offer 220.

 

[Wayne]

My core point is that the idea that 220 film cannot possibly be viable or marketable is a silly concept.

Seems to me the market has already decided this matter. However I wish you luck in convincing it that its wrong.

 

[wiltw]

i found that my lab will charge me double for developing the negative, so where's the benefit?

Since double the film length doubles the depletion of chemicals used in processing, the cost of chemistry for the lab is doubled. Just like processing 4x5" sheetfilm is more expensive.

The benefit of 220 is that you do not find yourself at the end of the roll in time-critical situations, such as shooting weddings, as frequently

Changing rolls of film slowing you down? That is one reason why the rest of us buy spare film backs. Just swap exposed back with the loaded back, how fast is that?

...there are only so many 120 film magazines you can afford/bring, and eventually you HAVE TO change film in the magazines (most likely at the least opportune time). 220 film to the rescue of the wedding pro. If you shoot 400 exposures, that is 26 rolls of 120 or 13 rolls for 220 in a 645 camera...if I have 4 backs for 220 (13 film inserts was $3300!), I am reloading new 220 film into those only twice during the day and I can shoot 120 shots on 220 before having to find time to reload my film magazines. That is why, when I was shooting professionally, I owned four 220 magazines but only two 120 magazines...when I was shooting for leisure I was not under any time pressure for reloading new film into magazines.



Since most pros today shoot digital (ISO 25600 and ambient light rather than slow ISO 400 film and flash!), 220 use has vaporized and the film manufacturers quit spooling that size.

 

[Sirius Glass]

With Hasselblad as long as you are willing to only get 11 photographs out of a 12 exposure roll. I do not know about other cameras. How about pouring out one liter for gas for every twelve liters that you buy? Or let your spouse sleep with someone else after you have had sex eleven times with him/her?

Not with Mamiya 6x7. You still get 10 per roll as usual. I wonder why Hassies get reduced frame count? Can you start/end the film at a different spot?

Not that I have ever heard. I have been reading postings about this since 2007 and have yet to hear of anyone getting the twelfth photograph out of a 120 roll on a 220 back.

 

[MattKing]

My core point is that the idea that 220 film cannot possibly be viable or marketable is a silly concept. It is by no means a silver bullet and sure fire thing, but if someone were able to offer a very nice emulsion in both 120 and 220 while minimizing their own general costs? Well then they have something they can market aggressively and use to potentially get one up on everyone else who refuses to offer 220.

Ilford/Harman costed it out, and projected sales at necessary prices, and it was a clear "No".

The cost and minimum order requirements for the leaders and trailers are probably at the root of the problem, especially if it is true that there remains only one single manufacturer in the world who makes and sells that backing paper.

 

[Wayne]

Not that I have ever heard. I have been reading postings about this since 2007 and have yet to hear of anyone getting the twelfth photograph out of a 120 roll on a 220 back.

Huh. That's a shame. Looks like Mamiya 6x7 wins again.

 

[adelorenzo]

I just developed my last rolls of 220 last night, three rolls of Porta 160NC I shot on a wilderness trip. I really appreciate not having to load film as often, especially when it's -30 out.

For most of my landscapes and other shooting I prefer 120 format. I can certainly live without 220 but if Portra 400 was still available I'd buy it.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Just think if Tri-X or HP-5 was available even at twice the price in 220.
Remember that the Contax 645 220 vacuum back was the very best choice for film flatness.
5,000 rolls a year? You think us APUGers and those skinny jean wearing hipsters could manage that?

 

[ic-racer]

Not having 220 is like not having 36exposure loads of 35mm film, it is a pain. It would be similar to a situation in which 35mm canisters were smaller and only accepted an 18 frame load.

 

[wiltw]

Not having 220 is like not having 36exposure loads of 35mm film, it is a pain. It would be similar to a situation in which 35mm canisters were smaller and only accepted an 18 frame load.

Anyone else remember 135-12 loads?! Amazingly there was some for sale on Amazon...
http://www.amazon.com/Kodak-Ultra-GC-135-12-Color-Print/dp/B001AFJ85C
http://www.amazon.com/Fuji-Fujifilm-Superia-135-12-Dating/dp/B00M0B1HJK

 

[AgX]

Agfa even offered a 135-10 Cassette.

 

[adelorenzo]

I have a bunch of 8-frame rolls of 35mm Kodak Color film sitting in my film box.