Why No 220 Black and White Film?

[JHenry]

Hi All,

I'm just back from a wonderful three week trip to Istanbul, Greece and Italy (I'll post some photos soon). I traveled with Leica M9 and M7, and a Mamiya 7ii.

I started developing the 120 format black and white yesterday (sent off 16 rolls of Portra 400 220 to Precision a few days ago for processing and scanning), and realized I didn't shoot much black and white with the 7ii. Got me thinking...why not? I've concluded I didn't shoot much B&W with the 7ii because I'm only getting 10 shots per roll, not the 20 that the Portra provided.

This begs the question: Why is no black and white film offered in 220 format? Anybody have any ideas?

I'm sure the demand for 220 B&W is not as great as 120, but there has to be some demand, right? If there was no demand for 220, why would Kodak have just released two new films in 220 format (Portra 160 and 400)?

I just find it hard to believe that there wouldn't be enough demand for Fuji, Kodak or Ilford to do at least one run of 220 black and white a year. Is there a significant production difference between 120 and 220 to make this impossible?

Thanks,

Jeff

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

There used to be. Kodak made a lot of films in 220, but they quit because no one bought the stuff.

 

[alfredian]

No more pros use t

No more pros use t

No more pros buy it in bulk for weddings, portraits, etc. I bought exatly ONE roll of Plus-X in 220. Fantastic - Bronica SQ made 24 exposures on a roll as long as a 35mm 36-exp roll. Went back to the store for more, but I'd bought the last roll. Weeks later, tried a roll of Tri-X 320, in 220 format. Same thing, only 30 exposures in 4.5x6 cm. Last roll in the store, no, the chain's whole inventory.

All the weddings have "gone digital" - even in med format. At the very least it's "captured" on color film, then scanned. Brides peruse the "proofs" on-line, click on what they want, & the "album" is sent cross-country to be printed & bound, then FedEx'ed to the client. If you want B&W, they de-colorize w/software.

Now I have all these Bronica 220 backs & can barely afford color. I'd thought that, world-wide, at least one outfit would put together a slice & package run of 220 once a year. Not?

 

[oleg_hk]

But B+W in 120 does make more sense, at least for non-studio work. When you want to develop your film to the particular scene conditions you are less a hostage to previous shots on the roll when it is only 10 frames per roll and not 21.
Of course the hardcore way is to have several backs (or cameras) for different developing times, but who has the discipline for that

 

[Keith]

I think when Kodak abandoned TXP320 that was it ... it was the last 220 black and white film available from anyone from memory. I think it was a crappy decision personally and they should have offered TX400 or T-max400 in 220.

Every time Kodak ignores a small segment of their user base in this way they dig their own hole a little deeper IMO!

I would love to see Ilford produce HP5+ in 220.

 

[Roger Hicks]

An even better question is "Why did 70mm never take off?"

And the answer, as Chris pointed out, is that not enough people buy it. Ilford is willing to supply any emulsion in 70mm (including Delta 3200) but minimum order quantities are hair-raising. They won't supply 220, though, because it's so expensive to produce that hardly anyone is willing to pay the price. Apparently there's a lot more hand work than with 120 (no, I don't know why, but several manufacturers have told me the same thing). You can't make it for less than 2x the price of 120, and understandably, most people would rather have the control (as Oleg HK points out) of different dev times.

And, after all, there are always multiple backs. By using a camera without interchangeable backs and asking for long rolls, you're limiting your options somewhat.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sevo]

An even better question is "Why did 70mm never take off?"

Both did not make it in the pro world as labs had a variety of issues with them - 70mm even more so than 220. Hanger depths were limited to 135 film so that 220 had to go around one corner and 70mm around several, which led to markedly inconsistent development of at least one frame per turn and frequent film losses whenever the film slipped off the notoriously unreliable loading frames. It was better for 220, which at least fits endless and reel type processors, the former common for pro lab colour, the latter in studio labs - but the inability to drop it off at black and white bulk labs made it unpopular there even at times when a more considerable amount of colour 220 was being used. And 70mm was pretty much unprocessable unless you had negotiated dedicated batches with a specialist lab - it exceeds the limits of even the biggest processor spirals and most labs did not have any guides in their endless processors on standby for it.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Both did not make it in the pro world as labs had a variety of issues with them - 70mm even more so than 220. Hanger depths were limited to 135 film so that 220 had to go around one corner and 70mm around several, which led to markedly inconsistent development of at least one frame per turn and frequent film losses whenever the film slipped off the notoriously unreliable loading frames. It was better for 220, which at least fits endless and reel type processors, the former common for pro lab colour, the latter in studio labs - but the inability to drop it off at black and white bulk labs made it unpopular there even at times when a more considerable amount of colour 220 was being used. And 70mm was pretty much unprocessable unless you had negotiated dedicated batches with a specialist lab - it exceeds the limits of even the biggest processor spirals and most labs did not have any guides in their endless processors on standby for it.

