Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/02/11

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: Kodak BW400CN 220 ??
From: mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)
Date: Sun Feb 11 12:10:54 2007

On 2/11/07 2:17 PM, "Eric Korenman" <faneuil@gmail.com> typed:

> YES!
> thank you
> 
> couldn't find it anywhere..
> Eric
> 
> 
I have 8 Hewes reels to run my 220 cost more than my enlarger cost me. An
Omega D2v.
It makes running 220 in normal tanks a breeze. No screw ups no kinks.
Very efficient all that film climbs out of your tank like clowns out of a
V.W.. Hang all that stuff up sheets and sheets of images makes the whole
room more humid.
a strain on the chemistry but Xtol 1:3 still worked.

This stuff is c41 though. And has an orange mask for extra fun in the
darkroom.

You can still get tri x pro 320 in 220. Its ok stuff. Its not tri x in any
shape (check the curve) or form. In name only. "pro" stands for "not tri x".
And the 320 a dead give away.
I've shot a ton of it for events. Ansel may have used it I think I read. So
it must be true.

If they still made 220 HP5 it would be a major modern miracle. Maybe.


You can really crank on 220 just like its 35 only you get several times the
acreage. You can out Ansel Ansel in the shimmering tonality department plus
plenty of spontaneity. I think you are less spontaneous when you have just a
couple of shots left. And you just started the roll. 12 on a roll makes you
careful. In a good way sure.

I've been shooting 220 Pro 800 Z Fujicolor in my Rolleiflex And nothing but
for a few weeks.
But my next propack is 120 film of the stuff.



Mark Rabiner
New York, NY
40?47'59.79"N   
73?57'32.37"W

markrabiner.com




Replies: Reply from faneuil at gmail.com (Eric Korenman) ([Leica] Re: Kodak BW400CN 220 ??)
In reply to: Message from faneuil at gmail.com (Eric Korenman) ([Leica] Re: Kodak BW400CN 220 ??)