Some Kodak B&W Film Deletions

[mikebarger]

It's called 120.

 

[2F/2F]

Apparently, we are not buying enough Tri-X 320 in either 120 or 220 to make it work.

 

[Ian Grant]

What's being forgotten is some of us use different 120 formats & cameras, so need to buy film that can be used in any of them. So while most of my 120 equipment takes 220, some key equipment doesn't.

So the reality is many of us buy film that can be used in all our equipment and in the 40 years I've been using 120 I've never bought a 220 film. I can't remember when I last saw 220 film on a dealers shelf it's so long ago.

Ian

 

[B&Wpositive]

The reason why I'm concerned about 220 is simply this... when I shoot with my Hassy EL/M or ELX (motor driven bodies), with 120 film and a 6x6 back you could wind up changing backs as many times as 4x in minute as the camera shoots about a frame a second. With a 645 back and 120 you get 16 shots so maybe 3x a minute if your shooting in "A" mode.

With 220 you get 24 shots or if your lucky and have a A32 you get 32 shots....ok enough of Photography 101... changing backs so many times with 120 film, really takes the fun and Spontaneity out of the shoot.... can you just see the subject/model rolling her eyes as you say... "Excuse me as I change film magazines :rolleyes:"

Look, 70mm film is loooong gone, now 220, come on we need something!

Right. For example, when shooting weddings, who wants to switch rolls every 12 to 15 frames? Not me.

 

[2F/2F]

I use 220 instead of 120 whenever it is available. This means almost all of my color shooting is done on 220, and also any time I shoot Tri-X 320 in medium format, it is shot on 220. I have never understood why more people do not do so. I can understand if you only want to shoot a few frames at a time, or want to swap out films often. However, for professional photographers, or others shooting a lot (and a lot at one time), I don't see any advantage to 120 over 220.

So, the problem is not that I am not buying enough 220 film. Don't tell me that. When it comes to medium format, I choose it over 120 any and every time it is made in the format. The problem is that not enough people think of 220 as a superior format in almost every way, as do I. Not a lot of people I talk to even know that the format exists.

 

[Darkroom317]

Has anyone sent emails to Ilford to see if they will re-evaluate a 220 B & W film?

 

[2F/2F]

Has anyone sent emails to Ilford to see if they will re-evaluate a 220 B & W film?

Yes. This topic has been beaten to death on the forums. Ilford was so good as to examine the possibility of firing up a 220 line again, and concluded that it would be nothing but a big loss for them, if it was possible at all.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

TXP sheet includes 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10, and there have in recent years been special cuttings of 11x14, 7x17, and possibly other formats.

Note the solicitation of interest for 11x14 TXP at the bottom of this page's left column:

Dead Link Removed

A few months ago I phoned Rod Klukas to ask how it was going, since I would like some of that film. He said that, even after a long time, he'd only been able to find people interested in a small quantity of it, far less than Kodak's minimum order. David, if you're willing to pick up the rest, I'll take 5 boxes.

 

[Ira Rush]

I use 220 instead of 120 whenever it is available. This means almost all of my color shooting is done on 220, and also any time I shoot Tri-X 320 in medium format, it is shot on 220. I have never understood why more people do not do so. I can understand if you only want to shoot a few frames at a time, or want to swap out films often. However, for professional photographers, or others shooting a lot (and a lot at one time), I don't see any advantage to 120 over 220.

So, the problem is not that I am not buying enough 220 film. Don't tell me that. When it comes to medium format, I choose it over 120 any and every time it is made in the format. The problem is that not enough people think of 220 as a superior format in almost every way, as do I. Not a lot of people I talk to even know that the format exists.

Right. For example, when shooting weddings, who wants to switch rolls every 12 to 15 frames? Not me.

Finally, others too, and I was beginning to think I was the only one ....

"For those about to shoot 220, we salute you"

We need something in 220

 

[2F/2F]

Well, all I can say is that I will be stocking up on 220 TXP, and I wish I had more money to do so. As for the 3200, I always shoot Delta 3200 instead anyhow, so it does not affect me personally. For those who use it, it has gotta hurt bad, though...especially since stocking up will only do you so much good, as the film goes off relatively quickly. It will certainly hurt me badly when Delta 3200 gets the axe. There will go a great deal of my 35mm shooting, with digital being the only alternative for high-ISO shooting.

 

[mikebarger]

I shoot 220, all of my medium format color work is on 220. But, that's not a big market either and a time will come when I'll have to change to 120.

I don't like shooting weddings, I did in the beginning to support my camera buying habit. I never thought it a big a deal to have a back handed to me when the 12 were done.

 

[Ektagraphic]

They should make TMAX 220 or something. We should all write to Kodak. It might not help alot but it wouldn't hurt.

 

[jamusu]

Yep, selling out is a good way to put it.

Steve

More like he saw the writing on the wall.

This is not the first time that Kodak has threatened to discontinue TXP 320. A few years ago they threatened to discontinue TXP 220 and keep TXP 120. As a result, Salgado and many other notable photographers, amateur and professional alike started an online petition to persuade Kodak not to discontinue it, which worked.

This time they are going to discontinue it all together in roll film, leaving us with no adequate replacement. I was thinking that maybe we should start a petition as well, but since mostly all of the famous photographers such as Salgado who used TXP 320 have switched to digital, I fear that our pleas may fall on deaf ears.


