loaded 220 film backwards

[Malinku]

So I loaded a roll of 220 film in my mamiya m645. I'm wondering if light would hit the film still. As I know with 120 the backing paper would block the light. Is 220 the same or is the middle of the roll just film with no backing paper?

 

[480sparky]

You'll probably end up with very soft, underexposed images.

 

[Mick Fagan]

I have done this with 120 film and received soft but surprisingly usable negatives, a couple of which I enlarged. They weren't the greatest technically, but at least I did get an image, albeit reversed.

I do not know about 220 film as I've never used it.

Mick.

 

[480sparky]

I have done this with 120 film and received soft but surprisingly usable negatives, a couple of which I enlarged. They weren't the greatest technically, but at least I did get an image, albeit reversed.

I do not know about 220 film as I've never used it.

Mick.

How in God's Green Little Half Acre did you manage to make an exposure through the paper backing?

 

[zanxion72]

How in God's Green Little Half Acre did you manage to make an exposure through the paper backing?

Oh, my!

 

[AgX]

The usable exposed section of type 220 film has no backing paper.

Basically that "twisting" of films is done commercially as for instance with "Redbird" film.

 

[Joachim Zettl]

But .... where do you get 220 film anyway?

 

[Mick Fagan]

How in God's Green Little Half Acre did you manage to make an exposure through the paper backing?

Well, on our 0.25 hectare block of land, some experimenting was done with a seriously cheap pin hole camera made out of a cardboard box. For reasons unremembered, we managed to place the 120 film in back to front. As the exposures, about 6 from memory, were all in the order of 15 minutes or longer and we basically over exposed by about 4 stops on one exposure with our wild bracketing initial test run.

I had used my Laser engraver to make a miniature hole in a sheet of Delrin, to get our lens. Actually I made about 4 holes of varying size, the real trouble was that after they were made, we couldn't work out which hole was which hole, so we went with one of them and bracketed stupidly.

We had a bit of a shock after developing the film, essentially it was fogged a bit and reasonably clear, except you could see faint images on two frames. I managed to get a contact print of those two frames by running the enlarger up to the roof, setting the lens to f45 and using exposure times of about 0.7 of a second. Under 0.3 of a second exposure, the paper didn't receive enough light to form anything, let alone an image. This was something else we all learnt and and the same time having a real great time.

After finishing and taking the film out, we realised we had the film in back to front. We used bits and pieces from a medium format slide projector to wind the film through the camera. Very Heath Robinson(ish) affair, but super simple with shed loads of tape and a stack of books holding the camera together.

We did this in one day from start to print, including making the camera. It was 1997.

Mick.

 

[nwilkins]

The usable exposed section of type 220 film has no backing paper.

Basically that "twisting" of films is done commercially as for instance with "Redbird" film.

exactly - so some light would still get to the film. but you'd be exposing the non emulsion side so your images will not look the same as if the light was directly hitting the emulsion. With 120 loaded backwards there is no way an image could be formed.

 

[hsandler]

220 has no paper backing where the film is. If the film is black and white, it will probably come out fine, maybe slightly underexposed because the base of the film is not completely clear, but acts as a bit of a filter. The emulsion being on the other side of the backing may result in a slight focus error making some images soft if shot at wide apertures. Of course, the images will be reversed left to right, so you will have to put them backwards into the enlarger or scanner to get them the right way around again. If the film is colour negative, the orange base will be between the light source and the emulsion, so you will get 'redscale' results, which some people intentionally do for the effect. There will be a red tinge to the whole image. If the film is slide film, I'm not sure what the results will be.

 

[paul ron]

you'll get some interesting effects sgooting 220 from the back. there is no paper for the first n last frames.

hope you'll post the scans?

 

[Malinku]

you'll get some interesting effects sgooting 220 from the back. there is no paper for the first n last frames.

hope you'll post the scans?

just sent the roll off to the lab today. So if the film turns out I'll for sure post scans.

And thanks for all the info

 

[hsandler]

220 has no paper backing where the film is. If the film is black and white, it will probably come out fine, maybe slightly underexposed because the base of the film is not completely clear, but acts as a bit of a filter. The emulsion being on the other side of the backing may result in a slight focus error making some images soft if shot at wide apertures. Of course, the images will be reversed left to right, so you will have to put them backwards into the enlarger or scanner to get them the right way around again. If the film is colour negative, the orange base will be between the light source and the emulsion, so you will get 'redscale' results, which some people intentionally do for the effect. There will be a red tinge to the whole image. If the film is slide film, I'm not sure what the results will be.

I need to correct myself, about black and white film, at least. I forgot most have an anti-halation layer on the base to prevent reflections off the clear base. Thos washes away during development, but is there during exposure. So the film will likely be severely underexposed. When colour neg film is exposed backwards for the redscale effect,
i believe the usual practice is to give it a good 4 or more stops extra exposure.

 

[AgX]

All modern films have a antihalation layer of some kind.

 

[Malinku]

So I got my film back from the lab and I'd say it turned out nicely. Redscale works pretty well with Kodak Vericolor III.

 

[paul ron]

there ya go. photoshop the color correction n you salvaged some pix after all.

lesson learned.

 

[nwilkins]

So I got my film back from the lab and I'd say it turned out nicely. Redscale works pretty well with Kodak Vericolor III.

yeah looks like they got some useable images out of it - you can see from the darker areas that the negative was pretty underexposed but it looks nice in the end!