Where to buy Ilford 220 films on the Internet?

[pompu]

Hi,<br><br>

I've been trying to find a dealer on the net that sells Ilford 220

films (especially xp2 and delta 400). Anyone knows one?<br>

By the way, is there any reason why people would prefer 120 over 220

other than the existing film backs don't support it?<br>

I've tried some color slide/print films in 220 format with my Mamiya

7, and never had any problem. With 20 frames per roll, I'd much

prefer using 220 for b&w also.<br><br>

Thanks in advance.

[lex_jenkins]

According to Ilford spokesman David Carper (quoted from Ilford's Cafe Ilfopro forum) :

 

"220 films, because of greater difficulty of manufacture and lower demand, are being phased out. But 120 will continue to be available."

 

Whatever supplies of Ilford 220 film remain are likely to be snapped up quickly, which may account for the difficulty you're experiencing finding the stuff.

[j._raabe]

Delta 400 was never made in 200, though I wish it had been.

 

Although, seeing as the 20-25 rolls of FP4 & HP5 are probably the last 220 film I'll ever use..

 

Such a hassle to deal with changing film in the Mamiya 7 out in the field; I always preferred 220, but that's rather silly to say as more often than not I'm using the Mamiya 7 with films that NEVER came in 220 - Foma, Efke, Maco IR, etc.

 

Sad. At least I never bought any 220 backs for the RB67!

[j._raabe]

Delta 400 was never made in 220, that should've read. Ah well.

[reinhold_schable]

Another benefit of 220 films is less time to develop lots of film. I

typically shoot 50 to 60 rolls of 220 on my Europe trips, and I can

tell you that I'd much rather develop 60 rolls of 220, than 120 rolls

of 120 film.

 

On these trips, I can just fit 10 or 12 Pro-packs (50 to 60 rolls) of

220 film in my camera case carry-on. Now Ilford tells me that I've

got to carry about 120 rolls, which makes my carry-on oversize.

Even if I bought film overseas (assuming I can find it in Lower

Slobbovia), I've got to have larger carry-on capacity for the

homeward trip.

 

Ilford claims lower useage and difficulty in manufacturing 220

film. Fooey. Kodak 220 films rewinds easier in my Mamiya M7's

than Ilford's FP4 220. About 2 years ago I suggested to Ilford that

their slitting was contributing to poor rewinding, which could

cause customer complaints and reduced sales. ( I happen to be

- very - knowledgable on the slitting of films and similar

materials. It's my profession.). In the intervening 2 years, I saw

no improvement in the way the film rewound, and kind of

expected this to happen.

 

So long, Ilford, It's been good to know ya...

[charles_hohenstein]

Reinhold:

 

What is your plan, then? Will you switch from FP4+ to Kodak Plus-X and from HP5+ to

Kodak Tri-X Pro? As I understand it, both Kodak films (as well as the black and white

Portra 400) are available in 220.

 

I share your skepticism that 220 was that much harder for Ilford to make. I think they

saw the opportunity to eliminate a product for which there was lesser demand, and

took it. But if they are going to compete with Kodak they need to be doing better, not

falling short of Kodak service.

[reinhold_schable]

Charles:

 

Yes, as soon as my 220 FP4+ is used up, I'll replace it with

Kodak Plus X. It's a perfecly capable film, every bit the equal of

FP4+. Obviously, I'll have to re-tune my processing, but I've used

Plus-X for years in the past, so we'll get along just fine...

 

I don't use much HP5, but when it's 400 speed time, it'll be Tri-X

time.

 

Kind of contradictory, isn't it... just recently Ilford announced a full

line-up of ultra-large film format avalibility. I also shoot an 8x20

Canham camera, and was tickled that Ilford would offer such a

seemingly low volumn product to such a small user base. It

raised my loyalty to Ilford index up a notch. And now this... a slap

at a considerably larger user base. My loyalty index slid down to

the basement.

[andre_noble4]

I'm also pissed about the Ilford being discontinued in 220.

[roger_hicks1]

If enough people bought Ilford 220, they'd go on making it. The idea they are looking for opportunities to drop products is extraordinary. Personally I'm fond of 70mm -- wipes the floor with 220 at 53 exposures, 6x7cm, per loading -- but again there's no demand and I cant't afford the many thousands it would cost to have some 70mm Delta 3200 coated (Ilford is quite willing to do it). I almost never use 220, despite having several cameras/backs that take both 120 and 220. It costs more and I find it less convenient, although of course it can also be held flatter. I must be 'Joe Average' in this context.

 

Cheers

[david_henderson]

I find 220 film a lot more convenient, in terms of storage,

carrying, managing rolls. The only inconvenience is finding it.

Picking up Roger's point above, I'd rather switch my purchases

to a company that didn't discontinue the films I wanted, so

encouraging them to continue, than blame photographers for

not buying enough. Ilford, with their squishy spools and nasty

-tasting adhesive, aren't contributing anything I can't get

elsewhere.

[reinhold_schable]

This baloney about not having enough sales to warrant running

a production line is nicely answered by Konica and their K750

infrared film in 120 size. Once a year they change the coating

and slitting line from 35mm to 120, and make one years' worth of

film, which is gobbled up by those who love the stuff. (My freezer

bulges with it).

