Why is 220 film so Unpopular?

<p>220 in my Pentax 6x7, hands down. 120 is just too much of a PITA.</p>

<p>If I had two Pentax 67/67ii bodies, I would use 220 more often. Right now I often find the shots that I want to take require a different film than what I have in the body.</p>

<p>"Only pro labs can process <strong>professionally</strong> <strong>E-6 or C-41 or B&W 220 roll films</strong> . " -- Wolf, what are you talking about? 220 E-6, C-41 and B&W is the same film as 120, just longer. All you need to process it is a 220 reel that holds the extra length. Anybody who can process 120 can certainly process 220. As for the popularity of 220, I think 220 was pretty much the standard for wedding photographers for the simple reason noted above of not running out of film while the bride is coming down the aisle or having to change magazines as often. And since wedding photographers are generally also portrait photographers, it got shot a lot for portrait sessions just to avoid the cost of stocking two sizes of film. But now that the wedding/portrait world has gone mostly digital, demand for 220 has fallen off. I would think a landscape photographer shooting MF would more likely go for 120 because landscapes -- unlike weddings -- are a slow, methodical way of working with all the time in the world to change film between rolls.</p>

<p>Zeiss.de has published a paper showing that 220 film yields higher resolution. My non-scientific comparisons (using 120 vs 220 film backs on my Linhof) suggest it might be true. If I remember correctly, their tests indicate that 220 film is more uniformly flat in the film plane without the paper backing and suffers less from curling problems than 120 film. I like to use 220 as it allows bracketing exposures without too much film changing. I only use my 120 back if I know I need a minimal number of shots on that particular film.</p>

<p>That thing again... ;-)</p>

<p>It is my sworn duty to point out whenever the Zeiss thingy is mentioned that it was part of a marketing campaign, pushing the then new vacuum back for the Contax 645.<br>

Vacuum backs do not work when there is paper between it and the film.<br>

So lo and behold! We should use film without backing paper!<br>

So read the 'paper' (it was just a short item in their Camera Lens News). But always remember that it not necessarily is 'pure science', and that there definitely is an ulterior motive.</p>

<p>Anyway,</p>

<p>I don't like 220 film, because 24 shots per subject is a bit much. 12 shots per subject is too much already.<br>

But i do like 220 film when i'm out and about, gathering pictures instead of creating ones. On holidays and other trips, only having to carry half the amount of rolls is a definite plus.</p>

<p>"Anybody who can process 120 can certainly process 220"<br>

In theory Craig, yes it <strong>should</strong> be the case. But I do have to agree with Wolf on this one.</p>

<p>I'm very close to going the do-it-myself route, with a Jobo outfit. If "pro" labs weren't so expensive, or the others took greater care, I would certainly use much more E6/C41 roll film, 220 <em>and</em> 120.<br>

Such is life.</p>

<p>(When I start using E6 4x5, then the Jobo system will become an essential, and the stress around roll-film colour processing will just float away.)</p>

<p>220 film flatness: here's the link:<br>

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/ContentsWWWIntern/134AEE504E89CD50C12569620039712C</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why is 220 film so Unpopular?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />I don't think that "Unpopular" is the correct term. I do aerial photography and 220 is <strong>wildly</strong> popular in my little world, but I think that David Henderson got it right: It's less available, which reduces the demand, which makes it even less available. Vicious circle!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Anybody who can process 120 can certainly process 220"<br />In theory Craig, yes it <strong>should</strong> be the case. But I do have to agree with Wolf on this one.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting, Kevin. Why, may I ask? (Because otherwise I'd have to say Craig's assertion is correct).</p>

<p>I occasionally shoot 220 TX-P (one of the only emulsions I can find in 220 in the UK) and more usually 120 TX. I rate them both at the same speed of 320. I process them at the same time, on identical size reels, in the same developing tank. It's an identical process. The only visible difference is at the drying stage, where the 220 film hangs a little lower due to its length.</p>

<p>So what am I missing?</p>

I have a hard time finishing one 120 roll in my P67 in a one-day outing. I often end up with a frame or two I shoot on anything the next day just so I can develop the roll. 220 would give me too many frames to shoot before I can finish it.

