Why No 220 Black and White Film?

[joachim]

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

bob

With many cameras using 120 film in a 220 back/pressure plate setting leads to poor sharpness. This is due to the 120 being thicker due to the backing paper. Is that not the case for Hasselblad backs?

Thanks
J.

 

[Nokton48]

Sharpness is not an issue using 120 in an A24. But it does jack up the frame spacing, and you do lose the last frame. Kind of wasteful, but it works AOK.

 

[bob338]

Sharpness is not an issue using 120 in an A24. But it does jack up the frame spacing, and you do lose the last frame. Kind of wasteful, but it works AOK.

i'm only a few weeks into using there A24 backs but i haven't seen any sharpness issues.
if you look around A24 backs can be had for a song, i just picked up to brand new ones for about $75 each, so the lost frame is worth it to me.

bob

 

[sevo]

With many cameras using 120 film in a 220 back/pressure plate setting leads to poor sharpness. This is due to the 120 being thicker due to the backing paper.

With 120 in a 220 back, the film rides on the film window rails and is in the proper plane even if the pressure plate should push it down too tight. But due to the latter it may scratch, may jam and miswind, and won't space and count properly. If you don't mind wide spacing and remember that the counter runs on past the film end, you can usually live with it. The other way around, using 220 in 120 backs, is worse - there, the counter issues will cause you to lose half the film, and the film is quite loose between the staggered 120 pressure plate and film window, so that it tends to bulge out of focus.

 

[JHenry]

Thanks all for your comments.

I didn't realize that 220 costs more than 2x to produce than 120. But, even given that (and not taking into account the exposure issues raised by many) 220 black and white would still seem to be more economical. I develop my own black and white, and it would cost the same to develop 220 as it would 120; the same amount of chemicals are used. If I'm sending off to be scanned (at Precision, for example) scanning a roll of 220 costs the same as 120.

So, in the end, I'd probably pay 2-3 times as much for a roll of 220 than I would for 120, as it would save money overall.

As for the exposure issue, I understand the comments about wanting to have a shorter roll to increase chances of having similar scenes on the same roll so processing can be customized. Makes sense, but just doesn't apply to me.

I'm most curious about joachim's comment that using 220 could lead to light leaks or scratching since the film (not backing paper) is sliding against the pressure plate. I haven't seen that as an issue yet in my M7ii...hopefully it won't have arisen with the 220 rolls I shot on the recent trip.

I do think it is curious that about once or twice a year Kodak (maybe others as well?) will do special runs of certain large format film, but they won't do a run of 220 black and white.

Ilford: are you listening? PanF and HP5+ in 220. Once per year production. I'll buy a lot of it (and think others will as well).

Cheers,

Jeff

 

[Nokton48]

Hi Jeff,

I also loaded up on HP5+ 220 when it was being discontinued. I am down to my last twenty rolls. (Sniff.) I don't think Ilford ever made 220 Pan F+, but I could be wrong on that. I would love to find some.

If you snoop around Ebay, you should still be able to find some 220 TXP that is still in date, or close to it. I also got alot of 220 PXP that way.

 

[mikeg]

Sadly, Ilford/Harman have stated several times on apug that they no longer have the finishing equipment to produce 220 film. See http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/27176-220-film-petition-reply-ilford-photo-harman-technology.html.

Mike

 

[HHPhoto]

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.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I can understand you. I know the situation, there are often times when the 12 shots of 120 film are too limiting.

As the others already have explained, probably there will be no 220 BW film in the future.
Therefore I have looked for an alternative solution for my photographic needs.

And I have found one, an unconventional, but extremely good one:
I am using a 35mm film now, but a special one combined with a special developer.
And this combination is so good, that the results are even a bit better than Plus-X and FP4+ in 6x6.

This highly recommended combination is Agfa Copex Rapid film (made by Agfa-Gevaert in Belgium) with the dedicated Spur Modular UR New developer.
This combination offers excellent tonality because of an almost ideal characteristic curve shape with excellent shadow detail.
Furthermore extremely high resolution, excellent sharpness and very fine grain.
The grain shape is very pleasant, like traditional films.

I've shown several photographers 16x20" prints, some from Copex Rapid / Modular, and some from Plus-X and FP4+ in Perceptol from 120 format. I have asked to rank them, they didn't know which print was from which film.
All photographers ranked the 35mm Copex Rapid pictures higher than the Plus-X and FP4+ from medium format.

Speed is ISO 40/17°.
With Plus-X and FP4+ I get ISO 64/19° with Perceptol for fine grain results.
For the same depth of field I can use 1 1/2 wider apertures with 35mm compared to 6x6. With f4-5,6 in 35mm I have nearly the same depth of field as with f8 in 6x6.

Therefore I have even a bit more speed with Agfa Copex Rapid / Spur Modular UR New at ISO 40/17° than with my old trusty Plus-X / Perceptol combination at ISO 64/19° in 120 format.

Another advantage is the shelf life of Spur Modular UR New, which is about three years.
And currently the Agfa Copex Rapid film is extremely cheap here in Europe, only 2€ per film.

I think this Film / developer combination is a "hidden pearl" of the BW film market.
I am very satisfied, and a lot of work I did with 120 / 220 some time ago I now photograph in 35mm with this film-developer combination.
It's charming, flexibility of 35mm combined with medium format quality.

Cheers, Jan

 

[Lawrence A.]

I worked a black and white film sink link for a number of years and hated processing 220. The reels are more delicate and subject to defects, and the film is harder to load even on a perfect reel. So, though I understand how nice it is to shoot twenty or twenty four frames at a time, I cannot say I really mourn the stuff. I have one 220 reel among my own equipment, and knowing I will never again have to load it gives me a certain amount of satisfaction.