220: only a rant, no useful information here

V

vdonovan

Vince Donovan
Local time
9:28 AM
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
477
Location
San Francisco
View My Gallery
I set up my portable studio at a wedding this weekend and shot portraits of the guests. In the past I've used Kodak 320 TXP in 220 format.

Now that TXP 220 has been discontinued and there is, in fact, no more black and white in 220, I brought a pile of rolls of 120 Tri-X instead. What a pain it was changing film every few shots! The guests had to wait, and I spent more time loading and unloading than I did shooting. Even with two backs it was a pain.

Now I've got 8 rolls to develop where I should only have 4, which is going to take twice as long.

Okay, end of rant. They say the only person who likes change is a wet baby, so maybe I am just being grouchy, but I do wish we had SOMETHING in 220. Really, by the end of the night I was thinking maybe this digital thing is not such a bad idea after all.
 
Last edited:
vdonovan said:
Now I've got 8 rolls to develop where I should only have 4, which is going to take twice as long.

Okay, end of rant. Really, by the end of the night I was thinking maybe this digital thing is not such a bad idea after all.
Click to expand...



I use Paterson reels and I'm able to load two 120 rolls/reel...depending on what reels you have you might be able to do the same...

As far as talking digital<<<😡
Don't make me come find you and slap your dusty head...😀
 
I sympathise with your rant and feel it is justified. There are still choices for 220 in colour which may also be under threat of course ... who knows?

You'd think they (Kodak) could have made TX400 in 220 after they discontinued the 320 ... it's not a lot to expect from the people who gave film photography to the masses and now seem intent on taking it away ... bit at a time! 🙁
 
Agreed. I have a few rolls of 220 left. After that I guess it's back to 120. I do wish they had something in B&W 220. Doesn't have to be 320, just something. Seems silly to me since they could avoid the cost of the backing and just spin off longer rolls.
 
I also do the 2 film in 1 reel thing, but I would never do it on wedding photos, my stuff up percentage is to high. And it does not help on the time consuming change of backs/reloading film.

Well well, such is life, and remember if this is the biggest rant in your life you probably have a very nice life..... (of course if your woman has left you, your horse is dead and your dog does not like you and on top of that the bast*rds discontinue 220 in b&w it is another story)
 
I'd like it if 70mm came back. Sprocket advance, never a spacing problem, plenty of film. I'd have to find a higher capacity tank than my Nikor stainless steel one, though.
 
sig said:
I also do the 2 film in 1 reel thing, but I would never do it on wedding photos, my stuff up percentage is to high. And it does not help on the time consuming change of backs/reloading film.

Well well, such is life, and remember if this is the biggest rant in your life you probably have a very nice life..... (of course if your woman has left you, your horse is dead and your dog does not like you and on top of that the bast*rds discontinue 220 in b&w it is another story)
Click to expand...



Your dog doesn't like you...!!! Now that's a tough one...:bang: 😀
 
For weddings 220 is/was probably a good thing. Otherwise I much prefer 120, if only for the fact that if there's a problem w/ that roll you've only lost half the photos you would have w/ 220. It means that w/ my 6x6 camera I still would have had 12 good shots instead of none.

I don't have a dog. Just 2 cats, and one of them is in love w/ me and resents the wife being around. The other cat hates cat #1, and loves the wife. Life is complicated.
 
Some time ago, a friend of mine asked Ilford about having Delta 3200 in 70mm. No problem, they said. But the minimum order quantity was many thousands of pounds. I'd always thought, though, that 70mm was a better idea than 120, with 50+ 6x7cm exposures per roll.

Except for wedding photography, I don't think many people ever found much use for 220 anyway, and now that weddings have gone largely digital, demand for 220 must have fallen off a cliff. Demand for monochrome 220 must be negligible.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Some time ago, a friend of mine asked Ilford about having Delta 3200 in 70mm. No problem, they said. But the minimum order quantity was many thousands of pounds. I'd always thought, though, that 70mm was a better idea than 120, with 50+ 6x7cm exposures per roll.

Except for wedding photography, I don't think many people ever found much use for 220 anyway, and now that weddings have gone largely digital, demand for 220 must have fallen off a cliff. Demand for monochrome 220 must be negligible.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


Who do you think you're calling 'negligible?' 😛
 
I think the best chance for a "new" 220 film coming available is to encourage one of the established European manufacturers like Efke, Adox or Foma to do it. They already make 120 film in 50, 100 and 400 ISO and they mostly use batch production rather than continuous so smaller runs are a possibility.
I have doubts about the predicted Maco/Rollei/Agfa offerings. There's a lot of talk about what they will be and what they'll be similar to but there also seems to be a lot of different film bases and emulsions being used with none of them quite matching the talk.
 
I loaded up on 220 TXP when I heard it was being discontinued. I used 220 for weddings, which I don't do anymore. Have six Hasselblad 220 magazines, so, for me, it was worth it to stock up. Have about fifty rolls of TXP in the freezer, 10 rolls PXP, and 40 rolls Fuji NPH and NHG.

Also have 70mm backs, and lots of different usuable emulsions. But that's another story.
 
Keith said:
Who do you think you're calling 'negligible?' 😛
Click to expand...

Dear Keith,

Well, it's sort of 'me and whose army', unfortunately. An Ango-America-Japanese alliance.

I'd like to see it back, for those who want it, even though I never found much use for it. But I doubt it'll happen. If even Ilford can't see a market, I'd wonder about Efke, etc.

Cheers,

R.
 
In theory, I have always loved it. In practice, the limited film selection and colour lab issues made me use it rather sparingly. There always was only a fraction of the film available in 120 made in 220, and most dealers carried even less. And 220 is accident prone as 220 is longer than the default 135 tank depth and must be wound around a special frame - clumsy lab assistants often leave bend marks at that, and if it comes loose the film gets destroyed for good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom