Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/02/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]so has kodak discontinued 220 BW400CN? Eric On 2/11/07, Mark Rabiner <mark@rabinergroup.com> wrote: > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >