Petition asking Kodak to make TX 400 in 220 format as well

bojanfurst

bojanfurst

Well-known
Local time
3:12 PM
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
480
Location
St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada
View My Gallery
Funny, I've never been able to get a roll on a 220 spool without ruining half of it. There was a thread on the forum some months ago from someone asking for help loading 220. Seemed the vast majority had the same advice I did. Anyway 8 shots are enough on my 6x9, ain't like I'm shooting a football game.
 
It'll be interesting to see if Kodak responds to consumer pressure, however minor it may be, and follows through.

The realist in me says ... "fat chance!"

The optomist hopes they do. 🙂
 
As I mentioned in another forum, petitions like this are stupid. The only thing that matters in business are sales -- not good intentions.
 
Keith said:
It'll be interesting to see if Kodak responds to consumer pressure, however minor it may be, and follows through.

The realist in me says ... "fat chance!"

The optomist hopes they do. 🙂
Click to expand...

Exactly. I see no way this would happen, given the moves Kodak has made over the past few years.

I'll add "Good luck with that"...
 
Which reel do you recommend for loading 220? If I could load one flawlessly I would switch to 220 in an instant. I use Hewes. I have a 12/24 Rolleiflex so am ready.
 
How many folks do you suppose will sign that petition? Do you think 1,000? What difference would that make to Kodak? These petitions are just wishful thinking.
 
I guess that a few hundred folks might actually use this combination. Kodak isn't that lame. They won't produce this film in 220. I would use Ektar in 220. Where is that petition?
 
Rayt said:
Which reel do you recommend for loading 220? If I could load one flawlessly I would switch to 220 in an instant. I use Hewes. I have a 12/24 Rolleiflex so am ready.
Click to expand...

I have used both steel and patterson plastic. I had more trouble with the latter. But I have successfully used both. I like 220 when I am going out for more photos, 120 when less. Of course, I can only use it with my Super Press 23. 220 would be useless with my folders. And granted I have several backs so I can live without it. I don't even know where my 220 steel reel is right now. I have seen them advertised on ebay, and sometimes when they were clearly 120. :bang:
 
rxmd said:
Whoever likes 220 will like 70mm even more. 😎
Click to expand...

You'll be able to special order 70mm of just about any film until they don't make it in 35mm any more - the base and cutting process are the same.

But 220 can be handled by many 120 cameras and processors. 70mm needs special equipment.

Sevo

PS: Of course, Kodak will not start 220 production based upon a mere petition. But voicing ones interest might at least cause them to put 220 among the options in a survey among retailers or high profile customers, so it is not really smart to shut up.
 
Last edited:
I agree with this, I'd like Ektar in 220, especially as I am convinced it will be the last guy left standing!
On my Fuji 6x9s its a big difference between 8 and 16 frames before reloading.
Signed tx petition anyway, who knows?
Clive


bwcolor said:
I guess that a few hundred folks might actually use this combination. Kodak isn't that lame. They won't produce this film in 220. I would use Ektar in 220. Where is that petition?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Portra in 220 is more than twice as expensive as normal 120 film. Makes no sense to me, when do you need to reload fast enough to justify spending more per picture? If they sell Tri-X in 220 for no more than double the price I might buy a few rolls.

martin
 
Keith said:
It'll be interesting to see if Kodak responds to consumer pressure, however minor it may be, and follows through.

The realist in me says ... "fat chance!"

The optomist hopes they do. 🙂
Click to expand...

I agree completely with Keith here- couldn't have said it any better, so I'll just echo his response.

As for those who complain that 220 is hard to load onto reels- slow down and be careful. It's no harder than loading 120 or 35mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom