Another steel reel question.

Will a steel 120 reel take 220 film? Is there enough room?

Yes, I could sacrifice a 220 roll to both practice and answer my own question...

TIA!

If it's labeled for 120, then probably not. 220 reels have smaller guage wire and more turns in the spiral to accomodate the length of a 220 roll.

Plastic 120 reels will take a 220 roll (at least the Paterson and clone ones will), but the steel reels are designed for the specific format, for both width and length. 220 holders are harder to load because of the finer coiling, so there are discreet 120 and 220 ones.

220 film is about twice as long as 120. My experience with my reels is that a 120 fits with very little room to spare.

I think if you are looking for maximum flexibility, the better choice might be a 220 reel. I think you would have no trouble loading a 120 film on it.

You must buy a specific 220 reel.

As others said, for 220 it's easier to go with plastic. Even the cheap little "Ansco" type plastic outfit was made to take two rolls of 620/120 on the same reel. I did find that I had to increase developing time, though I found that they worked fine for 220. I was doing a lot of copy work with 220 film I had gotten very cheaply. Before I discovered that the ease of the Ansco-type tank for 220, I found that if I shot a blank frame at frame 10 with my Pentax 6x7, I could cut the 220 in the middle and load it on separate ss reels. I only recommend that if you can reshoot easily. I could never load 220 ss reels worth a darn. For me, for 220, plastic was the easier way to go.

John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

I did have some 220 stainless steels reels and I never used them again after my first attempt. Very fiddly, prone to kinking the film and not much room between the spiral of film. However, if you think about it, 35mm reels accommodate the same length but feel much firmer and are easier to use. Best to use the Paterson plastic reel type me thinks.

Thanks, all!

Cheers from water-rising-fast Ottawa.