Petition for 220 film

[PhilippeBachelier]

Hello,
If you like or would like to use 220 b&w film and work with something else than TXP 320, here is a link with a petition for 220 b&w film : http://www.film220.com

 

[nworth]

I share your disappointment about the availability of black and white film in the 220 size. You might note that Kodak also packages 125PX and BW400CN in 220. But other manufacturers have found the size uneconomical. I really would like to see the Ilford products in this size. There doesn't seem to be any lack of color films in 220 from both Kodak and Fuji, although I would like to see 100UC in that size.

 

[PhilippeBachelier]

PXP 220

Yes there is PXP 220. But it's hardly available in France and doesn't seem exported to Europe. BW 400 CN is chromogenic, not made for traditional printing with an enlarger. An all-around 400 ISO film would be fine, like HP5 or Neopan 400 or TX400. Ilford used to make HP5 and FP4 in 220 but stoped.

 

[Fintan]

Hello Philippe and welcome to APUG.

We have a product availability forum which may be more suitable for your post.

I'd like to use 220 film myself but when buying backs for my old hasselblad I chose one for 120 due to the poor availability of 220. I would gladly buy a 220 back for my camera if more films were available.

Good luck

 

[Chazzy]

Very happy to sign your petition. 8 6x9 exposures on a roll of 120 are just not enough. Plus, we know that Kodak is not really committed to black and white fine art photography, so it is just a matter of time (probably less time than we think!) until the Plus-X and 320 Tri-X products are discontinued in 220. If Ilford are still making excuses about the legendary broken machine, I hope that you approach Foma and the other eastern european suppliers.

 

[dalahorse]

Where's the place to sign against 220?

I'd rather see all of the remaining B&W film vendors settle on 120 format than waste their money maintaining machines to make various other formats of the same emulsion. I'm happy to have 10 6x7 exposures per roll. If I end up needing more exposures, it only takes about 10 seconds to load more film. If your shooting situation requires exposing many frames in very little time, simply have your assistant keep additional film backs loaded.

 

[Dave Parker]

Well alls I have to say, is you better get at least a million signatures on your petition, or you don't stand a snowballs chance to get these companies back to the 220 side of things, I find the 120 format more than suficiant for the types of shooting that I do, although I have used 220 a bit, I find myself not paying attention as much, when I know I have more to waste..

I am sorry to say, 220, other than for the aerial guys is just not a very economic format for many of the companies anylonger, and it is going to take a heck of alot of commitment on the part of the photographic community to get the companies to change what they are currently producing.

Dave

 

[Daniel Lawton]

I agree with Erickson. If dropping 220 all together and putting all of the manufacturers resources into 120 helps to control costs and makes the film industry more economically healthy, then I'm all for it. There may be some occasions when the extra shots come in handy but 99% of the time a 120 roll is more than enough for me. If I'm going to be taking a high number of action shots I'll most likely use a 35mm SLR anyway.

 

[Nick Zentena]

I don't know if anybody is asking all the companies to make 220. The point that companies should be putting all thier effort into 120 is how we're ending up this way. We risk all the companies deciding thier share of the market is too small and bailing. Better that they look to niche markets. Would it kill somebody to produce 220? I don't know but I bet it would create some loyal customers.

 

[Curt]

I love the eBay ads that sell the Mamiya 220 inserts saying they are rare and hard to find. Really?, I have several. Never used them and now probably won't be. I have had them since I bought the camera new and just never used them even when film was available. I just glad to have 120. If I had a wish it wouldn't be for a longer film but a discontinued film.

Curt

 

[Chazzy]

Where's the place to sign against 220?

I'd rather see all of the remaining B&W film vendors settle on 120 format than waste their money maintaining machines to make various other formats of the same emulsion. I'm happy to have 10 6x7 exposures per roll. If I end up needing more exposures, it only takes about 10 seconds to load more film. If your shooting situation requires exposing many frames in very little time, simply have your assistant keep additional film backs loaded.

I appreciate Mr. Erickson's sense of humor concerning loading backs in 10 seconds and letting our "assistants" do it for us, but he seems to be in earnest about opposing the availability of 220 film, and that absolutely baffles me. Surely we ought to keep as many film types available as are of use. The last I heard, 620 and 127 were still available--in fact, I believe even 126 Instamatic film is still available. So why not 220?

