120 vs 220

[Edwardv]

If you had a choice for a manufacturer to produce 120 or 220 only; which one would you want?

As for me I would like to have 220 any day.

 

[ic-racer]

The only reason I ever used 120 is because that it all I could get or the manufactures did not make the film I used in 220 size. So, for me 220 died back in 1986 when I realized they were never going to do T-max as a 220 film.

I still feel it is Kodaks big joke on us that the most sophistocated medium format cameras ever created were forced to use the paper-backed film made for 'peep-hole' cameras. Its been so many decades, I don't even remember what Kodak's excuse for no 220 T-max was

 

[dpurdy]

it would have to be a film I like but if Acros or fuji 400 or maybe TX 400 came in 220 I would prefer it to 120. However I never liked PX or FP4 or HP5 when they were the choices.
Dennis

 

[Necator]

120, otherwise I cannot use my Agfa Isolette

 

[lxdude]

For me, 220. Just like 36 exp. 35mm.

But so many cameras take only 120 and I wouldn't want to obsolete them. I just don't understand why so few people seem to use 220. I'm often in situations where I don't want to be switching backs or reloading them any more than I have to. Just tonight I was in the Pass Area west of Palm Springs where the wind is always blowing strongly and usually carrying dust and grit.
220 uses half the space, too. Important when hiking.
And Samy's charges the same price for 120 or 220 E-6 processing, so that cuts processing in half. It looks like Ektachrome in 220 is soon to be gone. I will try Fuji in 220 before I decide whether to go to E100G in 120. I know I could go to Negative film, but I don't wanna!

 

[Vlad Soare]

One more vote for 120.

I can barely finish a roll of 120 in one photo session. A roll of 220 is too long for me. I'd probably end up taking random snapshots just to finish the roll faster, so I can develop it and see the pictures sooner.
Besides, the paper back is nice. No scratches due to imperfect pressure plates. No reflections from the pressure plate when you use film with no anti-halation layer. You can use really old cameras. And so on.

I just don't understand why so few people seem to use 220.

Because fewer emulsions are available in 220 than in 120.
Because a roll of 220 is sometimes more expensive than two rolls of 120.
Because not all cameras can handle 220 film directly. Some require different film magazines for 220 and 120.
Because some people, myself included, don't take many pictures at once, but want to see them as soon as possible, without waiting for weeks to finish the roll.
etc.

And Samy's charges the same price for 120 or 220 E-6 processing

That may be just an exception. Many labs treat 220 as two 120s, so the processing cost per frame is the same. That also applies if you develop the films yourself - you either need to double the amount of developer (if you use one-shot developers mixed from concentrates), or to halve the total number of rolls that can be processed in a certain amount of developer (if you reuse developers).

Anyway, even if I don't use 220 and probably never will, I see why some people might want to use it. I don't see why we all should have to choose just one and stick with. I think they should both continue to exist.

 

[R gould]

For me 120, I mostly use folders, rolleiflex and weltaflex and none of them take 220,Richard

 

[Rick A]

220 film is a johnny-come-lately size on the market. It was determined that wedding photographers could benefit from the double length, and would buyit exclusivly. This limited the selection of films made in this format to choices that would be appropriate to portraiture (almost all color). All cameras produced before were 120(or 620) and not able to be modified for longer rolls. A few manufacturers jumped on the bandwagon, and made a model that would accept 220, then medium format SLR's came onto the scene with interchangable backs, making it easier to use either format. Unfortunatly, not everyone had the budget for these cameras, and 120 was(and is) the favored format. Along comes the evil invention of electronic binary image capture, and the slow painful death of our beloved celluloid happiness. To stop the bleeding, amputation became necessary, and something had to be excised, so it was that 220 format was sacrificed to save the body. Rest in peace dear 220, long live film.

 

[steven_e007]

Definately 120.
I can't see much point in 220 to be honest. Nearly all cameras that can use 220 can use 120 (if not all backs) - but most 120 roll film cameras can't take 220. I've only used it a few times in a C330f (The only camera I have that will take it) but find it of little advantage. At a wedding it would mean a bit less reloading - but in almost any other context I can't see a couple of minutes changing a 120 roll film being much of a problem. I can see it being an advantage if your camera doesn't have changeable backs - less shots to waste if the light changes or you want to switch films for some other reason.

Those who really need to fire away without reloading should be lamenting the lack of 70mm perforated film, surely?

 

[TSSPro]

Save space packing the camera bag, my local lab treats 220 and 120 as the same price for c41. I'de go with 220 if I knew I would be shooting more. I'm slowly re-incorporating film back into the wedding routine; so, I may be back to ordering tons of 220 again in no time.

 

[kraker]

I can barely finish a roll of 120 in one photo session.

Same reason I vote for 120 98% of the time.

