120 film on it's way out?

120 will remain, but become a ' specialty " item. Its just economics, not worth the big photo store to stock an inventory of film items that appeals to a small sector. I went to Calumet today to buy some 35 mm film; I asked for XP2 and color neg; they had 2 rolls of XP2- no kodak color neg film, and some fuji 400- just a couple. The majority o shoppers are digital- so thats where the money is, and where a retailer must devote the resources.

 

Next stop- my lab; they process and proof all B & W film, and will print accordingly. Paper left to print on is thin, basically Ilford. Kodak Ectalure G, my favorite paper, long gone, never to return. The lab also will scan negs or digital files, and print on " B & W " paper, such as it is. When the guys who now process and print on enlarger- the old way, either die or move on, the scan will be the remaining way. So, its out there but declining. If you are a professional photographer, or the joe consumer, digital makes the most sense, and from a business perspective, the only sense. For us hobbyists, film is still there. I went back thru my prints, saw some XP 2 studio stuff shot with my hasselblad and 150 lens, whow, they look wonderful. I follow the site of Sara Silver, a commercial photographer, wonderful images, and she has shot hasselblad with a digital back for forever, it fits her style and need. There is also a children- family studio chain, classic kids , and they shoot 35 mm B & W only, they have in house lab and printers. Whats the bottom line to this-

 

follow your heart and the economics of the deal, if you do things right, you can go both ways.

Why would 220 be discontinued when it is only a 120 film 2x as long?

Michael,

 

Probably because few people process it themselves, it is already almost gone in b/w. Tri-X 320 is it.

 

I hope it goes nowhere in color neg/transparency, as I almost always use it instead of 120. With most people sending color to labs, it should be around a while. The problem, which will only get worse in coming years, is finding labs who know what in blazes they are doing. All the folks who know so much about pro lab work are retiring or dying, leaving the less informed younger generations who don't seem capable of ever answering my questions or doing quality work without being babysat. I constantly have problems, even at well-reputed labs.

I sure hope not, otherwise i would have nothing to put in my RB67 or my holga :( I doubt 120 is going anywhere soon. Most 120 film and 220 film is identical to it's 35mm counterpart, it's just cut bigger, why would they discontinue it? I know that my local camera store sells almost as much 120/220 then 35mm. Most people go to wallmart or costco to fill their disposables and these are the same people that are buying digital point and shoots by the truck loads. I don't see digital back denting 120/220 film anytime soon (especially at $10 grand a back)

My camera store has a lot of film, from 35 up to 8x10 and Polaroid. They process it as well. Slides in 2 hours. It's possible that 220 B&W is fading out because maybe alot of 120 B&W shooters are amateurs who have the older cameras that don't have 220 capability.My rb did come with a 220 back. Which is a hassle, since 99% of my picture taking is B&W.So, when I saw a new in box 120 Pro-SD back for $99.00. I grabbed it!

I will go with films till I can find it.....

 

It doesn't matter for me that whether the Digital or Film is better.....

 

I love the output on fils come....

Oh ya, films are the best. The results are just amazing. The most state of the art digital photography can't create things that my dad's Yahsicamat 124G can give me. I'd hate to think 120 can even be close to a threat.

Hi,everybody saying ' Film is good',ok fine. So, why not say ' Seen enough Digital,now kick your back goodbye' ?

That will bring the greatest joy to the film users. Go for it.

Whenever I see a college-age kid with a good camera, it's usually a 120, not a high-end DSLR. And I'm constantly running into kids with Nikon F3s. Is this a trend?

Edward,

 

It might be a trend because they are professional cameras for affordable prices. With digital, you need to spend much more to get a similarly placed "professional" model camera. 120 is the ticket to even more IQ for your buck. With what RBs cost now, it would explain why so many college-age kids own them these days.

 

I usually see college-age kids with Rebels, D40/50/60s, 10/20/30/40Ds, D70/80s. They are always on green box mode too.

The only way film will die ,is if we allow it too, I use DSLR and I shoot with film , so 135mm and 120mm and other size films should hold up for a while, and I will in the ground before it Does: as someone said [ Use it or Loose it ] ::

Most likely a few years hence there will be less variety, and less manufacturers and labs left standing making pretty much all still photography film, and esp. 120 and larger, a "retro", specialty item. Just like vinyl records and tube amplifiers film, - in any format - will remain a niche product from that point on. You may see periodical "spikes" in its popularity (you know, from .051234 to .075519% market penetration, a 50% growth!) but don't count on many choices. Yep, I would like to be wrong but I know I'm notﾅ

120 will be around. Amateurs may think film is going out, because they are perfectly happy with their little dslr. But to get into high quality, can you afford $40k just for a digital back (P45)? Digital has its place in the commercial sector (where high volume can justify a $40k digital back paid back in 1-2 yrs). It also offers time savings, instant feedback. On the other hand, a lot of pro landscape photographers shoot a few rolls a week (waiting for the right place and light), and depreciation is a killer. Both film and digital have their place. 120 is not disappearing. In fact low at the new mfrs coming to market ....Goaersi, Fotoman, Chamonix, and all are producing 612,617 as well as 4x5, 8x10. Even Linhof has updated their technica with a 2000 and 3000 in the last few years, as well as the technorama pano camera. That tells me a lot of guys are shooting film, and a lot of larger 120 formats. Only the smaller formats like 6x6 are getting hit by digital, because a cheap dslr is closely approaching the same quality output. Once the average consumer amateur is satisfied, the pixel war may be over in this market, but will likely continue in the pro market well beyond th 39mp P45 back to satisfy pro needs. But those prices will stay HIGH! Apparently pricing is based on amount in film/processing savings over a course of a year, and value added in convenience, time, etc.....not on actual cost plus profit margin approach.

How much bandwidth has been wasted on this forum with "I hear a rumor film is dead". I heard a rumor the US economy is about to deep six, and no one is going to be able to afford to upgrade those DSLRs which die in 5 years anymore, or the new hard drives needed to store Gag-a-bytes of photos. So I heard a rumor digital photography is dead ;)

"According to these folks, for the exception of the slow ultra fine grained films, digital has over taken 120 in terms of image detail."

 

I think there is a Major flaw in the test & therefore, results are meaningless. It tested "Scanned" film with Digital.

The test should be: (1) choose a particular format, e.g. 35 mm. film slr camera and a mid-level digital slr of about 8 mp. (2) use exactly the same lense and same exposure on both cameras; (3) a Print out of (say 8x10) straight from film negative (in traditional dark room way--NO Scanned) and a print out from Digital camera. Then compare the two Prints using criteria specified in the article. Otherwise, these comparisons are meaningless. Did any one of you conduct the test as I laid down above? What was the result?

Before Kodapak'; ie instamatic the Brownie format was mostly for amateurs. Its started out as a kids format; ie little brother of 116. 120 and 620 was availbal in every drug store in the USA 50 yeras ago; its the film folks shot snapshots with. Today one cannot buy 120 even in Walmart; the largest store in the USa. 120 has become a speciality film; many of us have mail ordered it now for over decade. In the 1950's make4rs gave away to Boy Scouts and schools box cameras that used 120 film; today any kid is usually going to us a digital P&S; that goof around with a slow format that requires man ordering. The local junior colleges here disbanded with 120 and film about 5 years ago; the darkroom stufff went to the state auctions and thrift stores. 220 will go first; its used on radical subset of cameras; a subset of folks have 220 reels; a subset of labs like to process it. Products will "last longer" if its used; and not debated upon. Actual sales matter.

"Why would 220 be discontinued when it is only a 120 film 2x as long?"

 

Inventory levels are double if you carry everything in 220, too. And that costs money. And demand - more cameras (older) can use 120 than can use 220.

"According to these folks, for the exception of the slow ultra fine grained films, digital has over taken 120 in terms of image detail."

 

Only in the smallers format, and only if you can afford the huge price discrepancy, and only while both film and digital are outputting at 300ppi output resolution, after which digital starts interpolating while film just keeps on going and going (wins on large prints).....check out luminous landscape articles. So for a 10mp camera, I prefer my 6x7, and I can enlarge to 24x30 easily, while my D200 poops out.

I do not think that 120 film is on the way out. Instant film may disappear so those Polaroid backs we have hanging around for testing exposure may become worthless, but 120 film will remain. At worst we will end up with a bunch of small brands selling their film. We might actually end up with greater variety as small companies jump in to fill the gaps left by the major companies.

 

Environmental Laws might change my view on this, but that is about all. Also a 22 megapixal digital back for my Hasslblad that sells for 1,000 dollars might change my mind. But think about this.

 

How many batteries, and how many memory cards would you need for a hike of the pacific crest trail? the continental divide trail? the Appalachian trail?

How about a trip to Antarctica, a cruise down the Amazon, running the Back River or Coppermine in the arctic. And do you really want to have that 30,000 hasselblad digital camera in the dory with you photographing the nose burying itself in one of the wave in Crystal rapids.