<p>Craig, a while ago, I've contact in my hometown a pro lab and asked them, whether they can process 220 films professionally. Answer was: <strong>"Yes we can, but you have to accept loosing one picture frame"!</strong><br>

Sorry, I don't call this professional processing!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Craig, a while ago, I've contact in my hometown a pro lab and asked them, whether they can process 220 films professionally. Answer was: <strong>"Yes we can, but you have to accept loosing one picture frame"!</strong> <br /> Sorry, I don't call this professional processing!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that's fair - provided they tell you in advance which one... ;-)</p>

<p>Hi Neil, "So what am I missing?"<br /> Answer: Nothing. You are doing it yourself, are accustomed to it, and you know what you are doing.<br /> This is about labs upon whom most of us are dependent for colour processing.<br /> Citing Wolf's example of the lab who uses a handling method that sacrifices one frame, this is a very good example of the kind compromise many 220 users have to live with. If that lab can't get off it's a... and do it properly, I too say that they are not professional in their attitude for a start.<br /> My favourite lab in Oslo was one of the absolute "Best in Test" lab chains around Scandinavia. They managed to do the best job ever with all of my Reala, at a very good price. Their systems were fine-tuned and maintained to perfection. Life as a film user was good. Clearly they had to "restructure" as the image junkies went over to digital for their holiday snaps. One day when I picked up another bundle of Reala process&print jobs, my blood stopped flowing, with horror, as the images I was looking at were ... crap (can I say that here?) They were digital prints from scans of the film. Saddened as though a loved one had just gone away forever, I kept using colour film, but began to build up a pile of unprocessed rolls, 35mm and roll-film, hoping that I would find someone who still printed analogue (what I call the real thing).<br /> However. One of the most established pro labs in Oslo handed over a roll of E6 with Chemical streaks down the entire length, so I gave it back to be washed again. Costing me one whole day of traveling and waiting, I never went back. But there is another now, and I've yet to try them. Although when I add the processing to the cost of getting into town'n'back, the Jobo is looking more and more like the way to go.<br /> When in London there are more options.<br /> However, back to the 120 therefore 220 thing, I just get the feeling that some are almost indignant at being given something out of the ordinary, I mean the 'semi-pro', 'pseudo pro', 'wanna-be pro' labs, who think they know it all, but freak out at the extra length of film, and can't cope. For what other reason does the film get kinks, finger prints or be badly cut when sleeved, or cut all when I have expressly asked for it to be returned in a complete roll. (<em>Deep sigh</em> )<br /> I will gladly use <strong>good</strong> pro labs, always, providing I am deriving an income directly from a project. Usually I am not.<br /> (This thread needs an image or two ... )<br /> Recent Velvia 50 (220) with 500C and 50mm Distagon C</p><div></div>

<p>Kevin, I sympathise. Thanks for your explanation - I think my confusion was due to my not picking up on the context. When I read 'in theory anyone can do it' I assumed we were talking about people, not about labs. Everything you observe about the demise of good labs is true, and is one of the reasons why I now do my own processing.</p>

<p>With regards to the issue of "Pro labs"; surely, as users of Medium Format cameras, we chose this road for quality images.<br>

I have always assumed that if we are not doing the processing ourselves, then we are using professional labs. Why would one invest a lot of money in high end equipment to gain quality images, only to hand over the film to a run-of-the- mill photo finishing store?<br>

I have not heard before, the suggestion that 220 would be cut in half when processing!</p>

<p>The label "Pro" is not the begin all end all of photofinishing.<br />What we need are labs that consistently produce good work.<br />And consumer minilabs certainly can do that. While "Pro"-label labs certainly can produce sloppy work too. I have seen it both.</p>

<p>Most minilabs cannot process 220 roll films, because the special extra tools to process 220 film are very expensive, and the incoming orders on 220 films are unfortunately minor. And it would be an C-41 process only.</p>

<p>Having a chuckle at an image in my mind ....</p>

<p>Is this us?</p><div></div>

<p><em>( The fate of the 70mm fraternity is even more gruesome ... )</em></p>

<p>Q.G. I couldn't agree more.<br>

Anymore than "Pro" photographer is the "be all end all" of quality pictures.<br>

To me a "Pro" lab is one that listens to the customer's requirements, produces individualised work (where necessary) and CONSISTENTLY produces first class results.<br>

In fact, due to a recent move, I had to find a new lab. There was a branch of my "pro" lab but it meant sending the work away. (no dip and dunk facilities). I visited a "new"lab and got a feel for what they could do. On my second use, they inadvertently printed an enlargement from the wrong negative. Due to this error, they reprinted it and hand delivered it to me some 20 miles away!(via the manager) No delivery charge and no charge for the print either. First class print; first class service. That is a "Pro" lab.</p>

<p>First class indeed Collin. Thanks for that one. (The manager's 20 mile drive is the sort of thing I used to do when I had my picture framing business in Melbourne.)<br>

But yes, <strong>consistency</strong> is of the essence. With equipment, materials and processing all in good order, the only variable should be the photographer's performance, and that's up to us. We need everything else to be <strong>dependable</strong> .</p>