Sparrow
Veteran
... anybody else remember how bloody frustrating it was trying to get it on the reels?
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Always hated loading 220 onto a reel. I NEVER shot 220 again after losing a few frames on both rolls in a single tank. One to those effing half moons and the other to film touching itself. Not that I have anything against touching oneself, I just don't abide it in my developing tanks.
Twenty minutes to load a pair of reels? No thanks. I'll stick to 120 where trouble free loading is over in a heartbeat.
VTHokiEE
Well-known
+1, This is why I voted 120. I just don't burn through film. I don't even really go crazy shooting digital (I don't like to edit a ton of pictures). I'd rather make the most of a few shots.
oftheherd
Veteran
I didn't even vote as I read the entire thread and saw the reply by Ilford to APUG. But if I had not read that, I still wouldn't have voted, as you only give a choice between one or the other in your poll. I wouldn't agree to only having one.
I have several folders that do not use 220. I don't want to give them up. I have interchangable backs for my Super Press 23, five in fact. That is convenient. Carrying a Press 23, four lenses, and five backs is not. To take it all on vacation and leave it in the car until needed was what I used to do. On vacations, or for weddings as Keith mentioned, was a definite advantage.
But just like I sometimes prefer 24 exposure rolls in 35mm photography over 36 exposure rolls, 220 had its place and I wish I could still get all the films I used to use in 220 when I wanted it. At least I can change 35mm rolls mid-use, but it is much more difficult (almost to the point of impossibility) with 120/220. But from Ilford's point of view, I don't blame them for not trying to get back into a production they quit. They apparently quit because it wasn't turning a profit sufficient to keep it going.
As to spooling 220, that was an advantage of Patterson plastic reels. But I learned how to tell if a 220 steel reel was not threading properly, and go back to the point it went bad and redo it.
leicapixie
Well-known
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..
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..
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Ilford's communication is enough to make me commit to them, even if their film wasn't great (which is certainly is!). I have some 220 stockpiled and I'll keep an eye out for more (if Kodak 400CN is still available in 220 I'll get that; great film).
I actually contacted Ilford a while ago pleading with them to start making 127! They politely demurred, largely because of equipment concerns, which I get (and to be sure, sales would be very small, I bet). But wouldn't it be great if they did?
I actually contacted Ilford a while ago pleading with them to start making 127! They politely demurred, largely because of equipment concerns, which I get (and to be sure, sales would be very small, I bet). But wouldn't it be great if they did?
Photo_Smith
Well-known
The purpose is that 120 fits in more cameras I use especially the folding cameras where 220 doesn't work due to lack of backing paper causing fogging through the red windows.
I can see if you have a camera with interchangeable backs or motorised bodies I can see it would make sense to want 220 but from where I stand 120 works as well or better, especially if you process your own as 220 is easier to damage putting on some spirals.
BTW Someone at Ilford told me a couple of years ago they can't make 220 anymore as the spooling machines wore out and were scrapped, the small amount of users not making it worthwhile to invest in new 220 equipment.
Nokton48
Veteran
I stocked up on 220 film when it was being discontinued. I still have 25 rolls of 220 TXP and maybe 15 rolls of PXP. And a lot of Fuji color neg, left over from my days doing weddings with Hasselblad. Not much TXP & PXP, but enough to keep my A24 Blad Magazines fed for a while.
A few of us here also use 70mm, I have six A70 Blad Magazines myself. Diligent searching for years has turned up quite a few very interesting Aerial emulsions. They are expired, but still produce great images.
A few of us here also use 70mm, I have six A70 Blad Magazines myself. Diligent searching for years has turned up quite a few very interesting Aerial emulsions. They are expired, but still produce great images.
richardhkirkando
Well-known
It might take me several months to get through a roll of 220. I don't want that.
JChrome
Street Worker
I agree. And by this petition I was hoping to present some business case.. but then I read their response to the APUG petition and realized that the costs are much higher than I anticipated.
I must have been naive as I didn't realize the amount of industry it would take to produce rollfilm. As technology marches on, it surprises me that older technologies can't be revived... even though demand cannot match what it was way back when, I would just assume they would just increase the price of the 220. But c'est la vie.. I can't have it all.
sykotec
Well-known
Isn't the 67II good for 21 with 220?
There - we can use efficiency as an excuse now....
There - we can use efficiency as an excuse now....
Huh ... twenty frames with my P67ii and twenty four with my Rolleiflex.
That could lead to careless shooting ... may as well go digital!
bastian a.
Well-known
I like to use 220 in my Mamiya 6 very much, but my Plaubel Makina 67 and W67 don't accept 220, only 120, and it's the same with my Rolleiflex.
That's the reason why I usually don't miss 220 - because I would have to buy diffenent films for different cameras.
That's the reason why I usually don't miss 220 - because I would have to buy diffenent films for different cameras.
Joakim Målare
Established
I'm moving away from 35mm and into medium format. The biggest reason is the possibility to make larger prints, but another big reason is the number of shots per roll. It takes forever to go through 36 exposures! Having 12 squares or 10 6x7, that's a lot more appealing to me.
It's sort of like large format, where you concentrate on a well chosen subject and getting things right, but with the option to try different angles and perhaps some bracketing without a lot of hassle. At least that's how I'm planning to shoot - right now I'm just wasting film without any real plan.
120 is also a nice way of separating subjects. New subject or area, new film. I should also point out that I never shot 220, so... I feel it would be a nice option for others, but I'm better off with smaller boundaries. And considering the investment involved for a company like Ilford, I'd rather have them spend that kind of money in a different project.
It's sort of like large format, where you concentrate on a well chosen subject and getting things right, but with the option to try different angles and perhaps some bracketing without a lot of hassle. At least that's how I'm planning to shoot - right now I'm just wasting film without any real plan.
120 is also a nice way of separating subjects. New subject or area, new film. I should also point out that I never shot 220, so... I feel it would be a nice option for others, but I'm better off with smaller boundaries. And considering the investment involved for a company like Ilford, I'd rather have them spend that kind of money in a different project.
sykotec
Well-known
Interesting to see this topic come up from time to time. Regardless my last reply to Keith, I'm quite happy with 120. The 67II will always be a bear to load, but the Mamiya 7II is quick and has never presented a problem. For the way I shoot at least, 10-12 shots on a roll is just about ideal. Add in the factor of loading 120 vs 220 onto reels, and I'm pretty happy with what we've got.
Heck, so far I've only really missed a few available emulsions, and that's where the real pain is. Give me back Efke 25, IR820 (Aura, please!), and Plus-X in 120 and 4x5 and I'd be thrilled. That, and papers of course.
Heck, so far I've only really missed a few available emulsions, and that's where the real pain is. Give me back Efke 25, IR820 (Aura, please!), and Plus-X in 120 and 4x5 and I'd be thrilled. That, and papers of course.
Rangefinderfreak
Well-known
I vote for 70mm also. there is the rollei infrafed 400 ( a fantastic film) and Rollei/maco ortho 25 asa but nothing in between, a RPX 100 would be a killer as 70mm as well as FP4, that was a special order item at ilford. I guess not any more. The beauty of 70mm is that it runs from one cassette to another. If you want to do exposure/development tests, just shoot a couple blank frames, open the back and slice the film, load onto reels and develop, then you can fasten a second take up cassette and just continue, If you have empty cassettes, you can do this over and over again. fantastic stuff the perforated 70mm film/cassettes...
Nokton48
Veteran
Another vote for 70mm Film. I have an unopened box of 150' Kodak 70mm High Speed Infared, and numerous rolls of various flavors of Kodak Plus-X, Agfa Agiphot, etc etc. Years ago I was lucky enough to find half-a-case of Kodak Surveillance Film which responds about like Tri-X. That is my favorite 70mm film, and I still have about fifteen rolls 150' each. They should bring back 70mm film.
Vics
Veteran
My Rolleiflex MX doesn't accept 220. Even if it did, I'd go for 120, because when I shoot MF I really slow down. As it is a roll can be in the camera for more than a week.
wayneb
Established
I also shot 220 TXP and loved it. I never hand-developed, so I was never aware of downsides. I clicked through to the letter and have to second other posters - their response is great, exactly the type of relationship the film shooting minority needs with a small company. Other companies make film as a side business, but Ilford is /the/ film company. Next batch of film will be Ilford, to see if I can switch over from Kodak.
Spanik
Well-known
I don't see 220 as having any advantage over 120.
- I like not having a lot of exposures. I don't shoot much so it is easier to have it develloped. Also easy when using several camera's.
- only few of my camera's actually like 220.
- if you don't wind the roll tight you loose even more photo's than on 120. Not only because you are clumsy but because of lack of backing paper.
And Ilford doesn't make slides anyway.
- I like not having a lot of exposures. I don't shoot much so it is easier to have it develloped. Also easy when using several camera's.
- only few of my camera's actually like 220.
- if you don't wind the roll tight you loose even more photo's than on 120. Not only because you are clumsy but because of lack of backing paper.
And Ilford doesn't make slides anyway.
Rangefinderfreak
Well-known
Is the surveillance film Aerocon II Plus X 70mm.. a fantastic film, I have 4 cans of 500ft of it in the freezer. Absolutely fantastic stuff. Only drawback is it`s thinness. hard to load on big nikor 70mm reel It responds like a IR film with filters, but in normal light like TRI-X.. uh huh. luckily the cold war ended and we got those NASA supplies to photographic work...