Return of 220 film?

[wyofilm]

I find this surprising, and perhaps not for me, but for those of you who miss 220 in medium format it looks like Shanghai is going to release their GP3 400 speed in 220.

https://www.facebook.com/pierre506/posts/10215891422192313

 

[Huss]

Fantastic news! Just shot my last roll of Tri-X 320 220 in my GW690III. In that camera I really like to get 16 shots per roll vs 8.

 

[guangong]

Fantastic news! Just shot my last roll of Tri-X 320 220 in my GW690III. In that camera I really like to get 16 shots per roll vs 8.

At first I was thinking 66 and 24 shots, which can be too many for the way I shoot MF. Haven't used 220 since 1970s. But then you reminded me of my Fuji GF 670. 16 shots would be just right. Must check my Makina, which I believe also takes 220.

 

[eli griggs]

What about using these films can anyone, but that guy over there, share?

 

[MattKing]

At first I was thinking 66 and 24 shots, which can be too many for the way I shoot MF. Haven't used 220 since 1970s. But then you reminded me of my Fuji GF 670. 16 shots would be just right. Must check my Makina, which I believe also takes 220.

A 6x7 camera should give you 20 exposures on a 220 roll.\
A 6x9 camera would give you 16.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Interesting. I still have a cache of TXP220 from the last batch in the freezer, but it would be good to have a replacement when it runs out. I've got a 6x7 220 insert for Linhof and can shoot 220 in my Sinar Zoom II back.

 

[Agulliver]

So the poster on facebook keeps answering "me" when people ask where they can buy the 220. Is he reliable? I'm interested. I have just one 220 capable camera but I'd like to use 220 film in it rather than 120 on occasion.

 

[pentaxuser]

So the poster on facebook keeps answering "me" when people ask where they can buy the 220. Is he reliable?

Your quote about the poster's response doesn't fill me with much confidence ( British understatement)

pentaxuser

 

[cramej]

I don't think I would trust GP3 in 220. The tape barely holds on 120 and I've had it fail on about 30% of my rolls so far.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

So the poster on facebook keeps answering "me" when people ask where they can buy the 220. Is he reliable? I'm interested. I have just one 220 capable camera but I'd like to use 220 film in it rather than 120 on occasion.

No idea, but he's active on some of the LF groups on Facebook. Seems to be a real person involved in analogue photography in China. If the film becomes available generally, it should show up on Ali Express, eBay, Taobao, and the like.

 

[BobD]

What's this?
https://tinyurl.com/y23poth4

 

[Prest_400]

Eli forwarded the FB link in another thread.
It's quite interesting that rumor years ago of Shanghai wanting to manufacture 220 film, and this seems to be it.
However it is GP3 400 and Shanghai offered just 100 film in 120. This is interesting too.

No idea, but he's active on some of the LF groups on Facebook. Seems to be a real person involved in analogue photography in China. If the film becomes available generally, it should show up on Ali Express, eBay, Taobao, and the like.

Exactly, he may distribute some film because Shanghai is not that well available. IIRC there was someone in Europe taking Shanghai sheet film and it might be worthy to ask, IDK exactly who was it.
I would like to try, practical length for 6x9 16 exposures. However, not just availability but overseas customs makes it a difficult affair.

What's this?
https://tinyurl.com/y23poth4

I think there was some manually rolled lucky film, and this is it.
There was a group in Europe ordering bulk Fomapan and making their own 220 as well.

 

[cmacd123]

What's this?
https://tinyurl.com/y23poth4

"hand Rollered" ?????

My understanding is that the bad backing paper took out the original Shanghai film factory, But someone else has the trademark now. they are selling both 100 and 400 ISO rated GP3 film. NO idea of the source.

 

[pentaxuser]

So it would seem he is saying he is the source of the 220. Why not ask him to show a picture of the 220 he has for sale?

I wonder if Henning Serger has the up to date position on Shanghai 220? Might be worth contacting him in case he hasn't seen this thread

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Is it possible that the film is 70mm stock or cut down from something else?
Are the leaders and trailers just 120 backing paper cut to size, with relatively meaningless numbering?

 

[Agulliver]

He has photos on his facebook page of the Shanghai GP3 400 in 120 and 220 boxes, the photos look legit - ie not CGI and not mocked up boxes. But who knows? As someone else said, if this is a legit Shanghai factory product then sooner or later it'll appear elsewhere. It's something I'd like to try and would potentially shoot a handful of rolls per year....but I'm not desperate for it and would not be purchasing large quantities.

 

[mshchem]

I would be of the opinion of, will believe it when I see it , when stocked in regular distribution channels. I was never fond of 220. I still have Portra in the freezer.. I will stick with TMY-2 and Ilford 120.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Zhou Pierre, the person who posted on FB the availability of Shanghai GP3 400 film in 220 format, is also the person who organises annual custom size sheet film orders for Shanghai film. Last year I got some sheet film through him and was satisfied with the transaction. I checked with him last week about 220 format film and he confirmed that it's available for ordering through him. I don't know the deal between the factory and him, but he says he's not a sales representative of the factory. 220 film is priced reasonably at 8.82 USD. I'm tempted but I'll wait for some user feedback about the film and packaging.

 

[miha]

For years we have been told here at Photrio that 220 will never come back, some were particularly vocal about it, and now DEUS EX MACHINA Shanghai brings it back?

 

[halfaman]

I use 220 but very limited. Ten years ago or so the prices in Europe of 220 rolls were ridiculous, over three times the cost of a similar 120 roll. But when I visited Japan Fuji had very nice prices (just a little over two 120 rolls) and I bought a couple of boxes of Fuji 160NS and Fuji 400H. It was very confortable to have for some time 20 shots instead of 10 in my Pentax 67.

I think 220 was popular among some wedding photographers. Using a 6x4.5 camera they got 30-32 shots per 220 roll, almost as much as with 35 mm and with a much larger frame size.

Even that, 220 had always low sales compared to 120. Ilford said not long ago in Photrio that 220 is not going to happen (they don't had anymore a finishing machine to produce it), I think Kodak feels the same.

 

[Agulliver]

For years we have been told here at Photrio that 220 will never come back, some were particularly vocal about it, and now DEUS EX MACHINA Shanghai brings it back?

We were told that Ilford, Fuji and Kodak couldn't....and in the case of Ilford the information was detailed and made a lot of sense...and is likely similar to the situations at Kodak and Fuji.

Shanghai are a different kettle of fish. Maybe this will be a successful niche for them.

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

and I thought only Ferrania MIGHT have been the only company that would re introduce 220.
However, I'm not too fond of the only available 220 film being 400 speed. I like shooting in daylight and having control over my depth of field.

 

[miha]

We were told that Ilford, Fuji and Kodak couldn't....and in the case of Ilford the information was detailed and made a lot of sense...and is likely similar to the situations at Kodak and Fuji.

Shanghai are a different kettle of fish. Maybe this will be a successful niche for them.

We were told there is no market for 220, that demand is too low, that photographers are not willing to pay that much more for type 220, etc. It will never come back. Basta!

How are Shanghai a different kettle of fish so that 220 might be a successful business for them? (a rhetorical question).

On the other hand it may be a fake news, so let's wait and see what future brings to us.

 

[Lachlan Young]

How are Shanghai a different kettle of fish so that 220 might be a successful business for them? (a rhetorical question).

Labour costs. The 220 product may have a significant level of hand assembly. Most of the major manufacturers have attempted to automate many of the packaging procedures to improve quality, consistency & make a safer/ less costly working environment (aka minimise working in environments that require total darkness).

It's not that there's no market for 220, but rather that for Ilford, Kodak etc to manufacture to their preferred standards would impose a cost on a roll of 220 that most are unwilling to pay.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I understand that Kodak had to do what they had to do, but killing off 220 was extremely dumb. There was a huge resurgence of wedding photographers using film right when they did it. Even though a relative few splurged for 220, for the few that did, it's because they really needed the extra frames. I'm can't say if these two things are really correlated, but while overall film usage is up, wedding usage seems to be declining. If you're going to do 120 at a wedding, you really need a film loader present. Even if you have 5 extra inserts, it's just not enough frames for a single couple's portrait session or even some family group sessions. It just seems like if we can put a man on the moon, someone at Kodak can figure out how to make 220 happen.