Why is 220 film so Unpopular?

<p>I constantly read about how 220 film is disappearing, and it is of course. Fortunately my favorite films are still available in 220. (I am talking color film here.) For the time being, anyway......<br>

I was pondering why people don't use 220 film so much. I speculate it is shooting style-I must confess to burning up a lot of film when I am shooting. While I do take care to set up my shots, if I have a real great photo I will take two or maybe even three shots of the same thing-a habit learned after a "professional photo lab" (Meisel, for you old timers) destroyed one of my negatives. Film is the cheapest expense on my photo shoots.<br>

I guess the other issue is just simply expense. Obviously a roll of 220 costs more to buy and more to process. I get that-but if you are out shooting more than one roll of 120 anyway I find the ability to not have to change film so often quite convenient. You don't have to open up the filmback as often, allowing dust or insects or whatever to enter. Not to mention the lost time changing film.<br>

So I want to advocate using 220 film as often as possible so as to ensure they keep making it!!! Why don't you use 220 film (and yes, I know, if your emulsion is not being made in 220 then that explains that.)</p>

<p>Some good info from 2004...<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/007vMg">http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/007vMg</a></p>

<p>I guess I prefer 220 as well, but wish it were cheaper per-frame to process. No economy of scale.</p>

<p>And all my film was purchased second-hand, and I have more than a lifetime supply...so I'm no help here. ;-)</p>

<p>My main reason is that 220 does not have the paper backing for the whole roll....only the leader and the end. The rest of the roll is just the film. While this shouldn't matter all that much, seeing as 35mm film has no paper backing at all..........it just feels better to me that at least one side of 120 film is protected from the backing plate in the cam.....should it have any minor nicks or even dirt on it. so, for me, it's just an added "warm and fuzzy" feelin.</p>

 

<p>"While this shouldn't matter all that much, " - It matters for a lot of older classics camera that use a window to let you know what frame you're on. Also, sometimes you don't want to "be stuck" w/24 frames on just one type of film.</p>

Not sure why ? I would rather have 220 film anyday. My MF camera does not have any backs, so I have to change the film with film inserts. It gets a little old if you have to change the film every half hour or so in those conditions.

<p>Yea, 220 makes sense to me too. Many MF systems have removable backs, so switching is film is not a big deal. Also, I find dealing with the 120 paper to be a minor pain in the butt. I think 120's big advantage is that it's universally compatible. If you're going to make only one format, go with the one more cameras can utilize.</p>

<p>220 is only a dollar more fro E-6 processing than 120 thru Fuji Labs/Walmart sendout. $5.88 for 120 or $6.88 for 220. That, plus not having to reload out in the field so often are why I too like 220 better.</p>

<p>Randall, have you done that with them lately? Last I checked (a year ago), they had stopped doing it here in California. Yes, I asked twice. ;-) But they could still have been wrong.</p>

<p>I stuck with dwayne's instead, and they are only slightly more expensive ($7.50 and $10). Actually, the C-41 is the same price ($4 per roll), so I guess I was wrong about there not being a price benefit. </p>

<p>I guess I was thinking about the 0% price benefit to SCAN 120 vs 220....as I just sent my first rolls of 120 E-6 to North Coast to try out their scans. It bummed me out that 220 is exactly 2x as much for scanning. I didn't think it was much of a manual operation, but maybe it is. But then you'd think they'd charge by the frame, making 645 more expensive than 67.<br>

<br />But thanks for reminding me on the C-41, and let me know if Walmart is still doing 120/220 for you.<br>

<br />Greg</p>

<p>Frankly I find 24 frames a lot to shoot.<br>

I don't have a problem with 220 starting to go. As long as we can get a reasonable choice of 120 film I'm happy.<br>

Less choice can help to make it profitable enough for the manufacturers to stay in business.<br>

Now, if there would finally be someone that will bring Agfa APX 100 back in 120 in plenty supply for a reasonable price<br>

That would be a reason to party!!!!!</p>

<p>I think there are less professionals shooting medium format these days. At least thats what my pro lab tells me.(I called them a while back and asked if I was the only one shooting film, they said no theirs two of you) Back in the day we mainly shot 220 so we would not have to change backs so often in weddings, school photography etc.<br>

Now medium format seems to be where armatures are coming to get aways from machine gun shooting in the digital world.They are shooting a little less and want results, maybe not needing 24 shots, just 12 will do.<br>

