Side by Side Comparison of 220 Films

[A_M_Johnson]

I know there has to be a million threads on this but I can't find any so I am pre-apologizing for starting another one.

I am looking around for some sort of comparison chart of 220 negative film, both color and B&W. Some films are obviously slide or reversal/transparency types which I'm not particularly interested in. From what I can see, the main brands are Kodak, Ilford, Fuji and maybe Agfa.

Within the brands are various speeds, grain structures and other differences. It looks like there are three developing methods, C-41, E-6 and the B&W method I've used.

So, any links, comments or walls of text would be appreciated. I have been using Tri-X and Fuji Pro 160 so far with this RB67 but I know there are many more films out there that might be better suited for me, depending on what the subject is. I am not intending on doing my own developing right now but will in the future.

 

[Chazzy]

Ilford films are no longer available in 220. If Agfa films were ever available in 220, it is news to me. The only black and white emulsion currently available in 220 is Kodak's Tri-X Professional 320. As for the color print choices, I think your best bet would be to go to the Freestyle or B&H websites and see for yourself what is available from Kodak and Fuji.

 

[Tony-S]

As far as I know only Tri-X Pro 320 is in 220 for B&W.

Edit: Doh! Chazzy beat me to it.

 

[A_M_Johnson]

Good idea about going to B&H's web site, thank you. I didn't think of that. I didn't realize that the options were so limited for B&W, I might have to stock up.

I have some Fuji Pro 160 here. Is there a better film for color or is this about it too?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Kodak nowadays only has its Portra line of films in 220 (160 VC/NC ; 400 VC/NC ; 800)

According to Fuji's literature, all Fuji films available in 120 (including chromes; excluding Reala) are available in 220. But if you don't like chrome for your purpose, the options left are 160S, 160C, 400H, and 800Z.

In sum, your choices in colour 220 are the competing equivalents between Fuji and Kodak. I personally prefer Kodak films for reasons of colour palette (most people prefer either manufacturer for similar reasons).

I would say the only slight advantage in terms of offering on the Kodak side is that its 400 films come in saturated+contrasty (VC) and normal (NC) versions, whereas Fuji's only has one kind of 400.

There you go!

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Also, you want to do your homework and read the spec sheets of Kodak films here:

http://wwwcaen.kodak.com:80/global/en/professional/products/films/filmsIndex.jhtml?pq-path=13319

And Fuji here:
http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/professional_photography/film/fujichrome/index.html (chrome)
http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/professional_photography/film/fujicolor_portrait/index.html (negative)
http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/professional_photography/film/neopan_black_white/index.html (B&W)

Ilford is here (120, no 220)
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/producttype.asp?n=3&t=Consumer+&+Professional+Films

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Why not consider using 120? There are far more choices there.

 

[Chazzy]

Why not consider using 120? There are far more choices there.

Because some of us hate reloading film backs.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Fortunately, I like TXP. I shoot more 120 than 220, but if there were more choices, I'd shoot more 220. Fewer reloads are an attraction when shooting actively, and being able to process twice as many shots easily in the same time as 120 can be a major attraction when I've been shooting a lot of film.

I can shoot 220 in any of my Bronica S2A backs, which are switchable, and I have a Linhof 220 6x7 insert that I use in 6x7 backs for the 2x3" and 4x5" Technikas.

 

[A_M_Johnson]

All I have is a 220 back for the near future. From what I'm seeing above, Kodak Portra 160VC might be nice to try outdoors in an urban setting. I'm in Las Vegas, so some vivid colors might make for some great images.