New 220 Film!
- Thread starter james.liam
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 56
- Views 4K
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
Good time to pick up an A24 back while still cheap and neglected.
farlymac
PF McFarland
It's not quite a done deal yet, according to Nico's News https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9tsbHRaddk They are at around 82% of their funding to get it started, so still a ways to go yet. But on the off chance it does happen I ordered some 220 inserts for my M645 today. Man, those things are cheap. I got five for $15 total, plus $12.72 shipping.
PF
mpaniagua
Newby photographer
Already got some 220 backs for my Bronica and my Mamiya RB67. Mamiya C330 uses 220 as well as Kiev 6s. Was tempted by Shangai but a great news. Hope they can pull it off.
valdas
Veteran
Unfortunately I have sold my Mamiya C330… But hey, I still have GA645! And I am on the last two Fuji pro 160 )in 220 format) rolls…
pyeh
Member of good standing
There is a review (not very positive) of Shanghai GP3 b&w film in 220, which is apparently available now.
https://www.35mmc.com/08/04/2022/th...-film-in-a-yashica-mat124g-by-george-griffin/
https://www.35mmc.com/08/04/2022/th...-film-in-a-yashica-mat124g-by-george-griffin/
lxmike
M2 fan.
That was my exact thoughts too
lxmike
M2 fan.
Interesting article I wonder how the film would fare in a A24 back
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
To be honest, that reads more like someone with an untested/unmaintained camera than anything. That 124g has probably never had its pressure plate in the 220 position before, so no one really knows if it was ever going to work properly.
I've ran some Portra in 220 through my Yashica 24 many years ago without issue, so I'd be interested to see if I get the same problems mentioned in that review. That seems like a fairer test to me.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
$35/roll sounds ominous.
Mackinaw
Think Different
- Local time
- 7:39 PM
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2005
- Messages
- 4,718
ptpdprinter
Veteran
I know, but $35/roll still sounds ominous to me. Cinestill is charging $15/roll for 400D in 120. A 5-pack of Kodak Gold 200 runs $44.95 at B&H ($8.99/roll). A five pack of Portra 400 is $56.95. ($11.39/roll) Seems like your really need to like Cinestill 400D. Of course, if Cinestill meets its goal, it will be the only color option in 220, so they can charge whatever they want.
ranger9
Well-known
Right, and as soon as everybody tries it, they'll re-discover why 220 film was never very popular even when it was widely available and a lot of cameras used it, and sales will sink back to the levels that led to it becoming near-extinct in the first place. But that's the great thing about running your business off Kickstarter... you make your money upfront, so you don't have to worry about maintaining enough repeat customers to recover your initial investment.
punkzter
Established
You also save on developing costs.
punkzter
Established
Why do you suppose 220 wasn't popular? I wasn't shooting film when 220 was available, so I have no sense of it's popularity.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I have had rolls ruined by bad backing paper in cheaper films where frame numbers and dots show up on the negative. This happened with the Chinese brands, Rollei and Arista. I am hoping cheap film in 220 without backing paper would be an improvement. I have used Shanghai GP3 in sheets and they are fine.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
I was wondering about this myself -- expensive to develop, sure (especially now), but having 24 exposures available is great. It was originally offered due to demand from pros -- think wedding photographers. But I think all of them have gone digital long since.
I have several TLRs with 220 capability and it's good to know there's another option. If that new Kodak Gold 200 were available in 220, that would be even better.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
Do 220 films have thinner film base or is that a myth?
punkzter
Established
Because I develop my own B&W film, I probably wouldn't buy a 220 B&W roll if it were more than double the cost of a 120 roll. But at double the cost, it seems to be a no-brainer. And if it were color film, I'd probably pay just a bit more than double because I would save on the developing fees and shipping.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
My guess is that if 220 became prevalent, those photofinishers who have the capability to process 220 would charge more to process 220 than 120. Did photofinishers charge the same for 220 as 120 back in the day? And then if you want scans, you would think the photofinisher would charge you for 24 of them rather than 12.
If you don't have a 220 stainless steel reel, you can pick them up cheap at B&H:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...teel_Reel.html
Similar threads