That is what I am seeing......maybe I'm wrong, my ex wife used to tell me I was a lot..... but thats another story....I don't think you guys want to hear.</p>

<p>I agree with the assessment, that 220 will often require a separate back for certain cameras, and also 24 (32 @ 645) can be a lot to shoot unless you're really clicking a lot in a short amount of time.<br>

Thus 120 is a good standard, if the manufacturer has to choose.<br>

Also, I find rolls of 220 end up with a generous bend in the middle, from the lab, "due to length" and the "facilities" they have.<br>

My guess is they hang it at the halfway point, somewhere? Scanning that inevitable kinked frame isn't fun.</p>

<p>It is not as easily available. If Kodak, or any other manufacturer wants 220 to be more popular, the solution is easy. Just run this ad:" Dear photographers (we call you dears even though we despise and distrust you [relax, the situation is mutual]). We guarantee that 220 film will be available thru the year 2200." If Kodak were to do something that simple, they could retain the 220 business. But Kodak does not want the 220 business. They are stupid and short sighted people, concerned merely with their year end bonuses, who will let their products slide into obscurity and disuse if we let them do so.</p>

<p>I really like 220 in the Hasselblad. Problem is there are so few labs to work with it and it's expensive all around. So for now I'm jst doing the black and white thing on 120 and digi.</p>

<p>220 film was never "popular" even in the heyday of film, 120 always outsold it. And 120 always had a wider variety of available emulsions.</p>

<p>The longer 220 rolls were designed mainly for pro use. In fact they weren't even available until (1965), sixty four years after 120's (1901) introduction. So in terms of cameras out there, there are many more 120 cameras.<br>

In the last decade it seems like the number of film shooters declined by 99%. And the former 220 using pros were the first to go digital. This leaves 220 as truly a dinosaur without a mate.</p>

<p>If there were good options in B&W 220 I would use it almost exclusively. I shoot with a pentax 67 and get only10 shots per roll. PIA<br>

Dennis</p>

<p>I use 220 Portra 160 VC for weddings, but for black & white I stick with 120 because in 220 there is only 320 TXP, which is a good film, but there are situations where other black & white films serve me better. Also, it is a PITA to load 220 on SS reels unless you have a perfect reel. Never could get 220 on a plastic Paterson reel, though, even though the Freestyle catalog description says you can.<br>

In medium format, the 220 user fits in the middle of the 120 user who needs only a small number of photos and the 70mm back user who much shoot large numbers of photos without reloading. So many photographers today that take large assignments (like school portraits, etc) have moved to digital.</p>

<p>Well, I am used to shooting 35mm but haven't tried my new MF gear...I am use to 36 exp per roll so I think I might like 220. At least there is a 220 Ektachrome left!</p>

<p>Greg, you raise a very good question.<br>

I shoot 95% MF, 4% 35mm and 1% digital.<br>

95% of my MF is in 220 because it requires less film changing (recognising all the hazards of that, previously mentioned) and processing is cheaper than 2 X 120. Sure, one pays for each proof/ print with negative film but the actual film developing is less.<br>

Weddings are a classic example of the upside of 220 and I find landscapes can also "burn" through a lot of film. Having a dedicated 220 back, allows me to use another back if I wish to change emulsion, or require a film not available in 220. e.g. Kodak's new Ektar 100 and my freezer of Tech.Pan.<br>

When you come from a 35mm background, getting 32 exposures on a roll of 220 virtually requires no "adjustment" in one's thinking and for a photographic journey/expedition, etc. one just packs the same number of rolls as one did for 35. <br>

Let's hope we can keep 220 film alive for a long time!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"While this shouldn't matter all that much, " - It matters for a lot of older classics camera that use a window to let you know what frame you're on.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It also matters to us strange people who make their own panoramic cameras. My current 6x12 version only gets 6 shots per roll. I would love to use 220 but I also need to find the numbers in the window. Now 220 with continuous backing paper would be good!<br>

http://stevesmithphoto.webs.com/pano612.html</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I guess the 220 problems are not with the users. The problems to my experience are more with the photo labs. Only pro labs can process <strong>professionally</strong> <strong>E-6 or C-41 or B&W 220 roll films</strong> . Of course with an higher price.<br>

Unfortunately, there are only 3 companies left, who can convert 220 roll films. <strong>Fuji, Kodak and Lucky/China!</strong><br>

I agree, let's hope that I can feed my Contax 645 AF for a long time with 220 films!</p>

 

<p>I have frozen stocks of my favourite discontinued general-purpose C41 film, Konica Centuria 400, in both 120 and 220. I use both types, for different scenarios. I pull out the 220 when I am planning to shoot 35mm-style with my Mamiya 645 (30 exposures), or when I want to avoid constant reloading with my Mamiya Universal 6x9 (16 exposures). I use 120 films of various emulsions when I want to finish a roll in a reasonable amount of time - e.g. a night of deep-sky astrophotography might use 5 frames, the next available night might be months away, and I don't want to just burn up the remainder of the film on pointless shots. Better to have 3 or 10 frames to finish off the roll, than 11 or 25!</p>

<p>I am more likely to use 220 with the 6x9 camera, for two reasons: there are no extra backs or inserts to carry around (just switch the pressure plate); and one shoots 8 frames on 120 pretty quickly in most situations.</p>

<p>One thing that bugs me though is how different processors treat 220. One lab told me that it has to cut 220 in half (generally slicing through an image) in order to process it! Another charged the same for 220 as 120 (yay!) but ended up with crud on the film either way (boo!). My current lab has great quality but charges double for 220. When I queried this, citing that the labour & materials cost of setup-process-sleeve-return is hardly any greater than 120, they just said that "this is the industry norm". C'est la vie.</p>

<p>Why it is less popular</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Because not all cameras have been designed to use it and the default supply when new was 120</li>

<li>Because not all emulsions have been available in 220</li>

<li>Because many retailers don't carry 220, or have carried a very restricted selection. Even some of the larger online suppliers here in the UK carry little 220</li>

<li>Because there's been no financial incentive to use it. Total cost per frame is about the same as 120, and in the days when 120 film is/was promoted 120 film was available at a lower cost per frame than 220. </li>

<li>Because some people are affected by or are concerned about the lack of backing paper , the increased possibility of light leaks if not handled properly and the need to load /unload with more care.</li>

<li>Because production nowadays is in batches which results in some retailers going out of stock between runs and being unable to buy replacement rolls. </li>

<li>Because 220 was always more popular amongst high film volume pro users, who have noe changed to digital and their cameras are usually bought by people who use less film and are less prone need the convenience benefits of 220</li>

</ul>

<p>Many of these arguments are self -perpetuating. So 220 isn't so popular, which leads to it becoming less available and sometimes more expensive, which leads to it becoming less popular, and so on. Its a difficult spiral to reverse, and whilst I like and use 220 myself , I'm keener to see film manufacturers make a clear profit on rollfilm to secure its long term future. This might mean accepting that proliferation of brands and roll lengths might not be such a great idea. </p>

<p>I only have one MF body and switching between film types is easier with 120. I would find 220 film convenient in some situations but can't find it locally.</p>

<p>In 220 I use Tri-X and Fuji Velvia, and in medium format overall its 40:40:20 % 120/220/70mm, with a variety of magazines for Hasselbald and Linhof.<br>

In 120 it's everything and anything. In 70mm there is Fp4 and Rollei IR400, both of which area available new, in addition to the odd deal on eBay for out-of-date Kodak films.<br>

As for the variety of frustrations in using/processing 220, mine too are spoken for in the previous posts above. I want my 120 and 220 E6 films in a roll, UNCUT. Unless I pay big bucks (+25% tax) at a "pro lab" in Oslo, most other labs in Norway send there E6 to Germany, to some central cooking pot, staffed it seems by illiterate slave workers. Hence my being keen to do it myself, with a Jobo outfit. B&W no problem. No one else gets their hands on my B&W. A lab in the UK will be handling all my colour 70mm, and some other 120/220 film too. Always when in London I pick up a bundle of 120/220 from <a href="http://www.silverprint.co.uk/">Silverprint</a> , who also stock FP4 70mm.<br>

Things could be worse.<br>

There are advantages for both 120, and so I select the most appropriate for the task.<br>

But remember, and you've read it here before: <strong>"Use it or lose it."</strong></p>

<p>My camera operation pattern lines up better with 120. I prefer to select film by observed conditions. The 120 will give me about 15 frames from the 645; it's easier to manage in increments of about a dozen. If I had to think in increments of about two dozen, then I'd probably end up either using an emulsion I didn't want for the situation, or get stuck with a roll stalled in the camera. </p>