Roger Hicks
Veteran
Or indeed every 3 to 16 (6x24cm to 645).120 all the way. I like being able to change film stocks every 8 to 12 shots (depending on negative size).
Cheers,
R.
Or indeed every 3 to 16 (6x24cm to 645).120 all the way. I like being able to change film stocks every 8 to 12 shots (depending on negative size).
And 70mm is better than either of 'em!220 would be nice - but 127 would be much nicer!!!
Huh ... twenty frames with my P67ii and twenty four with my Rolleiflex. 😱
That could lead to careless shooting ... may as well go digital! 😀
For those that voted 120 - can you please explain why?
I suppose it can be better if you don't have the option of multiple film backs and you need to change film. But other than that there seems no purpose...
Isn't the 67II good for 21 with 220?
There - we can use efficiency as an excuse now....
My vote for 70mm also: You can load one day`s need in one cassette. with motorized hasselblad and 70mm back you can go out in any weather when you wrap the body inside a plastic bag, just shade and finder glass out of the bag. The 70mm film goes from one cassette to the other, so you can swap the cassette pair anytime you want and lose just a couple blank frames. You can clip off the film anytime, mark the developing data on the end and put a new empty cassette in and continue shooting. You can get hassy 70mm backs and film cassettes for a very low price. The selection is now Maco Rollei 400 IR and 25 ortho, It would be great to have RPX 400 and RPX 100 , maybe also some Ilford emulsions in 70mm. These companies are relatively small players, so they could respond to our wishes if there was a sufficent demand. So voice your opinions, please !I'd rather bring back 70mm. Reliable film advance with uniform spacing. I'd like the rolls to be not too long, though, so I could still develop it myself.
Illford would make 220 but their 220 machine is beyound repair. It would cost over 300,000 Pounds to get it fixed.
There are/were only 2 companies in the world who can spool 220: Kodak & Fuji. Ilford approched them to have them spool 220 Ilford films but Kodak didn't even respond. No luck there. This is from Simon himself when I asked a few years ago.
Dear Tony,I would love to see 220 B&W but 70mm is a far easier solution. The 2013 ULF Ilford progam had 70mm double perf on the list but I'm not sure how much was ordered or produced. I will get a 70mm double perf order in for next years run.
In the 70's I would load my Hasselblad 70mm back with 25 frames of 6x6 and process it on a modified 35mm 36 exp reel. A poor man's 220 A24 back!
Dear Tony,
Last time I checked, Hewes still made 70mm reels. That was a while back, though. Frances has a 6x7cm 70mm back for her Alpa...
Cheers,
R.
I used to periodically check Ebay for 70mm items, had maybe 6 developing reels also for 70mm. I quit that when I realized I had about 2000 metres of 70mm film stock. I guess I will never get them exposed, developed and printed... I also sold some of the hassy 70mm backs, I have only three left:Dear Tony,
Last time I checked, Hewes still made 70mm reels. That was a while back, though. Frances has a 6x7cm 70mm back for her Alpa...
Cheers,
R.
One for Aerocon II , Rollei 400 IR and Ortho 25, respectively.
my last roll of 220 took me 18 months to complete.
That is reason enough for Ilford NOT to make it!
Oh! I had 23 keepers.. Used in old Rollei TLR.
Shot 12 exposures, wound thru, reloaded and shot another 12..
Could have got 25 exposures..Rats!
Loading 120/220 on reels a cruel and unusual punishment.
Ilford was first with Pro Packs where i once lived,
charged more for 5 rolls in a box, than 5 rolls separately boxed!
Voted with my short fingers: deep pockets..
220 was the choice of pros shooting wedding and fashion gigs