I am always suspicious of people who want the rest of us to "standardize" on the products they use. Suppose that the miniature format people wanted us to "standardize" on 135, because they deem the format more "viable." Would we go along with such nonsense? Of course not.

In the future, Ilford et al. will be serving niche markets--exactly what Kodak has not been able or willing to do. They will have to adapt to thinking small. I suspect that Ilford's decision concerning ULF is an omen of how this sort of thing will work in the future.

 

[Daniel Lawton]

I don't know if anybody is asking all the companies to make 220. The point that companies should be putting all thier effort into 120 is how we're ending up this way. We risk all the companies deciding thier share of the market is too small and bailing. Better that they look to niche markets. Would it kill somebody to produce 220? I don't know but I bet it would create some loyal customers.

I dunno, I think people going digital and using less film is how things have ended up as they are right now. I'm not calling for the demise of 220, but losing it doesn't mean the loss of a particular emulsion nor does it render any cameras obsolete. I suspect that if there were a worthwhile market for 220 film, it would be more widely available than it currently is and in more choices as well. With most film companies experiencing tough times or in various states of economic collapse (or rebuilding from economic collapse), I don't know if it would do any of us any good to have them spend more resources on products with a skeptical demand. Basically, I can't think of a more insignificant loss than 220 film and if something has to be "sacrificed" for the benefit of a healthier film industry I'd much rather it be 220 film than some of the other genuinely unique products that may be on the chopping block. If 5 years from now Ilford proves to be 100% completely stabilized and profitable in the digital era, then I say go for it but until then I think film companies have more pressing concerns that need to be dealt with before expanding offerings in 220 length film. Just my opinion.

 

[dalahorse]

I appreciate Mr. Erickson's sense of humor concerning loading backs in 10 seconds and letting our "assistants" do it for us, but he seems to be in earnest about opposing the availability of 220 film, and that absolutely baffles me. Surely we ought to keep as many film types available as are of use. The last I heard, 620 and 127 were still available--in fact, I believe even 126 Instamatic film is still available. So why not 220?

Because 220 works in some medium format cameras. 120 works in all medium format cameras.

I'm sorry if you can't load you backs quickly. But really, if you're in a situation where you must motor through film and can't pause for a few seconds to reload or slap another back on your camera, you probably have an assistant.

I am always suspicious of people who want the rest of us to "standardize" on the products they use. Suppose that the miniature format people wanted us to "standardize" on 135, because they deem the format more "viable." Would we go along with such nonsense? Of course not.

You're comparing apples and oranges with format sizes. I'd be happy to standardize on 24-frame 35mm rather than 36-frame 35mm if it meant keeping the 35mm format alive. I'd be happy to buy boxes of 4x5" in qty 25 instead of 100 if it meant keeping 4x5" alive (if only I had a 4x5" camera!). Just open more boxes. Yes, it's inconvenient, but the 4x5" camera keeps working. The loss of 120 would render many cameras inoperable. The loss of 220 is inconvenient, but not show stopping.

The rep from Ilford reported that 120 and 220 are made by different machines. Both machines require significant investment to operate and maintain. A company so recently back from the ashes shouldn't risk going out of business just to satisfy people who want more exposures. In a year or two, when they have more financial headroom, they most certainly should consider starting up the 220 machinery.

 

[Craig]

In a year or two, when they have more financial headroom, they most certainly should consider starting up the 220 machinery.

If you look up Simon from Ilford posts he said that there is no way 220 will be coming back, as the minimum order for backing papers was a many years supply, and it just wasn't financially viable.

 

[claytume]

Because 220 works in some medium format cameras. 120 works in all medium format cameras.

no you're wrong.......the Roundshot cameras only take 220, they will not function properly with 120 film.


Clayton

 

[sanderx1]

Isn't the large problem with 120 vs 220 the greater film flatness in 220, especially with vacuum backs? Or did film flatness stop being a problem while I wasn't watching?

 

[Woolliscroft]

I greatly miss Delta 400 in 220. I use a Pentax 67II for air photography which gets 21 frames off 220 and only 10 from 120. The difficulty involved in changing film in the very cramped cockpit of a light aircraft is such that whilst using 220 is viable, 120 is too difficult to use and I would have to drop to 35mm. At present I can still use Tri-X but its resolution is a bit lower than the Delta.

