Pitt23
220 film – a long-forgotten topic?
Over the weekend I used up (yet again) three of my 219 films and found myself wondering (yet again) why medium-format 61mm film isn’t available in long rolls, like 35mm film that you can wind yourself. 219 film? Yes, that’s two 120 film streaks glued end to end, with a streak of paper at the front (50cm) and another at the back (35cm) – and then you have 20-1 frames in a row (for 6x7), though frame 11 is of course a blank. Hence 219.
So a friendly question to the host: could FOTOIMPEX / ADOX MF film perhaps also be offered as ‘bulk film’, e.g. as 32-metre rolls? That would be enough for 20 films.
As I’m not entirely convinced about reusing old winding paper multiple times, around 16 metres of paper would perfectly complete the DIY kit.
I’m sure everyone has some Tesa tape at home.
And would there be a market for something like that????
Happy shooting! Pitt
?
Wolf_XL
... well then, explain to me exactly what the point of this faff is... If there’d been any real demand for the 220, it’d still be in the range at the usual suspects – you know, ‘supply and demand’??? ;-) Medium format is really more for those who take their time – generally speaking, it doesn’t bother them if they have to change the film after eight, ten, twelve or sixteen shots. Not to mention that not every camera is automatically suitable for 220 film – which limits demand even further...
ThomasPauly
I’m certainly not the only one who’d love to see a 220 format, though not as long as – as is the case with Kodak – a 220 roll is significantly more expensive than two 120 rolls. I’d certainly like to see it as a ready-made product, though. Doesn’t ADOX, with its infrastructure geared towards small-batch production and its in-house CHS 100 II, have the ideal conditions for this? It would certainly be a real unique selling point.
…
And if there were sufficient demand, wouldn’t it even be worth reviving the reproduction of the Leverkusen APX 400 – which was discontinued during the pilot phase – in this format, amongst others?
…
One could always conduct a customer survey. In the dedicated black and white roll film community, a crowdfunding project or a subscription-based pre-order scheme might even be conceivable.
…
Regards
…
tepe
highscore
Hi
Well, I don’t need the 220-type packaging.
The main reason is that three of my five MF cameras have the red viewfinder.
I’d just be annoyed if I’d bought the wrong one.
Regards
Highscore
Urnes
It’s not just the red viewfinder. You’ll also need a different pressure plate, because the film plane is further back.
€
In my opinion, the 220 is only worth it if you’re out in the desert somewhere and need to change the film just before a sandstorm hits. Given the weight of an RZ or similar camera, I wouldn’t think carrying two or three spare magazines in your bag was too much of a hassle.
€
Regards, Sven.€
Pitt23
Urnes, the desert really does highlight the main issue: in very dusty or wet weather, changing film outdoors isn’t ideal (and in the rain, as we’re having now, the Nikonos is definitely the better option).
But even at family gatherings, in the theatre and the like, it’s sometimes handy to have a few more shots on the roll and to attract less attention by not constantly changing the film. Other former and/or potential 220 users may have had other reasons.
Zeiss has clearly demonstrated that flatness and dimensional accuracy are significantly better with 220 than with 120, even at 4.5x6 and even more so with larger formats.
Finally: mishaps with paper labels showing through onto the film are a 120 phenomenon; with 220 (regardless of length), where the paper is only at the front and back, this simply cannot happen.
Furthermore: KB-30m rolls for filling cassettes yourself are certainly not to everyone’s taste or need – but at least they exist, and apparently they are also being bought and used.
Couldn’t such a market also be opened up for MF?
Good light! Pitt?
Clemens
My solution specifically for the problem of dusty environments is 70mm film.
€
But admittedly, this is very much a niche solution; it took me years to get all the necessary equipment together (magazine, spiral, canister, etc.). And the range of film types is, well... limited.
Bonderer
My last 220 films?
The last 220 black-and-white film was the Kodak TriX 320. When I went to reorder it, it was no longer available, and neither was any other black-and-white film.
The film was more expensive, but that was because professional users were willing to pay more for the benefits offered by that particular packaging.
That customer base no longer exists.
The range of 220 and 70mm inserts, cassettes, etc. on eBay and the like is vast, but you simply can’t get hold of the films anymore, and converting them? Nah, I don’t know.
I find the sometimes rather amusing claims by sellers that there are huge quantities of these films stored frozen in the US and Canada – that you can find absolutely everything there – highly questionable. Anyone who has stashed such things in their own freezer will need them for themselves, assuming it’s based on facts at all and not just wishful thinking.