That all makes eminent sense, though I seem to recall that it was popular with museums (who presumably did their own processing). I think 70mm came in when most processing was still manual (on spirals -- I have a 70mm Hewes spiral somewhere) and then fell foul of mechanization. Even so, I'd have thought -- though you probably know better than I -- that the big spirals could have fitted in the baskets of some of the bigger nitrogen-burst hand lines.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Freakscene]

That all makes eminent sense, though I seem to recall that it was popular with museums (who presumably did their own processing). I think 70mm came in when most processing was still manual (on spirals -- I have a 70mm Hewes spiral somewhere) and then fell foul of mechanization. Even so, I'd have thought -- though you probably know better than I -- that the big spirals could have fitted in the baskets of some of the bigger nitrogen-burst hand lines.

I worked in the darkroom at a large museum that used thousands of feet of 70mm Kodak HIE to document stone objects. It was developed it in a nitrogen burst replenishment system with one end set up for dip-and-dunk and the other set up for reels. I had these custom metal reels that could hold 150 feet of 70mm film at a time. They were hell to load.

Marty

 

[Pherdinand]

It's even worse with the fuji gw690ii. Eight shots and change the roll is indeed very demotivating, add the extra developing time/effort, and i rarely can convince myself to use it.
When i got a handful of e100g and gx in 220 format, it was heaven!! Sixteen gorgeous large slides without any roll-changing! But yea, that's not BW, just a slow slide film...with stratospherical development costs, lately.

 

[SimonSawSunlight]

But B+W in 120 does make more sense, at least for non-studio work. When you want to develop your film to the particular scene conditions you are less a hostage to previous shots on the roll when it is only 10 frames per roll and not 21.
Of course the hardcore way is to have several backs (or cameras) for different developing times, but who has the discipline for that

the other option is to expose correctly, no?

 

[joachim]

Another issue with 220 film is light leaks and scratching from the pressure plate. Due to the backing paper a 120 film is less sensitive.

 

[furcafe]

oleg_hk is referring to the fact that if you can tailor development for individual scenes, there will be also be a different "correct" exposure for each scene. Unfortunately, you can't do this w/roll film unless every exposure on the roll is of an identical scene (same lighting, subject, etc.).

the other option is to expose correctly, no?

 

[williams473]

Sorry to mention an SLR on this forum, but since we're talking format here I just thought I'd throw in that I don't mind changing out the film backs on my RZ67 Pro II - I get 10 images per roll at 6x7. I use the RZ as a landscape camera that I consider a faster, tougher way to work in the woods and mountains than with a view camera, so I actually consider it a major convenience compared to swapping out film holders every exposure! Now on the street I can see where 220 might be nice to have, but on the street I'll shoot a 645 format, which at 16 frames is pretty decent.

 

[oleg_hk]

the other option is to expose correctly, no?

No, not really. If you expose for shadows and develop for highlights, your development will be different every time the shadows and highlights are different number of stops apart.
So _some_ number of frames shot under similar lighting conditions will require the same processing, but others not. The longer your roll is, the more likely you will have different dev times on the same roll.

OK, all that is only valid when you want to get absolutely the best quality in terms of tones separation. I myself is not that rigorous on this in 35mm, but in 6x7 and up I usually care. Different formats - different priorities (for me)

 

[shadowfox]

Another type of shooting that lessen the need for 220 is both digital and film.
It is rare for me not to bring along a digital camera which takes care of figuring out tricky lighting, and experimentation with different compositions.

Then the film camera enters to take *the* shot which will end up becoming a print in the darkroom.

Doing it this way, even 8 per roll is enough (for 6x9).

 

[sepiareverb]

Every time Kodak ignores a small segment of their user base in this way they dig their own hole a little deeper IMO!

And when they ignore large parts of it they start burying themselves.

 

[Nokton48]

Having six 220 Hasselblad A24 Film Magazines, I loaded up on it (Tri-X Pro) so it's being discontinued is not an issue for me. Color 220 is no problem, as I probably use an equal amount of that.

70mm is another story, but much the same, for me. I have plenty in my freezer, and I still use a fair amount of it. So it's not an issue for me either. I love 70mm. It's like shooting digital, but no chimping.

 

[bob338]

Having six 220 Hasselblad A24 Film Magazines, I loaded up on it (Tri-X Pro) so it's being discontinued is not an issue for me. Color 220 is no problem, as I probably use an equal amount of that.

70mm is another story, but much the same, for me. I have plenty in my freezer, and I still use a fair amount of it. So it's not an issue for me either. I love 70mm. It's like shooting digital, but no chimping.

you can use 120 in an A24 back, you just lose the last frame on the roll...

bob

 

[Nokton48]

Yup I know that. Thanks. That's what I will do, when I finally run out of 220. Which won't be for a good while.