Converting 120 to 620

[MattKing]

It's a double step process. 120 to 120 and then back onto the 620.

Yes, but if you do it 120 on to 620, and then 620 back onto 620, the "hump" is less of a problem.

 

[pdccamerqs]

Yes, but if you do it 120 on to 620, and then 620 back onto 620, the "hump" is less of a problem.

i'll definitely give it try next time!

 

[Rick A]

Yes, but if you do it 120 on to 620, and then 620 back onto 620, the "hump" is less of a problem.

Absolutely

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I can confirm that it is an easy task to respool 120 onto 620 spool. I can even do it in the dark...with my eyes closed.
Seriously though, I roll the 120 onto a 620, then back onto another 620 spool. No hump. From a 120 to a 120, and then back onto a 620? Hump.

 

[BrianShaw]

I can even do it in the dark...with my eyes closed.

LOL... I know what you mean; I respool in a changing bag and close my eyes anyway.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I eliminate the hump by unsticking the tape, pulling the film taught, and then re-sticking it to the backing paper.

And that changes the beginning point of the film, which is exactly what I want to avoid.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I can confirm that it is an easy task to respool 120 onto 620 spool. I can even do it in the dark...with my eyes closed.
Seriously though, I roll the 120 onto a 620, then back onto another 620 spool. No hump. From a 120 to a 120, and then back onto a 620? Hump.

That is why I am asking about this devise, it sound like it will consistently provide a hump. I am better off going 120 to 620 and rewinding on 620 by hand rather than pay $35 plus shipping to install a hump every time on the film roll.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I can confirm that it is an easy task to respool 120 onto 620 spool. I can even do it in the dark...with my eyes closed.
Seriously though, I roll the 120 onto a 620, then back onto another 620 spool. No hump. From a 120 to a 120, and then back onto a 620? Hump.

So a blind person can do this. Good to know.

 

[mshchem]

If your hand causes you to use 620 cut it off!

The older I get the harder it gets for me to fool with 620.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

So a blind person can do this. Good to know.

...and do it faster.

 

[abruzzi]

LOL... I know what you mean; I respool in a changing bag and close my eyes anyway.

I've never respooled film, but for some weird reason, if I leave my glasses on when I go into the dark room to load sheet film, or transfer any film into a dev tank, I can't do it, so I take my glasses off before turning the lights off.

 

[Sirius Glass]

...and do it faster.

How would a blind person develop film by inspection?

 

[xya]

I eliminate the hump by unsticking the tape, pulling the film taught, and then re-sticking it to the backing paper.

But then the film isn't in the right place and you would have problems with the numbers...

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

How would a blind person develop film by inspection?

By trusting the time/temp method.

 

[mshchem]

How would a blind person develop film by inspection?

Same way we all do, green filter, 10 seconds at a time in the last couple of minutes.

 

[BrianShaw]

But then the film isn't in the right place and you would have problems with the numbers...

The allowable deviation for the beginning of the film is plus/minus 7/16" from the center of the film head area, so the small amount of change from the "hump" is relatively insignificant. There generally won't be a problem with frame numbers.

The hump can be felt when first starting the film onto the final 620 spool. It can be easily corrected then by re-starting with bettter tension between the two spools. If not noticed until the bitter end and the hump is small, then re-taping is a valid remedy. I go out of my way to minimize the chances of having to re-tape. It's really not that difficult a situation to avoid.

 

[Rick A]

I can confirm that it is an easy task to respool 120 onto 620 spool. I can even do it in the dark...with my eyes closed.
Seriously though, I roll the 120 onto a 620, then back onto another 620 spool. No hump. From a 120 to a 120, and then back onto a 620? Hump.

I get the same outcome. It has to do with the different diameters of the spools and the fixed end of the film.
120-> 120 -> 120 no hump. 120-> 120 -> 620 hump. 120 -> 620 -> 620 no hump

 

[reddesert]

But then the film isn't in the right place and you would have problems with the numbers...

IME, the few times I've done this, to take out the hump, the film only has to be moved by less than 1 cm forward relative to the backing paper, within the margin of the total film length. (That is, there is often about 1cm or more of blank film after the last exposure on a factory-rolled film). Or, if you have a 620 camera with a start-mark and auto winding (eg Medalist), you can try to remember to start the winding just 1 cm or so before the start mark arrows on the paper.

 

[BrianShaw]

IME, the few times I've done this, to take out the hump, the film only has to be moved by less than 1 cm forward relative to the backing paper, within the margin of the total film length. (That is, there is often about 1cm or more of blank film after the last exposure on a factory-rolled film). Or, if you have a 620 camera with a start-mark and auto winding (eg Medalist), you can try to remember to start the winding just 1 cm or so before the start mark arrows on the paper.

That might not really be necessary. Retaking the hump moves the film a bit toward the lead end of the backing paper and will add just a bit to the head of the film. There’s so much tail to the film that there’s virtually no chance of frames falling off the tail end unless one tries to squeeze in one more frame than normally expected.

 

[Sirius Glass]

That might not really be necessary. Retpaking the hump moves the film a bit toward the lead end of the backing paper and will add just a bit to the head of the film. There’s so much tail to the film that there’s virtually no chance of frames falling off the tail end unless one tries to squeeze in one more frame than normally expected.

What! I have nothing to worry about?!? Say it isn't so!

 

[AnselMortensen]

Is it ok if I worry anyway?

 

[mtnbkr]

Not in my Kodak Browie Hawkeye camera take up chamber.

My Kodak Brownie Hawkeye can take 120, but it's a snug fit.

Chris

 

[Sirius Glass]

My Kodak Brownie Hawkeye can take 120, but it's a snug fit.

Chris

Mine too. It can take a 120 but it needs a 620 to take it up.

 

[mtnbkr]

Mine too. It can take a 120 but it needs a 620 to take it up.

Yup, you're right. I missed that detail in your original post.

Chris

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not sure if it has already been covered, but I bought one of these - makes re-rolling 120 to 620 much easier, especially in a dark bag.

View attachment 338433

I contacted the seller and asked if the 120 spool could be changed to a 620 spool or if he could provide a 620 spool instead.

His answer: