It's called 120.
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!
Has anyone sent emails to Ilford to see if they will re-evaluate a 220 B & W film?
Note the solicitation of interest for 11x14 TXP at the bottom of this page's left column:TXP sheet includes 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10, and there have in recent years been special cuttings of 11x14, 7x17, and possibly other formats.
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.
Yep, selling out is a good way to put it.
Steve
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?
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
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...
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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?