220 film in a Brownie Hawkeye?

[Mike Kennedy]

I posted earlier about getting some "free" 220 color film.Has anyone tried this size in their Hawkeye? Is it possible?

Thanks

 

[Sirius Glass]

I know that a Brownie Hawkeye takes 620 film. 220 film only has paper backing at the beginning and end of the roll, no paper backing covering the film. 120 film can be respooled to a 620 roll however a Brownie Hawkeye camera has a red window in the back which will fog the film if not covered. That said how will you be able to determine how far to wind the film if the window is covered. :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Steve

 

[Mike Kennedy]

I didn't know that the 220 had no paper backing.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
Wonder if there is a way to guesstamate the # of frames and process the film in Rodinal.(I know it's C-41 but I have done outdated color 35mm in R with strange scannable results).

 

[Sirius Glass]

My first camera was a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye Camera. Now I have a 35mm Nikon slr, 35mm Minolta slr and a C330. ... hmmm :confused: ... If you send me the 220 film and the Brownie, I can shoot the film, process it and send the prints to you. In exchange I will keep the negatives, a set of prints and the Brownie. :rolleyes:

Such-a-deal!!!

Steve

 

[Mike Kennedy]

What a guy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sirius Glass]

What a guy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, and I am even paying for the processing!

Steve

 

[alspix]

What about cutting the film in half, and respooling with some old 120 backing paper (assuming you do your own developing and have access to the stuff)

This isn't as hard as it sounds. I once cut down some 120 backing paper to 127 size, marked the frame positions on the back, and re-spooled onto 127 using 35mm film. A bit fiddly in the dark, but it worked OK!

I know that a Brownie Hawkeye takes 620 film. 220 film only has paper backing at the beginning and end of the roll, no paper backing covering the film. 120 film can be respooled to a 620 roll however a Brownie Hawkeye camera has a red window in the back which will fog the film if not covered. That said how will you be able to determine how far to wind the film if the window is covered. :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Steve

 

[Akki14]

A lot of people in the toy camera cliques know all about modifying to take nonpaper backed films. Nothing some black electrical tape can't fix in regards to the window. As far as winding the film on, Assuming it's 6x6 masking, you could use this page designed for holgas (which i've used with great success winding 35mm film through a holga for faux panoramic negatives)
http://photondetector.com/tools_ref/135-advance/
I'm guessing hawkeyes don't click so I'd go by the estimated knob turns possibly. Otherwise, I'd take a roll of paper, the length of the 220 spool, put it on a spool in the hawkeye, and estimate the amount of turns needed by marking off where the masking begins and ends for each frame then turning to see how far you need to turn to get to the next frame. Fiddly but possibly the most accurate way of doing it without wasting your film.

I forgot to mention that when i modified my holga, I put a layer of black insulating tape on the inside of the red film counter window as well as on the outside. It's more a stupidity check for myself as I put a flap of black insulating tape on the back of all the holga red windows... so if I'm checking to see what film is in the camera, I'm not going to accidentally fog the one with unbacked film in it.

 

[Murray@uptowngallery]

I bought a bunch of 220 film cheap, and was obsessed with making it work in a Moskva 5 with hand counting.

It's not precise. What happens is, as the film builds up on the takeup spool, the core diameter increases and more length is used per turn of the winder knob.

So if you can figure out where the leader paper ends and the film starts, and how far to wind for the beginning frames, the later ones will just have more space between them. The other hard part is even if you do some math first, increasing your winding by 0.1, 0.15, etc turns is hard to keep track of.

I did a couple rolls this way, had light leaks no matter what I did (on the M5).

I've since started doing this on a Kodak Medallist II I converted to 120/220, but I apparently don't have the bugs out of that yet because I rip the leader paper every 3rd roll or so .

Another headache is remembering how many exposures you have shot and how many MIGHT be left.

Next experiment is in an RB67 120 back...have to see if the counter can be reset halfway through.

I made little tags to estimate how many turns for each incremental exposure, but lost one. I have tags scanned for two formats, and a spreadsheet for my ruminations on how to account for thickness, paper etc.

It's probably easier to just take a look at my camera tags (see the following link) and try it

What I initially did was take the Moskva V 6x6 mask, tape it off for 4.5 cm (not knowing many cameras are skimpy, more like 4.1-4.3 wide), and got 27 6x4.5 exposures from each 220 rool. That gave more freedom than 8 @ 6x9. It got old after a while.

http://www.uptowngallery.org/Murray/220filmin120camera/

 

[Whiteymorange]

It's not precise. What happens is, as the film builds up on the takeup spool, the core diameter increases and more length is used per turn of the winder knob.

So if you can figure out where the leader paper ends and the film starts, and how far to wind for the beginning frames, the later ones will just have more space between them. The other hard part is even if you do some math first, increasing your winding by 0.1, 0.15, etc turns is hard to keep track of.
http://www.uptowngallery.org/Murray/220filmin120camera/

Uh, Murray... don't you mean decrease your winding? As the take-up roll increases in diameter, the number of turns you need to make to move a certain number of inches of film decreases.

The Kodak 3A I modified for 6x14 shots on 120 takes 3 turns, 3 turns, 2.5 turns, 2.5 turns and 2 turns. Not exact spacing by any means but nothing overlaps and I don't waste too much film.