220 or it's later than you think

[2F/2F]

So why aren't we buying 220 backs for cheap and putting 120 film through them?

Some people do. But you can have odd frame spacings and lose frames on some cameras. When I do this on my M645's, I lose half of the last frame. Hassies lose one whole frame, I believe. My friend does it with her RB all the time; she doesn't even have any 120 backs.

 

[drkhalsa]

The Pentax 6x7 takes both 120 and 220. You slide the plate one way for 120 and the other way for 220.
In addition there is a slotted button on the outside that must be set to 10 for 120 and 21 for 220.

I get 11 frames from 120 film in a Hasselblad 220 back.

 

[MattKing]

The biggest problem with using 120 film in a 220 back is remembering how long the film is when you get to 10 (or 12 or 15/16) on the film counter .

 

[Dave in Kansas]

I tried running a test roll of 120 film through a 220 back for my Bronica SQ-A and found it hard to advance the film, due to the extra thickness caused by the paper backing on the 120 film. So I don't do that.

Dave

 

[mike c]

Using 120 in a hassey 220 back,do you lose the frist frame or last?

 

[Klainmeister]

Honestly, if there was Fuji Acros, Tmax 100 or Pan F+ in 220 that's all I'd shoot.

 

[wotalegend]

I have several 220-capable bodies/backs/inserts, none of which cost me any extra. However I have never set eyes on a 220 film, and as an amateur I am quite happy with 12 or 15 images per roll. 220 was never really popular or widely available here in Oz, and I suspect that the amount of current talk emanating mostly from the US, e.g. this thread, might indicate that it was more popular in the US than other parts of the world. I also have the thought that the longer rolls may have been most popular with pros who have largely gone digital.

 

[drkhalsa]

mike c,

good question, I don't remember now as I only ran 1 or 2 rolls of 120 through the 220 back a couple of years ago.

 

[mike c]

drkhalsa, I was thinking that there seems to be room for one more frame at the end a roll of 120 using the 120 back,if the spacing is the same on 220 back there should be no reason to get the full 12 exposusers. I'm referring to the Hasselblad backs.

 

[2F/2F]

TMK, the reason you lose a frame in certain backs is because the frame spacing is wider.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Also, don't forget that the frame counter is based on the thickness of the film, so the paper backing on the 120 plus the already thicker film base screws up the film advance.

 

[mike c]

It does not seem like the paper backing would make up that much differnce,I'll run a roll throw and see what happens.could not hurt to try.

 

[K-G]

About a month ago I made a test with my Hasselblad 220-back and ran a roll of ILFORD Delta 100 through it. When loading the film I stoped winding about 1/4 of a revolution before the film and the camera arrovs were aligned and then closed the back. All 12 frames were captured on the film but towards the end the spacing grew bigger. As I normally store my negatives in 4-frame lenghts, this caused a litle problem with the last length as it is sticking out of the negative sleeve. If you use 3-frame lengths and negative sleeves with four pockets, that should solve the problem as there will be more extra space for a 3-frame length of 2 1/4 square negatives. My filmback is from the early eighties but I don't think there has been any major change to the mechanics after that. Everything else worked fine and as long as you don't forgett about the 120 size and plan to have the best shots on frames 13 and onwards, there shouldn't be any great problem.
Give it a try !

Karl-Gustaf

 

[mike c]

Ok,thanks K-G.I understand the use of 3frame and 4frame and have both so it should not be a problem.

Mike

 

[ArtTwisted]

Well Ilfords 220 machine was broken if I remember correctly so no hope there, Foma and Efke have never done 220 have they ? And Kodak/Fuji simply dont do 220 anymore no doubt to low demand. 220 was always a limited film compared to 120, now that most wedding photogs use digital there isint as much need for it but the need for 120 still exists.

 

[MattKing]

Kodak still makes and sells 220 Portra films.

 

[drkhalsa]

I'm thinking of purchasing 220 Portra to use at the Art Car Parade next month. Not having to change film as often will be nice.

I don't have anything to add to the Hasselblad discussion. I will be using the 6x7.

 

[Disoculated]

Fujicolor pro 160s 220 for black and white

For those talking about 220 b&w, I use fujicolor pro 160s 220 film, which I've been able to get on a lot of websites. It's not cheap (about 8-10$ a roll), but I find I can get decent results cross-processing it in black & white chemistry.

 

[phirehouse]

Recently, I have seen expired rolls of Black and white 220 selling for over $10.00 per roll on the big auction site. I just can not believe that there is not a market out there for a fresh run of B/W 220. I really think the major film companies are missing the boat on this one.

 

[PhotoJim]

Recently, I have seen expired rolls of Black and white 220 selling for over $10.00 per roll on the big auction site. I just can not believe that there is not a market out there for a fresh run of B/W 220. I really think the major film companies are missing the boat on this one.

Anyone who can use 220 can also use 120 - this is the problem.

 

[Marc B.]

http://adserver.adtechus.com/?adlin...p://www.adorama.com/KKP400220P.html?kbid=3925
Here are 11 different [color] emulsions in 220, slide and neg, from 3 different suppliers.
As always, check with the suppliers regarding their cold storage methods,
and if the film is short dated.


B&H Photo:
New Portra 160 - 5 pack 220, $54.95
(link)
New Portra 400 - 5 pack 220, $58.50
(link)

East Coast Photo:
Fuji 160'C' - 5 pack 220, $35.50
(link)
Fuji 160'S' - 5 pack 220, $37.45
(link)
Fuji 400'H' - 5 pack 220, $54.95
(link)
Fuji 800'Z' - 5 pack 220, $46.25
(link)
Kodak Portra 160'VC' - 5 pack 220, $44.70
(link)
Kodak Portra 400'NC' - 5 pack 220, $54.95
(link)
Fuji Velvia 100'F' - 5 pack 220, $39.25
(link)
Fuji Astia 100'F' - 5 pack 220, $43.95
(link)
Fuji Provia 100'F' - 5 pack 220, $37.95
(link)

Freestyle Photo:
Color Slide Film, 120 & 220
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/c1302-Color-Slide-Film-120-and-220-size
Color Print (neg) Film, 120 & 220
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/c1103-Color-Negative-Film-120-and-220-size

 

[PKM-25]

Marc, you are an awesome guy, thanks!

Out of 8 backs for my Blads, only one is 220 for this very reason, rapidly shrinking film choices in 220 and none in black and white. The only reason I even bought a 220 back was for shooting aerials but now it gets used with Portra 400 mostly. I might buy a few more bricks of 220 E6 before it gets "CGW'd".....

 

[BrianL]

I used to use the 220 back on my Bronica ETRS when I went on holiday or a walkaround to avoid having to change rolls as often. When I went out with shooting in mind or my photo group, I usually loaded the 220 with a general purpose color but seldom used it, preferring the shorter 120 roll since it was unusual for me to take 15 shots by the end of the day. It used to tick off my buddies who would go through 3 rolls or so in the same time.

It was not unusual for me to process a 220 short roll with around 1/2 of it shot. I do miss 220 but I used it so seldom, it is easily replaced. It might push up 120 sales somewhat and enough to maybe halt the discontinuance of more 120.

 

[clayne]

Is it absolutely necessary to finish a roll by the end of the day though? Why not just continue the next day or later?

 

[PKM-25]

Is it absolutely necessary to finish a roll by the end of the day though? Why not just continue the next day or later?

I have never understood this either, maybe that is why I have 7 x 120 film backs, not even tempted to blow through the last frames on a roll....