120 vs 220

[msage]

120, never liked 220. Harder to process and handle.

 

[Q.G.]

220 was/is good, though, when you have to expose serious amounts of film.
Horses for courses.

Hmm... I'm stating the obvious here. Sorry!


I can still get my favourite colour film in 220, so not bothered about that.
I would love TMax in 220, but am quite happy using 120 for B&W.

What kept me from using 220 for a while is that it where i can get it (i know i can get it from all over the world. But shipping costs...), it costs more than double the price of 120 film, per roll.
I can't get it processed for less than double the price of 120, like some say they can, either. But that's only fair, i guess.
But i hate how i have to pay a premium for getting half as many spools and many times less paper.

 

[2F/2F]

220

Chalk me up as one who doesn't understand why 220 is not only on its death bed, but why it is not wildly more popular than 120. Carrying half as many rolls, changing them half as often, and, perhaps most importantly, having to do half as many processing runs are a HUGE deal in almost any situation I have been in (or that I can imagine).

The only, and I mean ONLY, time I would really favor 120, other than for use in cameras that don't accept 220 film, is if I was using many different films for a shoot/trip and I had one camera or one film back, and/or if I was not shooting a lot (i.e. under 8, 10, or 12 shots in a day). If it is a planned "shoot," I usually have one type of film that I have decided on, so this does not apply. I do often use cameras that do not take exchangeable magazines (Mamiya C system and M645 system, for instance), so when I do favor the use of 120, it is usually in these...however, I have multiple bodies for this reason. If I am shooting so little that I would not finish a 220 roll, then I will also use 120...but more likely large format.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

220

Chalk me up as one who doesn't understand why 220 is not only on its death bed, but why it is not wildly more popular than 120. Carrying half as many rolls, changing them half as often, and, perhaps most importantly, having to do half as many processing runs are a HUGE deal in almost any situation I have been in (or that I can imagine).

I agree particularly on the processing issue--220 is a real time saver. If I need to change film quickly, I just use a camera like my Bronica or Linhofs with multiple backs, so that I can manage with 120, but getting twice the number of exposures on the same number of reels without any fiddling or risks associated with fitting two 120 rolls on a 220 reel is a big advantage.

There is also the somewhat controversial point that 220 has--with the right back--better flatness than 120:

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/ContentsWWWIntern/134AEE504E89CD50C12569620039712C

 

[benjiboy]

On further reflection both my Mamiya C330Fs can use 120 and 220 film by just rotating the pressure plate in the correct position, but in the twenty odd years I have owned them I've never used 220 film, even when I used to do weddings.

 

[Marvin]

I use 120 because I have 2 120 backs for my ETRSi. I have considered getting a 220 back since they are so cheap these days. You can see them going for $20 on ebay but if 220 goes away then it won't be useful. Just wondering in the manufacturing process how hard it is to switch between the two.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I use 120 because I have 2 120 backs for my ETRSi. I have considered getting a 220 back since they are so cheap these days. You can see them going for $20 on ebay but if 220 goes away then it won't be useful. Just wondering in the manufacturing process how hard it is to switch between the two.

I think it depends on the design of the back. My Bronica S2a backs are switchable, but I think the only thing the switch changes is the way the counter works. The pressure plate is sprung, so there is no need to adjust for the thickness of the film and backing, as there is enough spring pressure to hold 120 or 220 flat. The film plane is in the same place on the emulsion side for 120 and 220. I don't know why this switchable design isn't more common.

On my Linhof backs there are separate inserts for 120 and 220, and the pressure plate is rigid, but the 220 plate is machined to a finer tolerance and polished so that it doesn't scratch the back of the film. The 120 pressure plate is rougher and is painted flat black or perhaps is black anodized.

 

[Gary Grenell]

Why I use 120 format

For my Green Lake project (see www.grenellphoto.com) I do portraits of people I meet going around the lake and in the neighborhood. It really is a streamlined zone system as applied to roll film, as I note the contrast range for the portrait and develop that roll accordingly. Over the course of the 8 to 16 exposures (depending upon the med. format camera being used), the contrast range does not change in the 15 minutes in takes to make the exposures. If I am not able to make a decent portrait in 12 exposures, I certainly won't be able to make it in 24 exposures.

 

[lxdude]

I use 120 because I have 2 120 backs for my ETRSi. I have considered getting a 220 back since they are so cheap these days. You can see them going for $20 on ebay but if 220 goes away then it won't be useful. Just wondering in the manufacturing process how hard it is to switch between the two.

Remember that all you need is a 220 insert. The shell is the same. Changing inserts is easy, and can be done on the camera.

220 inserts are less than dirt cheap. KEH has an EX for $5; a LN- for $8.

 

[brucemuir]

I prefer 220 but of course would like to have the choice.

Really wish there was at least one good B&W emulsion available in 220.

I have at least 2-220 backs for each of my MF systems.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

120.
It has staying power. Getting 12 exposures is just right, and the square format is attractive and easy to work with. I've always thought 220 was for larger volume shooting (?).

And what films come in 220 format nowadays? None here that I can see in the pro-dealers.

 

[eunkefer]

I would rather have 220 but use both.