Forums > Photography Talk > Black and White "220"

Photographer

David Shinobi

Posts: 5447

Daytona Beach, Florida, US

I've looked and looked, perhaps I didn't see it but is it available anywhere thats not expired?

Jan 17 13 10:32 am Link

Photographer

L A U B E N H E I M E R

Posts: 8798

Seattle, Washington, US

b&h?

Jan 17 13 10:33 am Link

Photographer

David Shinobi

Posts: 5447

Daytona Beach, Florida, US

Mark Laubenheimer wrote:
b&h?

Negative... sad
Just got off the phone with them.

Jan 17 13 10:35 am Link

guide forum

Photographer

GPS Studio Services

Posts: 36389

San Francisco, California, US

I don't think anyone is making 220 anymore.  You'll need to make due with 120.   It has been a while since 220 has been around unless someone I don't know of started making it again.

Jan 17 13 10:37 am Link

Photographer

salvatori.

Posts: 3836

Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, US

From my experience, if B&H doesn't have it, no one will.

sad

Jan 17 13 10:39 am Link

Photographer

Wideviews

Posts: 220

Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom

I've never seen it in the UK for last 5years plus.

Jan 17 13 10:46 am Link

Photographer

Neil Snape

Posts: 9473

Paris, Île-de-France, France

It's a market that is abandoned.

The other day when attending a an evening with Sebastiao Salgado, he said at first he hesitated, but now his current DSLR ( Canon) exceed anything he ever did including MF Pentax.


Dunno, as when I had my drum scanner, a superb result from 120 film could be had, a lot better in my opinion than any DSLR.

Good luck in finding your film.

Jan 17 13 10:47 am Link

Photographer

John Malloch Caldwell

Posts: 2563

Hastings, England, United Kingdom

Jan 17 13 10:54 am Link

Photographer

Brooklyn Bridge Images

Posts: 9790

Brooklyn, New York, US

Dont think its around anymore
But try these guys
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/index.php

Jan 17 13 10:54 am Link

Photographer

ELiffmann

Posts: 1414

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, US

Neil Snape wrote:
It's a market that is abandoned.

The other day when attending a an evening with Sebastiao Salgado, he said at first he hesitated, but now his current DSLR ( Canon) exceed anything he ever did including MF Pentax.


Dunno, as when I had my drum scanner, a superb result from 120 film could be had, a lot better in my opinion than any DSLR.

Good luck in finding your film.

He might be my favorite.  I'd be interested to see his digital work/workflow.  He's fantastic.

Jan 17 13 10:54 am Link

Photographer

Mcary

Posts: 1803

Fredericksburg, Virginia, US

Kodak Tri-X 320 was the last B&W film to be available in 220 and they stop making that several years ago. 

Just checked B&H and Adorama seems the only film that still available in 220 is C41 Portra 160 and 400.

Jan 17 13 10:55 am Link

Photographer

AVD AlphaDuctions

Posts: 10559

Gatineau, Quebec, Canada

has anyone tried Adorama?

Jan 17 13 10:58 am Link

Photographer

David Shinobi

Posts: 5447

Daytona Beach, Florida, US

Mcary wrote:
Kodak Tri-X 320 was the last B&W film to be available in 220 and they stop making that several years ago. 

Just checked B&H and Adorama seems the only film that still available in 220 is C41 Portra 160 and 400.

Yeah, thats all I seem to be finding too but expired by 8 or more years.

Jan 17 13 11:03 am Link

Photographer

David Shinobi

Posts: 5447

Daytona Beach, Florida, US

GPS Studio Services wrote:
I don't think anyone is making 220 anymore.  You'll need to make due with 120.   It has been a while since 220 has been around unless someone I don't know of started making it again.

Its all good, its just 10 shots with 120 seems ridiculous at times having to keep reloading even though I have 2 Pentax 6x7's.

Jan 17 13 11:05 am Link

Photographer

David Shinobi

Posts: 5447

Daytona Beach, Florida, US

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
has anyone tried Adorama?

Negative there as well....

Jan 17 13 11:06 am Link

Photographer

Vector One Photography

Posts: 2781

Fort Lauderdale, Florida, US

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
has anyone tried Adorama?

It doesn't matter which retailer you go to... Kodak stopped making it three years ago. The other manufacturers either never made it or ceased production way before that. And as soon as the majority of the studio/wedding photographers go digital C-41 220 will be gone too.  Kodak has been run by bean counters for years now and their policy is that if it doesn't sell a certain number of units per year, it's out of the line.

