The 220 Film Format is Awesome and We Should Save it! ShangHai GP3 and CineStill 400D In 220!
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 09. 2024
- I had the opportunity this past weekend to shoot 220 for the first time, and I loved it. Coincidentally, this week, CineStill announced they'll release 400D in 220. Suffice to say, that's trilling and having a color stock in 220 has the potential to be a huge benefit for film shooters. This video discusses why 220 is such an exciting film format and what we, as film users, can do to encourage major producers to start reselling 220 again. In a nutshell, we should buy 220 instead of 120 when the option is available.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @davidhancock
David Hancock's Amazon Author Page with Links to Select Camera Manual eBooks:
www.amazon.com...
My Instagram:
/ davidhancock
"White Gold (Instrumental Version)" by Tommy Ljungberg used under active license from Epidemic Sound at the time of this video's upload.
I’ve got a Pentax 67 and shooting a 20 shot roll sounds pretty great!
Absolutely concur. How did you get the Gold 200 already?
@@DavidHancock Many distributors have already shipped the early orders
Amazingly, I have shot 120 since 1978 and NEVER tried 220 ... but now i kinda want to!!!
It's fun because it doesn't interrupt the flow as often.
18 shots on 220 GW680 btw :)
Thank you!
I use a Pentax 6x7 for hiking and I noticed the same when using a 36 exposure roll it last way longer than it used to be., Because 10 shots per roll creates a discipline.
I completely agree about the discipline. I love my Pentax 6X7 as a hiking camera.
@@DavidHancock Idea: Splicing 2x 12 exposure rolls in a change bag for 24 snaps. Safe way in doing this or wishful dreaming.
As soon as I found out that ShangHai GP3 had 220 I bought some and once I found out that CineStill was reviving the 220 format with the 400D I backed their Campaign. I enjoy so much using the old 220 film holders and using the extra film since I don't have to be changing film every 10, 12 or 15/16 shots. Thank you very much for your videos!
Hmm looks like my Yashica 124g will get a roll through it if we get stocks in the UK and its less that £50 a roll ;-)
I had to imagine it will be less than 50GBP. The campaign reward is five rolls for USD $175, which is $35/roll -- 27GBP per. I have to hope they don't double the roll price for the stock when it goes on sale.
@@DavidHancock I have removed my tongue from my cheek but checking mortgage rates as I type :-)
@@davecarrera I'm glad I saved my second kidney for all these years now.
I’ve got some Portra 400 in 220 if you fancy some!
@@jakemico only if its the ltd edition rolls with 24crt gold leader and tail that produces 3D images.
Ha! My GP3 220 just showed up Tuesday. From reviews it looks like it's a little weak on the latitude. I'm going to try souping it in Black, White, and Green developer by Flic, which is a newer "mix it as you use it, 1-shot" xtol in an HC-like concentrate liquid. I just got that too.
I'll be in northern Michigan for the holiday weekend and will probably eat through two rolls on GP3. I'm really excited for this developer and I think it should do well with this film. I'll be shooting it in a gw 6x8, so I think I should get 18 shots. I'll end up doing one in the Jobo and probably one stand development to see how the film does.
As for the 400D, I grabbed a couple of rolls of the 220. My only reservation is the halations. If you watch the promotional video that they put out with Linus, the chandelier shot in particular they flash by (very briefly toward the end), the chandelier looks like it's possessed by demons, lol.
Overall this is fantastic news, and my hope is it will inspire Iford to fix their 220 machine and Kodak as well!
Nice! Yeah, halation is a thing that both of the current color CineStill stocks due (because of the remjet removal) and while it's much more noticeable with 800T than 50D, it's still there on 50D, too. I would expect this stock will have the same characteristic look that CineStill films deliver.
Greetings from Kyiv! Loving your "All about film" series
Thank you, Dmytro! Slava Ukraini!
I love 220, and made a video about it a few weeks ago. I was pretty dismissive of it until I actually wound up using it again recently, and I fell in love with it. It's so nice that I can kind of do a full portrait session, or at least most of one, on a single roll. It makes it a lot easier to get into a flow when I don't have to change film as often, which was also a big draw for 645 when I gave that format a chance. Another silly but interesting side effect is that I can actually flash the film with light leaks on 220 like I can with 35mm. Mildly crazy, but since it happened by accident recently, I now love it as a rare treat. ha.
Yeah, that was a good video. :D
@@DavidHancock Thank you! I appreciate it.
I am going to be buying some bulk 70mm Aviphot, and am definitely going to roll it as 220 because the RB I am getting has a 120/220 back that shoots 6x8! With 120 you supposedly get 9 shots, so 220 will make the transition from 35mm to medium format a lot easier.
Also, I hadn’t heard that CineStill would be making 400D in 220, but I am super glad to hear it. If my assumptions are correct and the yellow company manufactures the film and packages it, then we may start seeing 220 Portra again! Assuming 220 400D doesn’t fail spectacularly.
Nice! I don't know the details of the manufacturing, but I do hope that this leads to more 220 options.
Yes to 220! Especially when shoot 6x7 or 6x9, it would be so nice to have more shots available. I'll have to check out the shanghai film and (when I have the $$) try out the promising cinestill 400D. Thanks for the info!
Any time! And the ShangHai is a fair price. I just checked eBay and the 120 rolls are $13 per. For a pack of ten 220 rolls, it's $120. So the cost of the film is $1 less per roll, twice the shots, half the chemistry per roll. The numbers are still favorable for single roll purchases of 220.
I have the Pentax 645N, and I have to agree that 220 on 645 is incredibly long. I caught myself at the 16th exposure, expecting it to auto roll but it didn’t. I found myself trying to compose a heck of a lot more than I would do with 120. It psychologically affected me. 😆
:D
The issue that I see with 220, at least from Shanghai, is that it offers no cost incentive to use it compared to 120, as it should be cheaper to make, with less backing paper. The only reason I don’t use it, is that I only have one camera that can take it and I cannot justify buying a lot of it for only one camera even though it’s a far better way to use medium format.
For me the two major benefits are changing out film a bit less often with 120 cameras and developing more images in less time and with less chemistry. Sine I can fit one 220 reel in the same tank as one 120 reel, I can cut my chemistry cost.
Yes pls. Update us on the state of the Astrum factory. I'll be sad to see it disappear forever.
Will do.
I think last time I shot 220, George Bush Sr. was the president. Great to see it back! Any suggestions for sourcing GP3? other than eBay? Thanks!
eBay is the only place I know besides Alibaba.
For some they may have to modify their development because some developers specify a minimum amount per 80sq inches (36exp 35mm roll, 120 roll)
That's interesting. Is that more common for dilute developers?
Sorry, I can't get aboard with 220. As it is, 10 exposures in my RB67 are usually plenty for a given shoot, only occasionally I will use a second roll. And as other folks have pointed out, film prices are already going up way too quickly, I don't see the benefits as you do. As it is, I would have to find a 220 back, and prices for gear has gotten even more out of control with the recent renaissance of film photography, as much as that is a good thing, I am glad I put most of my kit together many years ago.
If you don't have the need or gear to shoot it, no reason to.
I agree. Seems logical. A year on from your video. No further 220 brand of film manufacturers making any. Or have i missed news?
You have not. 220 seems not to have materialized.
I'd be happy just to buy 61mm film in 100 foot or 30 meter bulk rolls to roll my own 220 or 120 in the darkroom. Maybe Ilford would be willing to sell it during their ULF campaign if enough people asked for it. They already offer HP5 that way in 46mm for people to roll their own 127 spools.
Home spooling 220 could be a good option if the film was cut well, yes.
With cinestill 400T in 120, there is a backing paper. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is matt black. Does that minimize halation on the remjet stripped cinestill? But doesn't 220 have a paper backing? If not, will that increase the halation? And finally, does shooting in say 67 minimize the appearance of halation?