 

220 seems destined to oblivion although there are those who think 220 is better than 120 in laying flatter in film plane.

At least locally in Texas in an area of 250,000 population, there is only one camera store and no sales of 120 or 4x5

film of any description. There is no local lab that still processes either 120 or 4x5.

 

I end up buying film from NY (Adorama or B and H) or California (Freestyle). I can process black and white in a

pinch, but Kodak 120 processing is available for E-6 (through Target of all places). For 4x5, again I can only do a fair

job of processing b&w,but color of any sort has to be sent 300 miles to Dallas, San Antonio, or Houston.

 

Still, with all of those problems, I would prefer 120 or 4x5 over the digital cameras I can afford.

I don't think Kodak would've went through all the trouble of creating TMY2 if 120 size film was going to be universally discontinued.

Theres a pro lab here in Asheville NC that processes 1hr medium format at the same cost as 35mm. They will also do medium format slides in like 4 hours. They get lots of business from local pros still shooting film as well as the amateur crowd. They are one of two locally owned stores who both sell 120 film (the other one is a tad overpriced) and both sell darkroom equipment as well. Both stores also do sales of digital gear and prints. And yes, the prices on medium format gear is inspiring a whole slew of new users. For one thing, access to professional quality GLASS used to be a major issue, and if you look at prices on digital lenses, the price has transferred from the pro world into the amateur world. AF lenses are expensive, just flat out. I could give a crap if digital is better quality than film, but that test page listed is massively flawed in a variety of ways. There is no such thing as a megapixel equivalency with film. That alone makes tests like that rediculous. How can someone say 120 film is 40 megapixels when every single emulsion, and every single development technique yields different results? Also, how can you rate the resolution of the medium based on tests typically used for testing the resolution of the LENS? That should tell you something about the resolution of film... that typically the film itself is capable of much higher resolution than the optics are capable of delivering to it! It's just silliness.

Film will never die out to digital because no new bride will ever risk having her wedding photos accidentally overwritten

by another computer glitch.

 

I like my film cameras. When I recently bought an old Bolex 16mm movie camera, I came across an interesting fact:

archiving digital movies costs 11X as much as storing a film movie. The money may be in initial sales, but the

overhead on the users will be crushing in the long run. If the digital tricks are impressive in the short run, who knows

how long those printouts will last? Probably just long enough to print out a higher price tag, with more work for the

customer and less responsibility for the company who marketed the computer product.

 

I picked up a pretty nice medium format rig, though, because everyone else was going digital.

"Film will never die out to digital because no new bride will ever risk having her wedding photos accidentally overwritten by another computer glitch"

 

What nonsense. From my own recent experience in searching for and appointing wedding photographers scarcely any of those we approached offered a film option, and IMO the bulk of this sector went to digital years ago. Why do you think Bronica no longer exists, why Hasselblad have only one film camera left in their range? The advantages of digital capture to a wedding photographer and their customers are huge. Check out the weddings forum here and see what those guys are using.

 

If 120 survives longer term it will be mostly because hobbyists - some of whom are new to MF having speculatively picked up cheap equipment used- continuingly use sufficient film to justify its manufacture. If they don't, then processing outlets and range of 120 films will surely slip away. Frankly I think that the big problem isn't film- the range and variety of 120 emulsions available matters little to me since I buy only three of the most popular types, and the future of 120 is threatened far more if declining sales are spread across a wide variety of products than if all usage is concentrated in a few. The problem to me will come when E6 and b&w dev & contact services become a pain to find and access. This is going to happen before film is a problem for me I'd guess. Some people stress the advantage of self processing but it has no appeal for me at all, and indeed the more people that do their own processing, the more commercial processing sources (and therefore, indirectly, film) will be under threat. At that point the convenience argument for digital will be overpowering and I will (reluctantly) be off.

 

I suspect I've a few years left at it though.

Just a small nit. Hasselblad has two film cameras in their line. Both the H and the V series cameras can use either film or digital backs. Whether or not they are actually still manufacturing the V series rather than just selling off inentory I cannot speak to.

 

The interchangable film backs are one of the features of medium format systems that makes them so attractive. You can carry multiple backs for your hasselblad camera to shoot multiple film types/speeds or even use the zone system and +1, +2, -1, -2 development.

 

Of course the H series film backs are so exensive it would probably be cheaper to carry interchangeable 35mm film bodies.