 

If Ilford is truly interested in serving the professionally oriented

segment of the market, they too would find a way to keep lower

volumn products available, even if it means some adjustments

by both Ilford and we who rely on the stuff.

[charles_hohenstein]

Roger Hicks wrote:

 

"If enough people bought Ilford 220, they'd go on making it. The idea they are

looking for opportunities to drop products is extraordinary."

 

How many people are buying 11x14 sheet film? Yet Ilford goes on making that. How

many people are buying film for banquet format cameras? Yet Bergger keeps on

supplying them. I'll wager that a lot more people have 220 backs which they would

like to go on using--but Ilford has turned their backs on us. Ilford is in a niche

market. They can't afford to treat their customers this way.

[tim obrien]

"Ilford is in a niche market. They can't afford to treat their customers this way."

 

Sure they can. Agfa has abandoned the sheet film market, Ilford can shaft the MF users.

 

Personally I don't use much 220. I like the idea of shooting off 12 exposures then shooting something else, generally a different kind of film. Makes for interesting series, photographicly speaking. I seldom will do 24 shots at a single shoot. If the situation calls for lots of images, it's 35mm with the Nikon FM2. But then again, I am a bit wierd. B&W processing of 220 is more of a challenge too.

 

I do like the fact that Ilford is the only major making 2x3 400ASA sheet film. That will keep me using at least some Ilford products until they drop that.

 

tim in san jose

[andrew_hull]

There are some rather laughable thoughts in this thread, the first of which is that Plus-X is as capable as FP4+. Also, I wouldn't claim to "take my business to someone who isn't going to discontinue film" and then go to Kodak, who is notorious for discontinuing film. Ilford needs to answer to its investors. If it was a money-maker, they would produce 220 film, if it wasn't, they should discontinue it. The tone in these types of threads sometimes seems to hint that Ilford is out to get the photographer, even though a) 220 sells like hot cakes b) it isn't more expensive to produce. Why would Ilford lie? Obviously it doesn't sell enough to warrant the use of capital to produce it.

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Andrew,

 

Surely you must know by now that film manufacturers lie about everything. They deliberately give the wrong ISO speeds and development times, to make sure that no-one gets the best results from their materials, and they discontinue products out of sheer spite while pretending that they are doing it because there is no demand.

 

Right now, Kodak presumably make enough money out of 220 to justify keeping it in the product line-up. Ilford's decision to drop 220 will presumably extend the life of the Kodak product by a few months or years, but it ain't gonna last forever; it will disappear well before 120. As one of the senior guys at Ilford said to me a week or two ago, before this thread came up (I talk to them pretty often), "I wish we hadn't stopped making 220, but if people don't buy it, we can't make it." Things stay in production because of inertia and a desire to provide even special-interest emulsions to whoever wants them, but there comes a point where it's hopelessly uneconomic.

 

Changing emulsions -- like Konica's annual batch of 750IR -- is rather easier than making a completely different *kind* of film. The same argument applies to cutting sheet film sizes: that's a lot easier than making 220. It might be more useful to point out that Ilford slits Delta 3200 as 120, while Kodak doesn't slit TMZ that size. If there's a market, they'll make it.

 

Actually, there can be other reasons to drop things, but they are rare. For example, Super-XX was dropped despite good demand because it was the last Kodak emulsion to contain cadmium.

 

But I fear you're onto a loser trying to explain such things to people who can't tell ISO from EI and believe what they want to believe about the economics and technology of film conversion.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[andrew_hull]

Roger:

 

To keep the topic going...does Kodak make 220 in anythnig other than Plus-X? I have only Plus-X in 220 and I thought that it might be because Plus-X (not my opinion) is considered a great protrait film. They seem to have a niche there. I get such a kick out of people that take discontinuance of a film so personally. It is like someone at Ilford sat down and decided that they didn't like them. It is all ROI. Do any of the smaller players a la Efke, Bergger, FOMA or the like make 220?

[melvin_bramley]

WIll Ilford stop "making" or stop "marketing"(as Ilford) 220.Is it possible they will still make 220 for Freestyle Sales??

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Andrew,

 

Yes, I love the paranoia too: "Ilford is out to get ME PERSONALLY!"

 

Quite honestly, as I don't use 220, I neither know nor care who makes exactly what. Evidently enough other people feel the same way that there's no real market. Frances would probably know but she's away at ballet class. I'd be surprised if Efke or Foma or Forte or Slavich made it, or if Bergger had it made for them.

 

As for whether Ilford will make it for Freestyle -- not your question, I know -- I'd again be surprised. If you're going to run 220 I'd have thought you'd sell it to anyone, under their label or yours; it's the hassle of converting it at all that is the problem.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[michael_j._kravit1]

Hello Ted,

 

I have

3 ProPacks (15 Rolls) of Ilford HP5+ July '05 Exp Date and

5 Propacks of (25 Rolls) of Ilford FP4+ Feb '05 Exp Date.

 

All has been in refrigerator since I bought it last year.

 

Please let me know if you are interested in it.

 

Thanks