220 film in folding cameras question

[Disconnekt]

I have a Kodak Special 616 (w/ a Anastigmat Special f4.5 127mm lens/Compur Rapid shutter) folding camera, & I have the CamerHack 16-to-120 adapter for it to use 120 film in it.

My question is: would I be able to use 220 film in it or should I just stick to using 120 film in it? Has anybody here shoot 220 film in folding cameras before?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Stick with 120 film. The pressure plate would have to adjusted for 220 film and moved back for 120. With the red window blocked out and not paper backing, you would have to guess how far to advance the film. Also you may need the paper backing to block any unknown light leaks.

 

[BrianShaw]

Doesn’t that use a red window for aligning frame numbers? If so… the answer is “no”. The red window counts on the 120 backing paper to keep from fogging the film.

 

[gone]

That's what I was thinking, most folders are red window cameras. Maybe the more expensive ones like the Super Ikontas and Voigtlanders don't use that system.

 

[MattKing]

Any camera that doesn't use the red window would need to have a frame counter setup for 220 - a 616 adapted to 120 camera wouldn't be that.

 

[Disconnekt]

Corgot to add that it does have a red window and it does has a little slider thing (not sure the right term) that covers the red window, added a photo of the manual talking about it/showing what it looks like:

 

[Disconnekt]

Stick with 120 film. The pressure plate would have to adjusted for 220 film and moved back for 120. With the red window blocked out and not paper backing, you would have to guess how far to advance the film. Also you may need the paper backing to block any unknown light leaks.

The manual for the 616-to-120 adapter says that for folding cameras without a red window how many turns to advance to the next frame, which would be 8 full turns, 16 half turns

 

[xya]

There is no 220 film folder that I know of, but please let me know if there are any. My advice: leave the bit of stock of 220 film that is still available to the 220 backs that would make better use of it.

 

[JPD]

The manual for the 616-to-120 adapter says that for folding cameras without a red window how many turns to advance to the next frame, which would be 8 full turns, 16 half turns

For even spacing you would need fewer and fewer turns per frame, as the take-up spool gets thicker and thicker.

You could sacrifice a roll of 220, measure and mark (perhaps with a silver metallic sharpie) where the frame numbers would be to show up in the red window, then load it in the camera and take notes of how many turns you'll need for each frame number.

 

[Helge]

I’ve been toying with the same idea for a while. Only my motivation is getting the backing paper off regular 120, to use alu-foil on the pressure plate behind it. To up speed and get great halation.

It should be the same number of turns for any camera and for any given length of film, only important thing to know is what frame you are on and of course format of the camera. 645, 66 or 69.

I’m surprised someone hasn’t worked blind winding out long ago. With a table for different formats and lengths of film.
It would be handy for a number of other applications and situations than “just” 220.
Of course it’s never going to be as precise as backing paper numbers.
You could work out a safe option where you would be willing to lose a frame and a more closely spaced number of turns where you ran the risk of slight overlap.

BTW 220 is actually seemingly available again from Shanghai and Cinestill has a crowdfunder going for 220 too. So not completely a curiosity.

 

[MattKing]

For clarity, the determination of "how many turns per frame" is a function of how thick the film is (including the thickness of any backing paper). So one would need to perform different tests for 120 and 220 films. In addition, it may be necessary to check the results with different manufacturers and (possibly) types of film, due to the differences in substrate and backing paper used.

 

[Helge]

For clarity, the determination of "how many turns per frame" is a function of how thick the film is (including the thickness of any backing paper). So one would need to perform different tests for 120 and 220 films. In addition, it may be necessary to check the results with different manufacturers and (possibly) types of film, due to the differences in substrate and backing paper used.

Sans backing paper aren’t they the same thickness?

Variances between manufacturers would be part of the whole playing it safe/taking the risk of overlap part of having two tables of turns.
One would get you the full number of frames. The other one less for redundancy.

I’d say the variance between Ilford, Fuji and Kodak is so small I can’t imagine it being much of a problem.

 

[MattKing]

Sans backing paper aren’t they the same thickness?

Yes, but it is the thickness of each turn that matters - and that differs between 120 (film + backing paper) and 220 (film alone).
And the thickness of the substrates does differ - even within brands. As an example, Ilford Ortho Plus is on 5 mil acetate while FP4+ is on 4 mil acetate.
The type of substrate also differs - most Kodak 120 film is on 3.94 mil acetate base but the new Kodak Gold 120 is on 3.94 mil Estar base.

 

[nosmok]

The Kodak Monitor 620, which has a mechanical sensor for film advance and only uses the red window at the start of a roll, can be used with 220 film-- just reset the counter dial to 1 after frame 8 and make sure you NEVER OPEN the red window lever. I would imagine the Monitor 616 loaded with 220 would work in a similar manner-- IF (big 'ifs') the 220 goes over the knurled part of the film counter roller shaft AND you figure out the turns-to-emulsion-start. If you're familiar with the Monitor 616/620, you'll know what I'm talking about. The Monitor series have superb lenses-- and woefully hole-prone bellows, and fiddly frame counter and double exposure lockout mechanisms-- so adding 220 on top of all this would certainly be a challenge.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The type of substrate also differs - most Kodak 120 film is on 3.94 mil acetate base but the new Kodak Gold 120 is on 3.94 mil Estar base.

For windup calculations, though, these would add the same radius to the spool for a frame, despite different material -- unless the coatings are significantly different in thickness. For that matter, 0.1 mil difference in thickness is insignificant when you're making two or three (or even five or eight) spool turns for a frame. Backing paper or no, certainly -- that's roughly doubling the thickness. But turns-counting frame counters work about as well with any brand of modern 120 as the next -- and the same should be true of those made for 220, as long as they've been adjusted (if need be) for the slightly thinner modern film base+coatings (relevant mainly to early Graflex 22 and 23 backs, which aren't for 220 anyway).

 

[MattKing]

For windup calculations, though, these would add the same radius to the spool for a frame, despite different material

Could very well be the case, but I'm thinking that the difference in materials may affect how tightly film rolls.

 

[xya]

...I’m surprised someone hasn’t worked blind winding out long ago. With a table for different formats and lengths of film...

There was a camera, built between the 30s and the 50s that had such an advance for 120 film.

You need to know when the first image is in place (red window for 120 fim in this case, but counting turns would work as well). Then you lift the advance knob and put the number "1" at the index mark. After each photo you make one full term plus the way to the next number (except 11 and 12, where it's less than a full term, the roll being thicker). Works like a charm. It should be possible to work the pattern out for 220 film...

For more information see https://www.120folder.com/certo_ssd.htm

 

[Donald Qualls]

built between the 30s and the 50s

Which probably underwinds now (especially for late frames), as modern films are thinner (both actual film and backing) than what was made then.

 

[xya]

Which probably underwinds now (especially for late frames), as modern films are thinner (both actual film and backing) than what was made then.

No, it works perfectly, no underwinding. To me it seems as if especially the backing paper was thicker in those days, the difference in film thickness seems to be less important. The cameras of those days with no red window at all rely on a thicker spool for the first photo and may underwind. This is easy to prevent by adding a few centimeters of paper to the film leader.

Those cameras which need a red window for the first photo avoid this part of an error. The following film length is sufficient to compensate. With my Kiev 88 I get 13 6x6 pictures out of a 120 film if I I stop a little bit before number 1 on the backing paper. It's the second circle on Ilford film and the first K on Kodak.

 

[Helge]

There was a camera, built between the 30s and the 50s that had such an advance for 120 film.

View attachment 313995

You need to know when the first image is in place (red window for 120 fim in this case, but counting turns would work as well). Then you lift the advance knob and put the number "1" at the index mark. After each photo you make one full term plus the way to the next number (except 11 and 12, where it's less than a full term, the roll being thicker). Works like a charm. It should be possible to work the pattern out for 220 film...

For more information see https://www.120folder.com/certo_ssd.htm

I remember gawking for minutes at that camera when I read about it on that very page a few years ago.
Just amazing, with so many brilliant ideas, although undoubtedly over designed in some respects.

But somehow the simple, and certainly not over designed winding counter escaped me.
Just a truely fantastic idea!
The reason it never got copied was undoubtedly the very strict and detail oriented German patent law.
The reason for a lot of other strange decisions in other German cameras.

It should be rather easy to replicated. Even in the most simple hobo fashion by just writing numbers with an alcohol based marker on the knob, with a randomly placed index mark, as you wind film in the normal fashion with red window.
When you load the next spool you wind to “1” in the red window and erase the first index mark and paint a new one in front of “1” on the knob.

 

[Helge]

Yes, but it is the thickness of each turn that matters - and that differs between 120 (film + backing paper) and 220 (film alone).
And the thickness of the substrates does differ - even within brands. As an example, Ilford Ortho Plus is on 5 mil acetate while FP4+ is on 4 mil acetate.
The type of substrate also differs - most Kodak 120 film is on 3.94 mil acetate base but the new Kodak Gold 120 is on 3.94 mil Estar base.

Yes I’m fully aware of the growing spiral problem as is hopefully evident in my first post.
But interesting that there is such variance in the substrate.
But apart from maybe Ilford Ortho (and even then…) this should be well within the fumble zone.
Winding at night or indoors would get so much easier.

 

[xya]

I remember gawking for minutes at that camera when I read about it on that very page a few years ago.
Just amazing, with so many brilliant ideas, although undoubtedly over designer in some respects.

Yes, the Certo Super Sport Dolly is amazing indeed. I own several of these, not only the ones pictured. My favorite camera repair friend promised me to adapt a wider lens to this camera, as the lens is interchangeable. He said that he would use the plane film setting, as this shortens bellows extension. I have to remind him theses days...

BTW: I never got hold of the tele lens. If anyone around has a hint...

 

[Helge]

Yes, the Certo Super Sport Dolly is amazing indeed. I own several of these, not only the ones pictured. My favorite camera repair friend promised me to adapt a wider lens to this camera, as the lens is interchangeable. He said that he would use the plane film setting, as this shortens bellows extension. I have to remind him theses days...

BTW: I never got hold of the tele lens. If anyone around has a hint...

Remarkably it appears that some of the lenses has simple coating. That’s very unique for a pre-war consumer camera.

If you have time and ability, could you grab a few snaps of the counter disc and especially how the pointer is implemented?
Could use a little inspiration, and would be very grateful.

 

[John Wiegerink]

The Kodak Monitor 620, which has a mechanical sensor for film advance and only uses the red window at the start of a roll, can be used with 220 film-- just reset the counter dial to 1 after frame 8 and make sure you NEVER OPEN the red window lever. I would imagine the Monitor 616 loaded with 220 would work in a similar manner-- IF (big 'ifs') the 220 goes over the knurled part of the film counter roller shaft AND you figure out the turns-to-emulsion-start. If you're familiar with the Monitor 616/620, you'll know what I'm talking about. The Monitor series have superb lenses-- and woefully hole-prone bellows, and fiddly frame counter and double exposure lockout mechanisms-- so adding 220 on top of all this would certainly be a challenge.

Yes, the Monitor 620 will work with 220 film. I also have used 220 film in my Kodak Medalist cameras without even a hiccup, but they are not a folding camera.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Yes, the Monitor 620 will work with 220 film. I also have used 220 film in my Kodak Medalist cameras without even a hiccup, but they are not a folding camera.

The same is surely true of a Kodak Reflex II, assuming the 220 spool can be trimmed the way a 120 spool can. You're supposed to start the counter with the red window, but a turns count from a start mark would get you there -- and of course you'd have to do a little dance with the counter after exposing frame 12, resetting to 1 and winding on, then resetting to 1 again to finish the roll.