what is this obession with 220 over 120

[sanking]

I have worked as a commerial photographer for more years than I would like to admit. And at no time have I found the need for 220 film. I like the idea my 120 film has the protection of the paper backing for all frames. And when it comes to reloading, 120 it nothing. At a wedding one time in fact, a friend of mine came up to me at the end of the evening and asked where I learned to reload so quickly. He had actually timed me several times and said my best was 12 seconds. I never timed myself, but I also have never found reloading to interfer with my way of work no matter how fast I am working. Like cameras, strobes and all the other tools we photographers use, film in both type, brand and size is always a personal preference. There is no "perfect" one for all photographers.

Walker

If we were all alike and had the same preferences for film and cameras and the same working habits the world would be a much simpler place. I estimate that my average changing time for medium format film is at least one full minute, and in some cases much longer. If I am shooting a street scene the action may have moved a couple of blocks by the time I get the film changed.

For me the difference between 16 and 8 shots (comparing 220 to 120 with 6X9 format) or 20 and 10 (comparing 220 to 120 with 6X7) is a major issue. I could get by with 120 if necessary, but 220 is just so much less hassle.

BTW, lots of professionals work with SLR equipment and often have several pre-loaded back or inserts. My own work in medium format is almost exclusively with rangefinder cameras like Mamiya 7 and Fuji GW690, which have to be re-loaded after each roll of film.

Sandy King

 

[Paul.]

I found 220 to be more expencive to buy than 2 x 120 so baught 3 A12 backs and a host of HP5+, load 2 on a reel to develope and have no problems loading the backs. 120 is available so I use it, if 220 were as readily available I may use it but am more than happy with 12 on 120.
Regards Paul.

 

[Fintan]

I wish all MF film was in 220, its vastly more convenient, easier/cheaper to develop, store, less wasteful packaging.

I shot Iggy Pop in concert last month on a hasselblad with tri-x 220, you're only allowed shoot during the first three songs and man I'd hate to be changing a roll while that man rocks

 

[copake_ham]

I like the option of both alternatives!

I hate leaving unexposed film in the camera (i.e. my Pentax 67II) or the backs of my Bronica ETRSi or Hassey CX2. I don't know, maybe it's irrational to the max, but I prefer to shoot out the roll whenever I am taking pics.

If I know I'm going to be taking a lot of pics with the Pentax, I want to have 220 in it. Changing rolls is a PIA and at that size - even a 220 will only give you 20 shots.

With the Bronica or Hassey, I have the choice of backs such that I can load as I think I'll need. But if I think I'm going to shoot more than a 120 roll, I'm better off to load a 220 back and add a 120 back as "back up"!

So yes, my ultimate wish would be to have all film choices in either 120 or 220 - and to the extent there are "gaps" in the choices out there - I don't think that requests for additional 220 options are "childish"!

 

[Nokton48]

Convenience is the main point.

I can't load an A-12 back in 12 seconds, more like 30. Fast enough for -any- event. Hard to go wrong with -six- film backs

Long live 220

 

[erl]

Simply use what works for you! I used to shoot heaps of 220, with 120 as back-up when I judged the assignment was nearing an end. I regularly carried 3 - 220 backs for the Blad and 2 - 120 backs as backup. Even the down time just changing magazines (pre-loaded) can cost you vital pics at some times, so speed and flow of action IS important. I don't work that way now, so I only shoot 120 at present. It's all about suiting the work style and media to the demand.

The remark about "childish obsession" I think was probably made in ignorance and I am sure by now the poster has become 'aware'.

 

[Konical]

Good Evening, Everyone,

Just about everyone who has commented in this thread has made some excellent points. My thoughts repeat, in some cases, some of what has been stated.

1--In a hectic shooting situation, having to reload after a relatively few shots on 120 can be a problem. I rarely have such situations to deal with, so I'm usually satisfied with just 120.

2--It's a strange paradox to me: loading 120 on a SS reel is about the quickest, simplest, fastest thing I can think of, but, for some reason, loading 220, even on the larger-diameter reels made specifically for 220, always causes me headaches. Loading onto the smaller thin-gauge 220 reels made to fit standard 120 tanks is even dicier. Maybe, I don't do it often enough and just need more practice. In addition, washing the film is a problem. Is there a film washer made which will accomodate the larger 220 reels?? (I usually transfer the fixed and hypo-cleared film from the large reels to smaller-diameter reels for washing, sometimes cutting the film and using two 120 reels for that purpose. The extra effort is something of a pain.)

3--Even with the problems noted above, I'd still shoot a lot more 220 if T-100 and T-400 were available in that size. If one of the Ilford T-grain films were available in 220, I'd be a customer. On the rare occasions when I shoot color negative, 220 is fine, since it goes to the lab for processing anyway. I'd certainly welcome a 220 E-6 film, but I doubt that we'll ever see one.

Konical

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I like Hewes the thin gauge 220 reels. I find them easier to load than the heavier gauge 120 reels, even for 120.

 

[JBrunner]

One twenty, two twenty,... whatever it takes.

 

[Thanasis]

One twenty, two twenty,... whatever it takes.

I like that. It's a good motto.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Don't want to steal thunder from the OP, but what's different about a 220 reel compared to a 120? I can comfortably load two taped together lengths of 120 film onto a standard 120 reel and process it. Why wouldn't a standard reel fit a 220 length of film when it is exactly as long as two lengths of 120? I don't get it. Please help educate the ignorant Swede...
- Thomas

 

[Woolliscroft]

I use 220 for air photography. If you have ever tried reloading a Pentax 67II in the very cramped, high vibration environment of a light aircraft cockpit, you will know why I don't want to have to do it every ten shots. The Pentax gets 21 on 220 which starts to be practical and without 220 I'd probably have to drop to 35mm.

I use Patterson processing reels and can't say that I have ever found it any more or less difficult to load 120 or 220.

David.

 

[nworth]

The reason is simply to have 16 shots per roll instead of 8. It makes camera operation faster and easier. It also means that you need to handle and keep track of only half as many rolls.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Don't want to steal thunder from the OP, but what's different about a 220 reel compared to a 120? I can comfortably load two taped together lengths of 120 film onto a standard 120 reel and process it. Why wouldn't a standard reel fit a 220 length of film when it is exactly as long as two lengths of 120? I don't get it. Please help educate the ignorant Swede...
- Thomas

You have 220 reels. 120 reels have thicker wire and only hold one roll of 120.

 

[technopoptart]

my bad

Ok. I think my problem was that txp320 probbbaly has a UV coating that makes it appear mily when wet. After it dried and flatend it was good and clear.