David.

 

[Brac]

I'd be happy to see a wider choice of 220 film but I don't feel I can in all honesty sign the petition because even when it was more widely available I never used as "many" as 5 rolls a year. So I wouldn't be rushing out to buy any meaningful quantity but I can see that for specialised fields such as aerial photography there is a need. I recall in an earlier thread Ilford talking about the possibility of getting a third party to assist in manufacture so maybe the answer is for just one emulsion to be offered on a pre-order basis (such as is being tried for ULF film). But unfortunately I can't see Ilford or even less likely anyone else offering a whole range of 220 B&W films.

 

[msloane]

I'm surprised at the negativity of this thread. Who knows what most company's will do considering that in today's era strong term results are the most important. The point of a petition is too show that there might demand. If enought people sign it and a company responds than great and if not who cares.

mike

 

[Nicole]

Bumping for support

 

[Chazzy]

I'm surprised at the negativity of this thread. Who knows what most company's will do considering that in today's era strong term results are the most important. The point of a petition is too show that there might demand. If enought people sign it and a company responds than great and if not who cares.

mike

I agree. I never expected that the announcement of a petition on behalf of a traditional photographic product, particularly on this website, would result in a rush of people desiring to kill the product instead of saving it.

 

[Dave Parker]

I agree. I never expected that the announcement of a petition on behalf of a traditional photographic product, particularly on this website, would result in a rush of people desiring to kill the product instead of saving it.

I don't think it is as much negativity as it is reality, As has already been mentioned, the equipment is expensive to produce the product, with the way things are in this highly un-settled market, I am glad to have something to put in my medium format camera as this seems to be an area that is really suffering, if we as traditional photographers can mount a real run at getting a company to produce the product, more power to us, but it would, as I said, have to be one hell of a commitment to keep them doing it.

Good luck, but again, I am glad to still have some film to shoot, let alone demanding a product that is not a strong possibility right now and perhaps not in the future. I mean, come on, look at this thread as an example, this website has almost 10,000 members and since this thread was started, with my second reply, there is only 21 message posted, to me, this shows a trend in the commitment of the community for this particular product...go figure..

Dave

 

[Chazzy]

I mean, come on, look at this thread as an example, this website has almost 10,000 members and since this thread was started, with my second reply, there is [sic] only 21 message posted, to me, this shows a trend in the commitment of the community for this particular product...go figure..

Dave

Yes, I'd say it shows that not all 220 users here feel the need to enter into a debate because of a simple announcement that those who wish to do so may go to a certain URL and sign a petition for the product. I think it also shows that several thousand 120 users have the decency and good will not to attack traditional photographic products others use, just because they don't see the need for them personally.

Personally, I only see the need for one kind of ground glass, but that's just me . . .

 

[Fintan]

Photographers should be supporting fellow photographers who are trying to save or re-instate their favourite products.

Should everyone want to save their own favourite product?
Are we really that selfish?
Will bickering among ourselves achieve anything?

Off topic, this thread is not a great welcome to Philippe, I do apologise Philippe.

 

[Nick Zentena]

Fuji and Kodak already have machines. They must since they produce the product.

The problem is you kill 220 and some people will ditch film. It's wishfull thinking to believe they will just switch to 120. 220 isn't cheaper and it's not easier to find then 120. So it's reasonable to believe most of the big users of 220 aren't doing it out of boredom. I bet most are already facing pressure to switch to digital. So you can expect them to just move on. Some of the 120 users who are borderline will see it being a sign of things to come. They'll switch.

Okay you say not bad. Well think about it. Each roll of 220 sold uses the same film and spool that 120 uses. The users of 220 tend to use alot of film per person. Having those users drop out means the 120 users will now have to use more film to make up for the lost sales.

Will you? Are you willing to use more film? Are you able to?

Think about all that 46mm film that used to be sold for bulk uses. Didn't matter to most of us right? When those users dropped out of the film market I bet each one represented much more then one average 35mm shooters life time of film. Oops film sales are down. Need to cut back. Keep cutting back and soon enough you'll have nobody left.