Petition Ilford to bring back 220!!

[JChrome]

For the life of me, it doesn't make sense why 220 film is no longer made. If I could shoot 220, I would change all of my 120 over to it (and pay double the price of course). The main advantage being of course I would have to change film 50% less of the time, which would make me rejoice :dance:.

And all cameras I have found that shoot 120 will also shoot 220... So why not?

 

[axiom]

Ektar 100 too please

 

[alfredian]

Loooong rolls of pix, just like 35mm!

Loooong rolls of pix, just like 35mm!

I managed to snag one ( 1 ) roll of B&W film before it all...went away. I picked up a roll of Plus-X in 220, ran it in a Bronica SQA (for which I have numerous 220 backs) and devved it at home. Amazing. Hanging on the rod with some 35mm 36 exp rolls, IT'S THE SAM LENGTH! lovely long rolls of film, just bigger frames. And in 6x4.5 it gets even better - 30 or 32 frames per roll, depending on your camera. What's not to like? I went back to the store - all gone. I'd bought a roll out of a 5-pack & somebody (with more foresight than I) came in & snapped up the store's entire stock. I tried for Tri-X in 320, having heard good things about the 320 TX. Gone.

I have a lovely set of 220 reels, and barring any ventures into E-6 or C-41 (could happen), they gather dust.

Can we bribe the employee who cuts the rolls to length? Halve the work for him -wait, there's the paper backing to take into account. Never mind.

 

[raid]

Precision Camera charges same amount for 120 and 220 developing plus scanning.

 

[JChrome]

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...

 

[Keith]

Huh ... twenty frames with my P67ii and twenty four with my Rolleiflex. 😱

That could lead to careless shooting ... may as well go digital! 😀

 

[Rob-F]

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.

 

[Pablito]

120, the base is not so thin, easier to load on reels, etc.

 

[Brian Legge]

Can we petition them to stay in business and keep making film? I'd be fine with that. 🙂

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

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...

Well, that, and, the minor point that some of us like to use cameras that aren't 220 capable...
Regards,
Brett

 

[Keith]

I do quite like the limitations of 120 though ... but I can see if you were a wedding photographer offering MF film images 220 would be almost essential.

 

[Jamie123]

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...

Even if you have multiple film backs you might want to shoot both ISO160 and 400 color and bw film depending on the weather and carrying four film backs is much more of an inconvenience than reloading your camera every once in a while. That and I don't really like to leave a roll sit in the camera for too long.

Also, in reality it's just more expensive, at least for color film. The price for a roll of Kodak Portra 400 in 220 is usually more than double that of 120 and where I live it's also more than double to get it processed.

 

[Oren Grad]

220 Film Petition / Reply From ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology

 

[seakayaker1]

I much rather use 220 than 120.

At the moment you still can get Porta 160 & 400 in both 120 & 220.

It would be nice to see Ilford or another manufacture produce 220 in Black and White.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

220 Film Petition / Reply From ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology

Thanks for passing that on. Even though I voted for 120, not 220 in the above poll, I'm deeply impressed with Ilford's considered, courteous and detailed, response. It bodes well for the future availability of their products, because clearly they are motivated to develop enduring relationships with their customers and to listen to them. Comparisons could be drawn with other manufacturers, here, but to do so is likely counter-productive at this point.
Cheers,
Brett

 

[Rodchenko]

I prefer 220. However, my current medium format camera has a ruby window exposure counter, so it isn't viable for me. Certainly, using a Fuji GS645S with 220 gets you mf image quality and 35mm style convenience.

But I understand, and am sympathetic to, the issues raised by Ilford in their considered response. Rollfilm is a long way from being a mass market.

 

[vdonovan]

While I loved shooting 220 (Kodak TXP was my jam), I will be happy if the current film manufacturers put their efforts into quality production (and promotion!) of 120. 220 going away was an inconvenience, but 120 going away would be devastating.

 

[J. Borger]

I shoot a lot of MF but would never buy 220 film. Just too much on one roll for MF. I shoot carefull and slow (not so many pictutres) with MF. Besides it is more of a problem loading 220 film on reels for development.

 

[craygc]

Its not a petition that Ilford needs to resume 220; its a business case...

 

[thegman]

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...

I have great difficulty getting to the end of a 36 exposure roll, in fact often, I don't. I just send it off with 30 shots on it or whatever. Even 24 for me can be a bit of a push, so the 12 of 120 in a 6x6 camera suits me just fine. 6x9 probably suits me even better.

Quite simply, 12 is nearer the ideal number of shots per roll for me than 24, as I'll get it used up in a reasonable amount of time.

If I'm on vacation, then maybe that's different, but still I'm quite happy with 120.