What Black and White film would you like to see revived?

"Too Late" says the minnow.

 

I would have guaranteed eternal manufacture of Polaroid Type 52 4x5.

 

Because of how the developer worked in it, it had a dark detail and light detail nearly as good as the old printing out papers.

 

Ansel Adams liked this one too.

Ok, let’s turn this on its head. What one film would you like to guarantee never gets discontinued? For me, thats easy, it’s Tri-X.

 

By far and above for me would be Tmax 400, simply incredible film in terms of resolution and grain structure, even at ISO 800.

Either HIE (in 35mm and 4x5) or Type 55.

Plus-X and Panatomic-X.

Kodak Tri-X or Ilford FP4+ in 220 format.

 

These are popular films, that would make good candidates for reviving a 220 coating and packaging line.

 

220 makes life so much easier for portrait work and for times you want to minimize reloads or back switching.

Kodak Tri-X or Ilford FP4+ in 220 format.

 

These are popular films, that would make good candidates for reviving a 220 coating and packaging line.

 

220 makes life so much easier for portrait work and for times you want to minimize reloads or back switching.

 

Has Ilford ever made 220? They at least haven't in my time around medium format, but then that's been just a bit over 10 years.

 

I have some 220 Tri-X in the freezer, but it's TXP-320 and not TX-400. Since TXP-320 is the only "Tri-X" made in sheet film, I stocked up on roll film before I cracked open the(not inexpensive) box of 4x5. Despite both being "Tri-X" the 320 version is a bit of a different beast as it has a longer "toe" and a bit less overall contrast than TX-400.

 

Also of note is that TXP-320 is "toothed" on the back for hand retouching-AFAIK it's the only film so made. For those who scan, this is also comes in handy since you can lay a sheet directly on the scanner bed, put it under a second sheet of plain optical glass, and not have to worry about Newton rings.

 

All of that aside, I'd LOVE to be able to get some sort of in-date B&W emulsion in 220, and I'd be enthusiastic about either of the ones you suggest.

 

It's really nice if you're a Hasselblad shooter, as you might pay $125-150 for an early A12 back with a mismatched insert, and a late one with a matching insert can run $400(admittedly with some patience I can usually find number matching chrome A12s for $150). Even the ancient "12" backs, which are less convenient to use than the "automatic" backs, can run $125 or better(again, number matching). By contrast, I think I paid $60 or so for my number matching A24(220), although it was missing the film reminder door. Even nice ones still run under $100, though. BTW, I've never been brave enough to try a mismatched back-some folks are adamant that they are precisely factory matched and no good can come from using a mismatched one, while others claim that they never pay attention to the numbers and don't see any difference. FWIW, newer backs(I don't know what constitutes "new"-maybe 1980 or so) only have the last 3 digits on the insert, while all of mine are old enough that they have the full SN on the insert.

 

All of that aside, transparency shooters still have the option of buying Velvia 100 in 220 from Japan. It works out to about $60/box(not including shipping, which is rarely more than $5 a box). That's a ~50% mark-up over 120 Velvia, and usually about a 30% markup in processing in my experience, so it's a good value. My only issue is that I'd rather shoot Velvia 50 :) .

I'm going with Carbon Dragon but with a twist. My love affair B&W film is Tri-X. I have taken many rolls of this of my kids when younger on a Pentax KX with a Pentax A 50mm 1.4 lens and the images are lovely. I don't own the camera anymore or the lens but the images live on. The twist is that it has become much harder to get Tri-X with 24 exposures in the UK. So I'd like the 24 exposure version to become more readily available again (I have found a supplier but there is less of a market so I'm not convinced the pricing is as reasonable as it should be).

 

As for other B&W films I'll give another vote to Kodak PX125 which was a really nice old fashioned B&W film which could give FP4 a run for its money if handled well.

A T-grain version of Verichrome Pan in 35mm, 120, 4x5. I know it'll never happen but I can wish.

Has Ilford ever made 220? They at least haven't in my time around medium format, but then that's been just a bit over 10 years....... :) .

 

Yep they did . I have a few pro packs of HP5 220 left and some FP4 220 in my freezer. It dates to the 90s. I don't think that they ever spooled Pan F in 220. A few years ago on APUG we tried to get Ilford to spool 220 again. The reason they stopped was that their machine was worn out and repairs would cost more than they would make on 220 film sales in 10 years. Ilford asked Kodak & Fuji if they would spool 220 film for them but they never replied.

