login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > Black and White "220" Search   Reply
Photographer
David Shinobi
Posts: 5,439
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  Quote 
Photographer
L A U B E N H E I M E R
Posts: 8,361
Seattle, Washington, US


b&h?
Jan 17 13 10:33 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David Shinobi
Posts: 5,439
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  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,433
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  Quote 
Photographer
salvatori.
Posts: 3,682
State College, Pennsylvania, US


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

sad
Jan 17 13 10:39 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Wideviews
Posts: 219
Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom


I've never seen it in the UK for last 5years plus.
Jan 17 13 10:46 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Neil Snape
Posts: 9,439
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  Quote 
Photographer
John Malloch Caldwell
Posts: 2,553
Hastings, England, United Kingdom


Jan 17 13 10:54 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Brooklyn Bridge Images
Posts: 9,063
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  Quote 
Photographer
ELiffmann
Posts: 1,393
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  Quote 
Photographer
Mcary
Posts: 1,803
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  Quote 
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10,521
Gatineau, Quebec, Canada


has anyone tried Adorama?
Jan 17 13 10:58 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David Shinobi
Posts: 5,439
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  Quote 
Photographer
David Shinobi
Posts: 5,439
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  Quote 
Photographer
David Shinobi
Posts: 5,439
Daytona Beach, Florida, US


AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
has anyone tried Adorama?

Negative there as well....

Jan 17 13 11:06 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Vector One Photography
Posts: 2,589
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  Quote 
Photographer
Tim Little Photography
Posts: 11,524
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  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,433
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  Quote 
Photographer
Carlos Occidental
Posts: 10,544
Pasadena, 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  Quote 
Photographer
1472
Posts: 1,018
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  Quote 
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10,521
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  Quote 
Photographer
ybfoto
Posts: 642
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  Quote 
Photographer
ybfoto
Posts: 642
Oakland, California, US


Short answer nope....
Jan 17 13 05:33 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10,521
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  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Giacomo Cirrincioni
Posts: 20,904
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  Quote 
Photographer
ybfoto
Posts: 642
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  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,433
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  Quote 
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  Quote 
Photographer
Andrew Kaiser
Posts: 1,306
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  Quote 
Photographer
Andrew Kaiser
Posts: 1,306
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  Quote 
Photographer
sidney_k
Posts: 873
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  Quote 
Photographer
CameraSight
Posts: 1,076
Roselle Park, New Jersey, US


Jan 18 13 07:26 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Patrickth
Posts: 10,321
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  Quote 
  Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers