220 Film.

[mamiya_madman]

I've just aquired a Mamiya RB67, but i've bought a 220 back for it because im a student (music) and i haven't much money to buy a 120 one. I know there is some Fuji (Provia?) knocking about in 160 and 400 ISO, but is there any others you could recommend? Any 50 ISO? Im doing a project for myself on Modern Industrial Photography which i started last year (for my A-level).

Thanks in advance,
Andy.

 

[spb854]

Check on eBay. Look for "film" under Cameras, then go to "medium format". There's plenty of it.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Tri-X 320 is the only choice in B&W, but there are many options in color neg and color slide. If you go to the B&H website, you can see all the choices out there in 220, and then look for the film you want someplace closer to you. Fewer shops are stocking 220, even in major cities, so if you want to purchase it from a local shop, you may have to call ahead, and they can order it from Kodak or Fuji, which are the only two manufacturers of 220 film.

If you're looking for deals on short dated and slightly outdated film, check--

http://ultrafineonline.com/

 

[mamiya_madman]

Thanks guys, just need a little help to get going and the fact that film is not a cheap commodity. Its seemed quite hard to fing much 220 when i was on ebayUK last, but i will persue. Any more advice is gladly welcomed. I forgot to mention that the Industrial photography is in the dead of night.

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

I'm not sure which was the point of your question.

You can use as well all kinds of 120 film in your 220 film back, if that was your concern. Some picky nerd will say you can't because of thickness, but instead you actually can as thousands of photogrphers all over the world always did and currently do. I'm doing it constantly since 1995, never had a single issue, and results are simply perfect.

Just remember that at frame "10" your film is over.

 

[JRJacobs]

Marco is right. You can use 120 in the 220 backs for RB67 - I have done it for years also with no problems.

 

[PhotoJim]

You can use 120 in a 220 back, but there is a chance that the focus will not be quite as sharp. The emulsion will be closer to the lens by the thickness of the backing paper. (220 doesn't have backing paper.)

Whether that difference in focus is discernible to you or bothers you is up to you to decide.

So Marco is wrong - you can, but there is a potential consequence. Try it with a tripod-mounted camera, shooting the same scene on the same film (one in 120 and one in 220) and inspect under a loupe to see if there is a difference with your camera, if you want to know the definitive answer.

 

[Q.G.]

Try it with a tripod-mounted camera, shooting the same scene on the same film (one in 120 and one in 220) and inspect under a loupe to see if there is a difference with your camera, if you want to know the definitive answer.

The "definitive" answer would be the result of running 120 and 220 film through the same 220 film back, shooting the same scene, and everything else the same too.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

It depends on the design of the back. I can't answer for RB67 backs, but usually the film plane is determined by rails on the emulsion side of the film, not the pressure plate, and not all medium format film base is the same thickness in any case, so the backing on 120 film shouldn't cause a focus problem in a 220 back, but there could be other problems like excessive film tension causing more wear in the back or even the risk of the leader tearing in backs with particularly high tension.

On the other hand, 220 film in a 120 back is likely to have flatness problems, depending on the style of pressure plate, or may be at greater risk for scratches on the base side, because the pressure plate in a 120 back doesn't have to be as smooth as the pressure plate in a 220 back, and then you may lose a frame somewhere, because the frame counter is designed for 120. In a Noblex medium format camera, for instance, you can use 220 per manufacturer's recommendation, but you lose a frame or two in the counter restart. Some backs may not let you restart without opening the back.

Zeiss published an article in Zeiss Lens News a few years ago claiming that 220 film in 220 backs that they tested generally had better film flatness than 120 film in 120 backs. I don't think they tested RB67 backs, because they don't make RB lenses, but it was an interesting observation.

 

[Dave in Kansas]

It would seem to me that any difference in focus caused by the thickness of the paper backing would be more noticeable if shooting at wide open aperture. Wouldn't that be so?

 

[vdonovan]

A vote here for Tri-X TXP 320 in 220. It has a great tonal range and good grain. I use it for portrait sessions and I like using 220 so I don't have to change film magazines as often.

If you process film yourself, do yourself a favor and get a Hewes 220 reel. Spooling 220 onto any other kind of reel is a NIGHTMARE.

 

[JRJacobs]

David -

The backs are exactly as you describe. Focus is the same with 120 film - I have shot with a 220 back this way for years, often for wide-open macro work and focus is never a problem. The RB backs use a flexible pressure plate in the insert also - the design of the 120 and 220 inserts is identical with the exception of the film counter.

So to be clear to all the naysayers:

Yes, you can use 120 film in a RB67 220 back. In fact many professionals have done it for years and it is well known that the RB220 backs can do this.

It depends on the design of the back. I can't answer for RB67 backs, but usually the film plane is determined by rails on the emulsion side of the film, not the pressure plate, and not all medium format film base is the same thickness in any case, so the backing on 120 film shouldn't cause a focus problem in a 220 back, but there could be other problems like excessive film tension causing more wear in the back or even the risk of the leader tearing in backs with particularly high tension.

On the other hand, 220 film in a 120 back is likely to have flatness problems, depending on the style of pressure plate, or may be at greater risk for scratches on the base side, because the pressure plate in a 120 back doesn't have to be as smooth as the pressure plate in a 220 back, and then you may lose a frame somewhere, because the frame counter is designed for 120. In a Noblex medium format camera, for instance, you can use 220 per manufacturer's recommendation, but you lose a frame or two in the counter restart. Some backs may not let you restart without opening the back.

Zeiss published an article in Zeiss Lens News a few years ago claiming that 220 film in 220 backs that they tested generally had better film flatness than 120 film in 120 backs. I don't think they tested RB67 backs, because they don't make RB lenses, but it was an interesting observation.

 

[Q.G.]

Zeiss published an article in Zeiss Lens News a few years ago claiming that 220 film in 220 backs that they tested generally had better film flatness than 120 film in 120 backs. I don't think they tested RB67 backs, because they don't make RB lenses, but it was an interesting observation.

Which is my cue for pointing out that Zeiss praised 220 film the moment a vaccum back was launched for 'their' Contax camera.

Vacuum backs do not work when there is paper between film and suction plate.

The department that produced that article was called "Strategic marketing".

That also is an interesting observation.

 

[mamiya_madman]

Marvellous! 120 it is then! I was worried about focus and the leader tape being broken and damging the back, but the advice is brill! Thanks for all the advice!

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Which is my cue for pointing out that Zeiss praised 220 film the moment a vaccum back was launched for 'their' Contax camera.

Vacuum backs do not work when there is paper between film and suction plate.

The department that produced that article was called "Strategic marketing".

That also is an interesting observation.

Indeed it is, but they also said the same was true for Hasselblad and Alpa, for which they also make lenses, and the Alba back is actually made by Linhof, except for the mounting plate.

I have 120 and 220 inserts for my Linhof 6x7 backs, and I was surprised when I got the 220 back to see how different the pressure plates are. Both are fixed plates without springs behind them. The 120 plate is more recessed, to make room for the paper backing, but the finish is somewhat rough. It looks like cast aluminum that's been machined to have a flat surface, but there are pits between the machined areas, and the whole surface is painted flat black, or maybe it's anodized. The 220 plate is a smooth polished stainless steel surface that won't scratch the film, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's machined to a finer tolerance than the 120 plate. I haven't done a side-by-side test yet, since the 120 backs have excellent film flatness, and that's not the main reason I usually choose to shoot 220, but sometime when I get a free day I'll give it a go.

 

[Q.G.]

Indeed it is, but they also said the same was true for Hasselblad and Alpa, for which they also make lenses, and the Alba back is actually made by Linhof, except for the mounting plate.

Yes.
But remember also that the Contax 645 appeared after Hasselblad decided that they would seek optical help from Fuji, not Zeiss, for their 6x4.5. Because, they said, Zeiss could not make the complex lenses they were looking for.
Bang! came the Contax. And it came with improved versions of the lenses Zeiss had been making for Hasselblad.

Another response was the TPP 300 mm lens: the telephoto lens nearest a perfect one Zeiss ever made. But they made it themselves, not on bequest of Hasselblad. And they sold them themselves, allowing no pfennig of it to flow towards Gothenburg.
Hasselblad on their part countered by buying them all. They also renewed the ancient agreement between Zeiss and Hasselblad. The purchase may be seen as part of cementing the split.

There's much more politics in this all than meets the eye.

The 220-is-better thingy is part of it.


Oh, and Alpa?
Small fry. Not important enough to consider when deciding on a Strategic Marketing campaign.

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

It is hard for me to understand why each and every time this matter pops up, there is ALWAYS someone who has obviously NEVER seen a RB67 back or has however NO CLUE of how it works but just can't refrain writing that it won't work for the most weird reasons. I could even foresee that in my first post.

Marvellous! 120 it is then! I was worried about focus and the leader tape being broken and damging the back, but the advice is brill! Thanks for all the advice!

I'm glad we could help. NOW GO OUTSIDE AND TAKE PICTURES!!!

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

It depends on the design of the back. I can't answer for RB67 backs, but usually the film plane is determined by rails on the emulsion side of the film, not the pressure plate, and not all medium format film base is the same thickness in any case, so the backing on 120 film shouldn't cause a focus problem in a 220 back, but there could be other problems like excessive film tension causing more wear in the back or even the risk of the leader tearing in backs with particularly high tension.

That's correct generally speaking David, but just to add a side note the RB67's pressure plate has 2-3 mm something of clearance on the pressure plate. Things MUCH MUCH thicker than a film + paper back could pass through the rails and pressure plate assembly. Probably even a glass plate would fit in there. Paper backing's thickness is simply NOTHING compared to the clearance the pressure plate has, and that's why it works so well.

Of course this does not happen with film backs with no spring on the pressure plate, like the Linhof Super Rollex 6x7 to name one that I own.