 

So here is the B&W film I would like to see brought back:

 

1. 127 HP5+ or 127 TRI-X. or ANYISO 100/125 B&W film in 127 rolls. I have 30 rolls of Efke 127 left (and 10 rolls of 127 IR 820 Efke :) )

2. 120 Verichrome Pan. I'm down to my last 50 rolls in my freezer.

3. 120 Royal-X Pan I have ONE roll left and I am testing Delta 3200 in 120 as a replacement.

4. Agfapan 25 in 120 and 35mm rolls.

 

OK, I'm not asking for much am I?

 

(snip)

 

1. 127 HP5+ or 127 TRI-X. or ANYISO 100/125 B&W film in 127 rolls. I have 30 rolls of Efke 127 left (and 10 rolls of 127 IR 820 Efke :) )

2. 120 Verichrome Pan. I'm down to my last 50 rolls in my freezer.

3. 120 Royal-X Pan I have ONE roll left and I am testing Delta 3200 in 120 as a replacement.

4. Agfapan 25 in 120 and 35mm rolls.

 

OK, I'm not asking for much am I?

 

Well, the question is written as singular, so I think you are supposed to give only one, but I think I agree

with the ones you give.

 

When I was young, and still had a Yashica TLR, I learned about RX120.

Only in the last few years did I finally get a roll. I don't know how well it was stored, though.

 

It would be nice to have reasonably priced 127, in some form or other.

Yep they did . I have a few pro packs of HP5 220 left and some FP4 220 in my freezer. It dates to the 90s. I don't think that they ever spooled Pan F in 220. A few years ago on APUG we tried to get Ilford to spool 220 again. The reason they stopped was that their machine was worn out and repairs would cost more than they would make on 220 film sales in 10 years. Ilford asked Kodak & Fuji if they would spool 220 film for them but they never replied.

 

Thanks for the info on that-I guess it shows what I missed by coming to the MF game relatively late.

 

I missed some other stuff, like never getting to shoot Kodachrome in 120...although admittedly I'm not sure I'm missing out on much since I did shoot a decent amount in 35mm and found that I just preferred most E-6 products(and in particular the original Velvia/Velvia 50). I'm still sitting on a few rolls of EPP(Ektachrome Plus) in 120-a film that was dated even when it was discontinued(2008ish?) but I thought that it-along with Elite Chrome 100-was the closest thing to a "get out of the way to show it like I see it and use it for everything" slide film as there was around.

 

I know that the 220 market has always been comparatively small, and the lack of commercial medium format shooters has killed it. Still, there's an economic advantage all along the way-Velvia 100(AFAIK the only film still made in 220) runs $60/box compared to ~$40 for 120, and it's usually $13-15 a roll to process vs. $9-10 for 120.

 

I'll put another request in, though...TXP320 in at least 120 format(if not 220)...

I shot quite a bit of 120 Kodachrome back in the day - not enough as Kodak did discontinue it. They were forced to introduce it to combat Veliva 50 in 120 rolls. Fuji won that battle.

 

I have a freezer full of 220 Portra 160 that I bought just before Kodak dropped it. I use 220 mostly in my 6x9 220 backs for 16 frames with my Cambo 6x9 view, and I have a 220 back for my Blad. But I like it a lot in my Mamiya 654 1000s with the 220 insert for 30 frames.

 

From what I understand Fuji has stopped making all 220 film. What's available now is left over from the last run. I just ordered some from Japan so if you want Fuji 220 now is the time to buy.

and I have a 220 back for my Blad.

 

One of the things I meant to mention in my reply(but got distracted about) was the not insignificant financial advantage for building up a Hasselblad system if you can use 220 film.

 

120 backs are still $$$ for Hasselblads-even the old "12" backs, and you might pay $150+ for a nice A12 back. I've paid $60-80 for A24 backs...

........

 

120 backs are still $$$ for Hasselblads-even the old "12" backs, and you might pay $150+ for a nice A12 back. I've paid $60-80 for A24 backs...

 

Yep. And I paid $20 for an A16S back. 4x4 frames. Nice head shots with the 80mm. But it cost me $260 to have it serviced a year latter when it started overlapping frames. :( !

What happens if you put 120 in an A24?

 

The pressure plate pressure is too high, but the film still goes through?

Don't forget to stop shooting when it gets to 13, or you expose on paper.

 

Is the arrow to first frame distance the same?

The pressure plate pressure is too high, but the film still goes through?

Don't forget to stop shooting when it gets to 13, or you expose on paper.

 

Is the arrow to first frame distance the same?

 

AFAIK, there's no difference in the pressure plate. Theoretically one COULD make the springs a bit stiffer for 220, and there are cameras without interchangeable backs designed to take either type of film where one moves the pressure plate to make the change. I've also owned cameras that did NOT require any change to the pressure plate(the Bronical S2A and C come to mind).

 

I've been told that kits were available to convert A24 backs to A12 and vice-versa, and I think that they just changed the counter gearing.

 

Furthermore, before Hasselblad released the "A" type backs in 1970, Hasselblad only made one model back. The "pre-A" backs have a "peephole" in the back, and require you to advance the film until you see a 1 in the peephole then start the film counter. I've seen published instructions for using 220 film in these backs that involves putting a rubber plug in the peephole, winding a prescribed number of turns before starting the counter, and then resetting the counter when it gets to 12.

 

I THINK that the start distance from the arrows is the same in both types of film. I've only ever used Kodak(although I have some Fuji in the freezer) and 220 does have two sets of start arrows. The first set are usually hashed or otherwise lightly colored and say "for special cameras" or something to that effect, while the other arrows look just like the ones on 120 film.

Pantomic-X and Plus-X, in 35mm, 120 and 220.

 

As others, I have a couple Hasselbad 220 backs that I would love to use.

AFAIK, there's no difference in the pressure plate. Theoretically one COULD make the springs a bit stiffer for 220, and there are cameras without interchangeable backs designed to take either type of film where one moves the pressure plate to make the change. I've also owned cameras that did NOT require any change to the pressure plate(the Bronical S2A and C come to mind).

 

I've been told that kits were available to convert A24 backs to A12 and vice-versa, and I think that they just changed the counter gearing.

 

(snip)

 

But otherwise, if you have a 220 counter and 120 film, stop after the appropriate number of shots.

 

Probably not good for weddings, where you might be too busy to notice, but for more ordinary use it shouldn't

be so bad. I will also guess that weddings were the big market for 220.

Polaroid Type 55 BW in 4X5.

Another vote for Polaroid 55 in 4x5, although it probably can't be made profitably, since the resurrected New55 ceased being produced last year.

I didn't follow New55 all that closely. It seems to me that it should be easier than bringing back a color Polaroid process.

 

I wonder, though, would there be demand for a negative only system that would work with Polaroid 4x5 cameras?

(Not that I plan to start working on it, but just wonder.)

 

I have never shot 4x5 sheet film, so maybe I don't really know why and when people use it.

 

I did once use a Polaroid 4x5 pack as part of an X-ray experiment. I don't know if there is still demand for that.

 

It does seem to me, though, that a negative only, conventionally processed, film that would fit in such

film holders could be useful and easy to make.

 

I also remember type 105, the film pack version.

I subscribed to the Kickstarter for New 55, but between the price per sheet ($15) and the not so convenient handling compared with the original Polaroid product, I'm not surprised that it failed in the marketplace. The problem with bringing a product like this back is that a lot of the technology isn't readily available and has to be reinvented, and the demand isn't there to scale it up and make it affordable. When I used Polaroid a lot for proofing 4x5 transparency shoots, Type 54 or 55 was about $3/sheet. That was a lot more affordable than the remake, especially since when I used this for proofing I was mostly billing clients for it.

Hands down, Panatomic-X in 120 and 35mm.

I am very happy with Tmax films in 35,120 and 4x5. If they went away I would move to Ilford Delta films. I do not miss any discontinued films.

I’m fine with what’s available nowadays, however, the only film I really, really miss is Verichrome Pan. It’s the only film that looked absolutely and consistently beautiful as I was unwinding it off the reel right after processing. I’m getting close to opening my last frozen brick of it now.

 

I wonder how the Fomapan/Arista films compare to VP?