Correct, the backing on 120 is matte black. 220 has no backing paper. The backing material can and can't increase halation. There's no way to actually increase it -- halation is simply the light that passes through the film being scattered in a diffuse manner back into the emulsion. A matte black backing can reduce that. Cameras with a silver pressure plate will appear to amplify it only because there are few out there like that and they're basically mirrors for the light that passes through the film. Pressure plates with texture or different types of black surfaces will reduce the halation to varying degrees. Image format could give the appearance of reduced halation only because it will be smaller relative to overall enlargement.
@@DavidHancockThanks, David, love your videos. I will try it in my RB in daylight and see if I get red halation in skin highlights. because that is my concern. If so, will actual vision 3 in 35 mm and remove the remjet myself. Every movie I watch with vision 3 blows my mine. Girl with a pearl earing, the skin tones on the leg of sharon tate in once upon a time in hollyood confirmed the gorgeous skin tone was not makeup.
503CX+ A24 film back, emulsion gods be praised.
220. Twice the price, half the fun.
120 and 220 are not different formats. They are both "medium format" roll film. eg., Then specifically, whether it is 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12 or 6x17.
Therefore, the 6x12 roll film magazine on my Technika is the same format whether it is loaded with 120 or 220.
It costs twice as much to develop 220 because developers are managed by measuring the amount of film for any given volume of a certain concentration. All developers have recommended capacities.
Delivering an E6 or C41 roll of film to a lab has a charge for developing depending on where it is 120 or 220. 220 is double the price of 120 for that reason.
However, yes I share your enthusiasm for it's comeback. I don't know the history of Shanghai, other than some 35mm film I bought in Beijing many years ago was terrible, as was the "Lucky" brand. Maybe they have made improvements.
Another possible contender is Adox. Whoever takes the leap, need to know the stock will move, because 'economy of scale' would be an important factor.
Thanks for the video. 👌
220 has been on my wishlist for a long time, having a bunch of Hasselblad magazines sitting there waiting. Both A24 and a rare A32 6x4.5.
Thank you! Good point that the negative area is the format, not the film.
But does it work in my Holga? Anyone try it? It seems only the very expensive cameras can handle 220, I.e. cameras with a frame counter and pressure plate or film back made specifically for 220. I guess this does not include TLRs, Holgas, Brownies, box cameras and folding cameras (the classics). I’d much rather see film makers bring back 126 film for the millions of Instamatics sitting in dresser drawers and boxes in attics and basements across America. But you have my support on bringing back any new film format as it incrementally increases new purchases of film.
This will not work in a Holga. Holga cameras need a paper backing behind the film (this backing has the numbers on it that you read through the red window as you advance the film.) 220 has no paper backing so if you use it in a Holga all your film will be ruined by light coming through the red window. You can cover the red window with tin foil or something to make it light-tight, but then you'll have no way of knowing how far to advance your film. This is true for any camera with a red window. Yes, 220 was really intended for high-end cameras as it halved the number of film changes that professional photographers had to do.
Does shooting 220 need any camera adjustments to accomodate the thickness, or lack thereof, of the backing paper? I know that Mamiya C series TLRs have different backs and settings for 120 vs. 220, but do any other cameras? Or can I just throw 220 in my Moskva-4 and shoot away?
Only whatever settings your camera requires that you make.
Most cameras require switching the backplate around to adjust for the difference in pressure. Or a different back for modular cameras.
I bought a mamiya rb67 with a 120 back can I use 220 ?
If it has a 120/220 switch, yes. If not, I do not think so.
With these absolutely insane film prices mirroring fuel costs, supply chain issues, and inflation? This is a very poor time to try to reintroduce what essentially is a low demand “niche” market. Let’s focus on lower prices for the readily available stuff first.
On a per-shot basis, 220 should be cheaper than 120.
@@DavidHancock I wish it was that easy. It is not. What’s going on now with the issues I mentioned complicate it, quite a bit. This is not “plug and play”.
UGH! GP3 has absolutely no midtones. Terrible film
Some of that is developer-dependent and some might be batch-dependent. I've found it can perform very well, but getting that from it is a bit harder than with, say, Delta 100. And I've found the characteristics vary by lot and format, too, which I really don't understand. Specifically, the 220 images I've gotten back look different, like from a totally different film stock, than the 120 images.