Jamusu.

 

[Tim Gray]

So, P3200 may not be discontinued yet after all. The absence of bad news is potential good news...at least for P3200.

That said, there have been rumors about P3200 for a while now. And Freestyle recently sold off P3200 with a 4/2010 expiration. And now they say it has a 5/2010 expiration. I wonder if this is just what Freestyle is selling, or if all P3200 has similar short dating lately. Anyone buy some P3200 from B&H, etc, lately? What was the expiration date?

When I wrote Freestyle a while ago about about the 4/2010 short dated film, they claimed they were just trying to get rid of some stock, and they would order fresh film when they got through it.

I just placed an order at B&H for TMZ. I'll let you know the dates on it. I hope it sticks around.

As far as 220 and Tri-X. I have to say I just got my first MF camera and have no real intention of shooting either 220 OR TXP. I just went with 400TX. 220 doesn't really seem cheaper per frame for developing or film costs, so the only real advantage is not having to change rolls. And to be honest, having only 12 shots on a roll is kind of nice.

 

[2F/2F]

So is there some evidence that total marker sales are not spirally downward. It's only apples to apples if that is so.

Anybody can maintain that logic in a growing market.

Mike

Do you really think that digital has not affected marker sales?

 

[Ira Rush]

More like he saw the writing on the wall.

This is not the first time that Kodak has threatened to discontinue TXP 320. A few years ago they threatened to discontinue TXP 220 and keep TXP 120. As a result, Salgado and many other notable photographers, amateur and professional alike started an online petition to persuade Kodak not to discontinue it, which worked.

This time they are going to discontinue it all together in roll film, leaving us with no adequate replacement. I was thinking that maybe we should start a petition as well, but since mostly all of the famous photographers such as Salgado who used TXP 320 have switched to digital, I fear that our pleas may fall on deaf ears.

Jamusu.

Count me in... oooh can I be first, can I be first

Seriously, I think it's a great idea, and maybe a flood of e-mails too!

 

[jamusu]

Seriously.

Doesn't Ilford do a once a year run with SFX 200? Maybe we can convince them to take this route.

Jamusu.

 

[Ektagraphic]

For anyone interestred Kodak's customer service email would be Kprotraditional@Kodak.com

 

[2F/2F]

But how long is Kodak likely to continue making it in sheet film only? Knowing Kodak's eagerness to drop products with slow sales, I would say that this would be a good time to either put a good supply of the stuff into the freezer, or else start looking for a replacement. When Kodak finally drops TXP in sheet film, what do you want to bet that they have the nerve to suggest Tmax 400 as a replacement?

Exactly the point I made in my first post in the thread (somewhere on page 4-6, I believe).

 

[Ektagraphic]

Exactly the point I made in my first post in the thread (somewhere on page 4-6, I believe).

I agree with the both of you.

 

[MikeSeb]

Asked:

I refuse to believe that the photographers of the world can't support one 220 black and white film. I blame Kodak's inability to cope with niche markets and the need for small-scale production.

Answered:

You guys just aren't buying enough 220 to make it work for "any" film company. Even third tier EFKE and Foma don't make 220 for the small niche market. 220 must be a really small market.

The best thing about Kodak's periodic film discontinuances is wading through the resulting spate of petulant, hand-wringing posts on APUG and elsewhere.

So, thanks, Kodak, for enlivening an otherwise bleak, snowy winter day.

 

[MikeSeb]

I forgot: Ilford is intelligent: they adapted their coating machine to make small amount of films: that's the case of Pan F, SFX and Maybe Delta 3200 that are coated in small quantities, when stocks are depleted. No big stock, they sell everything, and then they do not discontinue anything...

Yep, Ilford is intelligent; Kodak, profoundly stupid. Ilford is so intelligent that they were bankrupt a few years ago, as I recall. Doltish old Kodak isn't bankrupt---what a bunch of f--king idiots.

After all, it's a cinch, easy as pie, to downsize an enormous, multi-billion-dollar global company. We'll just conjure up the needed capital and know-how, and keep a few users of declining products happy, shareholders be damned. Let's just duct-tape a pair of 120 coating machines end-to-end and BANG! You got yer 220 machine, right there! Good thing Kodak has me around, to help them understand their business better.

How I love these threads.

 

[2F/2F]

There are various Kodak colour transparency films to go as well, I'll try to find a link to a web page as it's quite a lot of information.

Any update on this front, Martin?

 

[Ian Grant]

Any update on this front, Martin?

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Personally I feel sorry for the people who work in the Kodak film division, and those that have to market Kodak's film. Few if any of them are involved in making these decisions.

Ian

 

[MikeSeb]

Imagine Kodak cashing in on the "cheap film camera" market & introducing a brand new Brownie that consumes 120 film. I think they could be doing a lot more to find a new way to profit from film, even if it means film is no longer the big business that it used to be. Getting rid of one product after another kind of makes it hard for customers to buy anything, ya know?

I've been shooting for about 2 years. I started mostly with Fomapan, I sampled Ilford products & Fuji products, but mostly I shoot Kodak now. I think that's going to change.

I'm sure Kodak's never considered this idea. Good thing there's APUG to help them sort out their business. Stop using their products, too. That'll send 'em the message that they should keep making the stuff you won't buy 'cause you're peeved with them.

This thread has become a palace of the imagination.