...except when I know beforehand that I will take a lot of shots and have a 220-compatible camera (only one of my many MFs is). That's the remaining 2%, and that's a liberal estimate.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

120. I like the 12 frame format for my 6x6 cameras. It's just enough pictures that I don't get tired of exploring a whole roll. This is the reason I prefer 24exp rolls in the 35mm format too.

What I think is really strange is that 220 film is more efficient, and uses less material per frame shot. Theoretically, you should get more value out of it, and therefore it's a mystery why it didn't take off better.

 

[nworth]

I generally prefer 220 film when I can get it. Most of my MF cameras will take both 120 and 220. But a couple of older models take only 120; therefore, 120 is essential.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I usually prefer shooting 220 when possible, but more cameras shoot 120.

 

[Dave in Kansas]

My preference is also 120 for some of the same reasons others have stated. It takes me long enough to shoot and print 12 exposures. I can see times when 220 would be nice for certain instances when it would be inconvenient to reload quickly on location, but those are the exception.

Even in 35mm I prefer the shorter rolls. I liked the 20 exposure rolls Kodak offered back in the 60's.

Of course, I am sorry to see so many 220 films go. More options are almost always better.

Dave

 

[benjiboy]

Let's put it this way if I had a Hasselblad I wouldn't be buying a 220 back for it I think It's on It's way out all the monochrome film is discontinued and I don't think the colour film will be far behind, one of the biggest markets for 220 film was wedding shooters, and they've all gone digital.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Nothing against 220, but I would vote for 120. My Rolleiflex TLR takes 120. I have two 120 backs for my RB67. Of course I could buy 220 back(s) for my RB67.

Jeff

 

[Tim Gray]

120. Since I don't shoot for a job, I don't mind switching rolls. Actually, I find it nicer since I find it easier to finish 12 exposures. If I shoot more, I still tend to finish the roll. With 24 exposures, I feel like I'd be leaving a roll in the camera at the end of the day quite a bit.

220 is about twice as expensive to buy, and about twice as expensive to get processed most places, so there's no monetary argument like there is in 35mm film. I will say that it would make home processing twice as fast and cheaper if you use one-shot chemistry; that seems to me to be it's biggest advantage. Other than the switching rolls thing. I can see where people doing weddings and portraits would like 220.

 

[fschifano]

I'd prefer 120 to remain. I can use it in all my medium format cameras. Only my Mamiya C220's can take both without modification or different backs. Besides, 12 exposures is enough on a roll. It fits with the amount of chemistry needed and a contact sheet is 1 8x10 piece of paper. I'm never in so much of a rush that I don't have time to reload. There have been a few times when having 220 would have been convenient, but not often enough to justify it completely.

 

[DanielStone]

50/50 split for me to be quite honest.

I don't own any older folding cameras, but I do own a holga, and that's really 120-only. But the last time I shot anything through that was 6 months ago.

for E-6 and c-41, I've really become fond of using 220. Since I got a great deal a few months back on a buttload of film from a studio who went "all digital", I got their remaining fresh filmstock for 1/4 the new sales price. So I somewhat have an 'incentive' to shoot more. Because I photograph my friends and family as much as I can, having 2x the # of shots on a roll is great when they won't sit still, or when I just don't feel like changing rolls mid-session. And because I use Samy's(Dead Link Removed), and their prices are ridiculously cheap compared to NY or LA pro-labs, they process 35mm, 120 or 220 E-6 for $5/roll!!!!. Just another incentive to get 2x the shots for the same $$$.

alas, I wish that 400Tmax was available in 220, that would be swwweeeeeet!!!! same with E100G(have to resort to Astia for 220)

and since I just picked up another 2 rz220 backs at the camera show for $10 each(in EX+ condition too), I have another reason to shoot 220 .

just my $.02

-Dan

 

[fotch]

120. For me, I just find that medium format is more like large format in many ways so my approach is to shoot less photos.

 

[vdonovan]

I still use film for the kind of photography that 220 was intended for: portrait shoots, fashion, weddings, etc. When time is important, it is nice to change backs and reload half as often. Not to mention processing takes half the time, since it takes twice as long for me to develop 16 rolls of 120 as 8 rolls of 220.

But admittedly this is dinosaur behavior. Most pros have moved to digital for precisely the reason that digital is faster to work with, with less risk. Because of this , 220 is pretty much dead and 120 film is going to continue to give us photographic artists and enthusiasts the most choice in terms of cameras and film types for as long as we keep using it. Long live 120!

Still, I wish there was at least ONE 220 B&W film still available for we dinosaurs. RAWRRRRRRRRR.

 

[cheekygeek]

220 is nice if you need to limit the number of film change interuptions like for wedding/event photography. For a big wedding party (for example) you need more than a 120 just to get all the "coming down the aisle" shots on one roll. Otherwise, I prefer 120.

 

[Chazzy]

If I had to choose, I would choose 220, even though that would mean orphaning my 120 folders. I hate loading film with a passion.

 

[Sirius Glass]

120. There are not enough film types in 220.

Steve