For my part, I naturally miss the 220, but I can’t change that, and doubling my film consumption wouldn’t have made any difference either. So I’ve got hold of several film inserts for my Pentax 645 camera, and they go pre-loaded into the bag. It doesn’t just have to work; it even works in the rain. They’ve got them for other medium-format cameras with magazines too.
Neither Ilford nor Kodak are going to revive what has been discontinued, and who would know the sales figures better than the manufacturer? If the 220 were to promise decent sales, they would have started production long ago.
But I only shoot B&W, nothing else.
AntiLynd
Since the reasons for the (long-standing!) lack of demand for 220 film remain unclear to many people – here’s my personal reason why I not only don’t miss it, but have never even needed it:
€
For the way I shoot with a medium-format camera, it’s quite simply too long. Even when I’m out specifically to take photos (urban landscapes), I rarely take more than 10 or 12 shots a day, and I want to develop them quickly, perhaps with slight adjustments to suit the lighting conditions. With 24 6x6 shots, I’d far too often find myself with half-full films in the camera, which would then have to wait for the next opportunity to be filled up.
€
In 35mm, where I have a slightly faster throughput and the photographic situations are a bit more dynamic, I face a similar problem. Here, I would actually prefer 24 exposures to be the standard rather than 36.
€
But of course, that may be different for everyone. Anyone who takes long portrait series on medium format or wants to be so spontaneous that they can’t afford to have to change the film or magazine at the decisive moment — such a person will naturally prefer longer rolls.
-- Nils
Renate
Hello,
I agree with AntiLynd. I actually struggle to fill a 120 roll with just 10 shots. I often have several cassettes loaded with different films, and as I rarely get round to taking photos, it takes quite a long time before a film is full. The 4.5 x 6 cm cassette holds 15 exposures, and that lasts far too long for me.
I spend a long time examining a subject closely from many different angles, and then often only take a single shot.
So, my need for 220 film is zero.
Best regards,
Renate
MirkoBoeddecker
The processing of roll films is anything but straightforward. The ‘Lady’ is our most complicated machine and it keeps breaking down.
Despite a residual market that is by no means small, Ilford didn’t even consider repairing the 220 roll film machine about eight years ago.
In my view, manual processing is out of the question if you have certain quality standards.
€
Several people have commented on prices in this thread, and their views align with my own assessment: a 220 roll should not cost more than twice as much as a 120 roll. This means that 120 film competes with 220 film on price. The user will not accept just any price for a 220. If the price is “significantly more than two 120s”, they would rather buy two 120s.
If you produce something in significantly smaller quantities than a competing product (in this case, the 220 versus the 120), you cannot do so at a comparable price. At present, production of the 120 format does not even come close to covering the holding costs of the machinery. It would be far worse with the 220 format.
In my estimation, demand for the 220 format is largely fuelled by the rock-bottom prices of the cameras and magazines. These are poor starting conditions for an expensive product, especially as this situation would change abruptly with the arrival of a competitor on the market.
€
In this respect, manufacturing this product is rather unlikely. Offering 120 film by the metre is a more viable solution, but even for that you need a cutting machine, suitable cores and packaging.
€
Regarding the leader: Do the cameras simply run the full length here, or do markings need to be punched or printed on it (I’ve never had a 220 camera – I couldn’t afford one until now, and now it’s redundant anyway)?
€
Best regards,
€
Mirko
Urnes
Hi Mirko,
If you start offering 220s again, the prices for the cameras and magazines will shoot up straight away. :) Let me know in advance so I can stock up.
As for the leader, you’ll obviously need the leader strip on the film. With the TLRs, only the back plate or pressure plate was replaced. After the 12th frame, you could then reset the counter to 1 and run it through a second time. With the magazines, this shouldn’t be a problem at all, because they already have the right pressure plate and then a 20- or 24-exposure circuit, or whatever. With viewfinder cameras, such as the Fuji 690, you just need to turn the pressure plate and reset the counter button (incidentally, the Fuji manual also mentions a half-length 120 roll – that would be something too).
Regards, Sven.
P.S: Why am I even writing this nonsense when I’ll never take photos with a 220 roll?
highscore
Hi
Well, I can’t tell any difference between the photos I’ve taken using a 120 insert and a 220 insert in my Mamiya 1000S.
The only difference is that with the 220 insert I can take 16 photos instead of 15.