Jan 17 13 12:29 pm Link

Photographer

Tim Little Photography

Posts: 11602

Wilmington, Delaware, US

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
has anyone tried Adorama?

I get my Ektar from them. The only 220 sold is Kodak Portra in 400 and 160 ISO. I guess there are still a number of wedding photographers who make it worth their wild to keep making the long rolls. All the other medium format is 120.

Jan 17 13 12:44 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

GPS Studio Services

Posts: 36389

San Francisco, California, US

GPS Studio Services wrote:
I don't think anyone is making 220 anymore.  You'll need to make due with 120.   It has been a while since 220 has been around unless someone I don't know of started making it again.

David Shinobi  wrote:
Its all good, its just 10 shots with 120 seems ridiculous at times having to keep reloading even though I have 2 Pentax 6x7's.

I don't know what it means, but the Fuji CF670 medium format camera accepts both 120 and 220 film.  A friend of mine, that is a film distributor pointed that out to me a few months ago.  He was questioning, out loud, if that portends that Fuji might be planning on releasing some 220 film some day.  It is just speculation on his part, but it is interesting that the camera accepts 220.

Jan 17 13 01:39 pm Link

Photographer

Carlos Occidental

Posts: 10546

Glendora, California, US

Nobody has black and white 220 anymore.  Shoot 220 Portra color negatives and scan, then convert.

Freestyle has devoted itself to film shooters.  Try here:
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/8273773-K … at_id=1103

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/images/prod/8273773.jpg

Also:
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/8374290-K … at_id=1103
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/images/prod/8374290.jpg


They don't have any black and white 220 film, only the Kodak Portra color negative.  They also have this and others in 120 size.

Samy's Camera also has Portra both 160 and 400 in 220 size. 
https://www.samys.com/c/Film/sortby_nam … 2/543.html

From Samy's Camera, 400 iso Portra 220 size:
https://www.samys.com/p/Film/8374290/22 … 38172.html
https://www.samys.com/imagesproc/L2ltYWdlcy9wcm9kdWN0L2xhcmdlL1MtMDA4NTI2eDQwMC5qcGc=_H_SW215_MH250.jpg

From Samy's Camera 160 iso Portra 220 size:
https://www.samys.com/p/Film/8273773/22 … 50661.html
https://www.samys.com/imagesproc/L2ltYWdlcy9wcm9kdWN0L2xhcmdlL1MtMDEyNTE0eDQwMC5qcGc=_H_SW215_MH250.jpg

Lots of black and white 120 film to choose from, though.  If you're going to have to scan anyway, just buy the color.

Are you still enlarging in a wet darkroom?  That's really the ONLY reason I can see NOT to shoot color.

Jan 17 13 01:47 pm Link

Photographer

1472

Posts: 1059

Pembroke Pines, Florida, US

try world wide foto in miami they have lots of old film
they might not have it anymore ppl sometimes buy it all up

Jan 17 13 01:47 pm Link

Photographer

AVD AlphaDuctions

Posts: 10559

Gatineau, Quebec, Canada

scanning in, then convert to B&W?  That was my first thought when read the OP. Then there was a vague feeling of nausea followed by a sense of loss.  My condolences to the midtones.  R.I.P.

And I don't even have a darkroom anymore.

Jan 17 13 05:05 pm Link

Photographer

ybfoto

Posts: 665

Oakland, California, US

"Dear Customers :

We have received your petition for the return of ILFORD 220 roll film, we deeply respect the fervour and passion shown and the great effort that has been expended to assemble such a list of renowned photographers who would like to see this format re-introduced.

We have obviously taken note of the potential commercial opportunity of once again having 220 film within our product family, we would be remiss not to.

The Board of Directors of ILFORD Photo, HARMAN technology Limited have discussed this petition and the opportunity, and discussed at length with our manufacturing and finishing staff the practicalities of returning 220 film to the range.

After due deliberation, we find it impossible to do so at this time, the reasons are set out below.

1) The finishing route of this film is part automated, the machine designated to 220 is chronically obsolete, in excess of 50 years old, and is currently de-commissioned. To refurbish the machine is impossible and to manufacture a new one ( using the old machine as a template ) would cost in the region of £ 300,000.

2) Hand finishing of 220 has been evaluated and rejected due to the potential quality issues of hand finishing in total darkness.

3) The highly specialised coated papers used for backing strips for 120 and for 'tops and tails' for 220 film has to be ordered ( and finished in a process ) in very large quantities, the minimum order for 'tops and tails' to our required specification would equate to seven years and eight months stock* having to be ordered and paid for in advance of any production.

* Based on the last full years sales figures of all ILFORD 220 films, with no decline in sales taken into account and using a generic, none film specific
'top and tail'.

4) If we were to commit to a new machine and the advance order for 'tops and tails' and endeavour to recover the costs ( including interest ) over a 3 year period, the cost of an individual 220 film would be more than three an half times the cost of a 120 film, we do not believe this sustainable, therefore volume would reduce, and we would fail to recover the cost of our investment."

ORIGINAL THREAD...
http://www.apug.org/forums/archive/inde … 27176.html

Jan 17 13 05:31 pm Link

Photographer

ybfoto

Posts: 665

Oakland, California, US

Short answer nope....

Jan 17 13 05:33 pm Link

Photographer

AVD AlphaDuctions

Posts: 10559

Gatineau, Quebec, Canada

ybfoto wrote:
Short answer nope....

It is impressive that they took the time to explain in detail why not. That, my friends, is good customer relations.

Jan 17 13 06:32 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

Giacomo Cirrincioni

Posts: 21385

New York, New York, US

Carlos Occidental wrote:
Are you still enlarging in a wet darkroom?  That's really the ONLY reason I can see NOT to shoot color.

Seriously?  If you wanted the look of TriX, you would shoot Portra instead and then try to match it after scanning?  That makes no sense.

Jan 17 13 07:53 pm Link

Photographer

ybfoto

Posts: 665

Oakland, California, US

Paramour Productions wrote:

Seriously?  If you wanted the look of TriX, you would shoot Portra instead and then try to match it after scanning?  That makes no sense.

agree completely...

Jan 17 13 10:14 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

GPS Studio Services

Posts: 36389

San Francisco, California, US

ybfoto wrote:
Short answer nope....

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
It is impressive that they took the time to explain in detail why not. That, my friends, is good customer relations.

It also says that we will probably never see B&W 220 ever again.

Jan 17 13 10:30 pm Link

Photographer

Toby Key

Posts: 322

Chichester, England, United Kingdom

Pentax 6x7's aren't that great with 220 anyway. It has a tendency to break the winding mechanism on the camera which is a weak point. I know, I've done it sad

Jan 18 13 02:40 am Link

Photographer

Andrew Kaiser

Posts: 1306

Portland, Oregon, US

220 is something I don't miss.  I always preferred 120. 

The longer roll film was a pain in the butt to spool into the developing tank and 220 film backs had a tenancy to jam a lot (in my experience anyway).

Is there any particular reason you need 220?

Jan 18 13 04:03 pm Link

Photographer

Andrew Kaiser

Posts: 1306

Portland, Oregon, US

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

It is impressive that they took the time to explain in detail why not. That, my friends, is good customer relations.

Ilford is pretty damn awesome like that.

Jan 18 13 04:04 pm Link

Photographer

sidney_k

Posts: 874

Paris, Île-de-France, France

Andrew Kaiser wrote:
220 is something I don't miss.  I always preferred 120. 

The longer roll film was a pain in the butt to spool into the developing tank and 220 film backs had a tenancy to jam a lot (in my experience anyway).

Is there any particular reason you need 220?

I have always found it more simple to load one roll of 220 onto one reel, than two 120 rolls...

Demand dictates availability, that is why 220 is no longer available.

I don't think any company produces that format anymore in B/W.

I still have a couple of boxes of 220 Tri-X, a treat.

Jan 18 13 04:19 pm Link

Photographer

CameraSight

Posts: 1092

Roselle Park, New Jersey, US

Jan 18 13 07:26 pm Link

Photographer

Patrickth

Posts: 10321

Bellingham, Washington, US

Neil Snape wrote:
It's a market that is abandoned.

The other day when attending a an evening with Sebastiao Salgado, he said at first he hesitated, but now his current DSLR ( Canon) exceed anything he ever did including MF Pentax.


Dunno, as when I had my drum scanner, a superb result from 120 film could be had, a lot better in my opinion than any DSLR.

Good luck in finding your film.

I am not a pro, so if I lose a bit in the translation, don't mind so much really. but the first two pics in my port, including my avatar are expired 220 that I bought for my Pentax 67II.  Expiration date is 1978.

Pro Packs of Plus X Pan. Only have 4 pr 5 packs left, then have to switch to ilford HP5 I guess.

Jan 18 13 08:12 pm Link