Where’s the effect supposed to be? The pressure plate pushes towards the lens anyway, whether you’re using the 120 or 220 insert!
In any case, with the Mamiya, I can’t see any logical reason for Urne’s statement above.
Regards, Marcus
Urnes
The pressure plate lies flush with the film plane. With 120 roll film, the film is positioned closer to the lens by the thickness of the backing paper. I think you’ll notice this effect particularly when shooting close-ups with the aperture wide open.
I don’t think Fuji would have gone to the trouble of fitting rotating pressure plates to all viewfinder cameras if it didn’t cause objects to be out of focus in certain situations.
Regards, Sven.
Wolf_XL
... just my two cents on the subject again – I’ve got cameras that can handle 220 film, as well as a small remaining stock of 220 roll films. For me, 220 roll film is at best a ‘nice to have’ – but by no means a ‘must’. Especially if this luxury were to cost me more than two ‘standard’ 120 rolls. I’d say that the average amateur generally doesn’t need 220 film. In my opinion, the cost of developing a new 220 roll is far better spent elsewhere...
highscore
I think
that this setting is necessary for Fuji to prevent the 120 film from jamming or becoming difficult to feed when set to 220.
However, I think Fuji’s main aim was to create a unique selling point compared to the competition.
Because, technically speaking, the position of the film plane doesn’t change one bit. Not even by the thickness of the paper.
After all, that lies BEHIND the film. And the film always rests against the film guide in front of the paper.
Whether the flatness is even slightly better, however, is difficult to judge.
Marcus
Pitt23
Regarding the 120/220 pressure plate and the thickness of the protective paper: please measure these to the standard of precision customary amongst lens makers and the like. With Agfa’s Klack or Billy, this is likely to be of little consequence, but in high-quality designs, critical focus and, above all, flatness are affected. The latter is the weak point of the 120 model (see Zeiss’s studies on this – Google if necessary); if the paper then changes depending on humidity (which was the case not so long ago!), the ‘precision’ becomes rather flexible. But as I said, Grandad’s Agfa Billy, which does the job every now and then, is far above such fussy details.
?
And, yes, when it comes to transport or counting frames, you can only go by the film lengths. The little red window would probably lead to less desirable effects if viewed ‘from the back’.
?
By now, everyone should have realised that 220 film can no longer be produced in a commercially viable way.
Rewinding it yourself, however, is simple, provided you have an absolutely dark, clean workspace.
?
Why 220 film is supposedly ‘far too long’, yet everyone is happy with 36-exposure 35mm cassettes, remains a mystery to me. Or have I missed the new trend for 6-exposure cassettes? And why is loading 35mm cassettes from a 30m roll still common practice, yet the equivalent in medium format is supposed to be sheer heresy against the well-established 120 format?
By the way, for those shooting short films: you can also cut a small piece from the long roll for a single frame – you can’t get any shorter than that, and you waste almost no film in the process...
?
But I have to concede on the marketing arguments:
Ilford sells the protective paper on its own in 30.5m rolls (but not the film to go with it). In the UK, this paper is on sale for a good £75 and, as far as I know, is enough for 19 rolls of 120. That works out at £4.96 per roll. For £4.98, you can get the FP-4+ ready-made and nicely packaged, protective paper included. Well, well...
highscore
Yeah, Pitt
I’ve read about problems with humidity when using 120 film before.
But I reckon the problem really comes into its own in the rainforest.
And when I use my little Mamiya with 220 and 120 film, everything comes out nice and has good sharpness.
Unless I’m a bit sloppy with the focusing.
Peckham
@Urnes:
So, in my case, the film is on the film plane, followed by the protective paper and then the pressure plate. That’s the order when viewed from the direction of the lens.
If, in your case, the film is further away from the lens by the thickness of the protective paper, then you have the film in the wrong way round. Your pictures should then all have the same subject – namely none at all – because the protective paper would then be in front of the film in terms of light.
Therefore, it makes no difference whatsoever to the exposure which magazine you use; only the counter is affected by it. At least, that’s how it is with my 1000s.
Urnes
If you have a 220-format magazine, the backing paper of the 120-format film will sit correctly at the film plane, meaning the film is positioned in front of it by the thickness of the paper. The measurement is always taken up to the contact plate, not up to the film window. To measure the distance to the film plane when using different formats, there is usually a circular mark with a solid line on the camera body. This is at the same level as the pressure plate.
Regards, Sven
