Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Medium Format Cameras and Accessories' started by Nick Zentena, Jul 4, 2005.
So I'm wondering. Is there any chance the eastern European companies would make 220?
Stupid question.... How long is a roll of 220? In feet or meters please.....
Whats so stupid about the question?
I guess yours is a stupid answer as well..
I think Frank was refering to his own question regarding the length of a roll Dave.
lol @ Dave, I think he means he's asking a 'stupid' question... not Nick!
Never having used any 220, I'd GUESS, not quite twice as long as 120! (2 x usable area plus leader plus trailer)
Okay, I apologize then I read it wrong....
I guess changing the epmphazise, does change the meaning of the question..
Hold on Frank, I can get the answer to how long a 220 roll is..
A 220 Roll is 5 feet 5 inches long as opposed to a 120 which is 32 inches long or 2.5 feet, I only measured actual film length and did not include leaders and such
I think 220 would be a curse for me
I would get that shutter happy 35mm approach to my MF, the lack of which has often been its only saving grace...
Who am I kidding - it would be nice! Do cameras need any mods to take it vs 120?
Depends on the camera. Some have different backs or film magazines or inserts, etc. Some only require resetting the pressure plate. Some, not at all.
What cameras you got? Somebody will know.
If I could get Efke 100 and J&C Classic 400 in 220, I'd use them in my Bronica S2A (alas, the DaYi 617 back relies on the film window for frame counting, so I'll have to stick to 120 for that at 4 frames per roll).
Have wondered if there is a work around for this David, since the Bessa I have has 2 windows (one for 6x9 the other for 645 using a mask). Would it be possible to determine the number of turns per shot and then cover the window with something to block the light? May not be worth the trouble, just wondering.
You could do that, but the number of turns per shot would decrease as you go through the roll. It might not be enough to matter, but you would find that out after one shot or with a test roll. Also you would need to find out how many turns past the start point is the first frame. You would also have to keep track of the number of shots taken--maybe put a piece of masking tape on the back and tick them off as you go.
Another problem could be that the pressure plate won't be spaced properly for 220, since there is no paper backing, but I'm not convinced that this is critical for every camera, since there is often enough extension in the springs, I suspect, for 120 or 220. On the other hand, film flatness is enough of a problem on any 6x9 folder that you might just not want to chance it.
I've never used 220 film myself, but I've often wondered if it would be possible to tape down a short length of 120 paper backing onto the pressure plate of a 120 only camera/back, thereby killing 2 birds with one stone, it would act as the backing so the pressure plate/backing/film combo would be proper, as well as blocking off the ruby window. Leaving as the only problem the number of turns between shots. I would imagine if you're willing to kill a roll of film, you could wind it thru the back with the back not attached to a camera, and by marking the film as you go figure out how many turns each frame needs. Of course the remaining problem (if the number changes during the roll) would be remembering where in the roll you are!
Well, I just got a couple of 70mm roll film backs for my Linhof, that take 52 shots on a 15' roll of film, I'll have to resist treating the camera like a 35mm! Processing 15' of film at one time is going to be interesting to put it mildly, but I think it's going to be real hard to resist shooting 'just a few extra' when the camera is holding 50 shots!
i've tried using 220 film in a 120 back with no success.
i didn't have a backing the first time - bad idea... even with a black tape over the good ole ruby window, i got a nice thick exposure trail throughout the whole roll
then i taped long backing paper down the whole roll with the numbers carefully mapped out, but the roll with the paper didn't fit in the film back!
there's gotta be a better way!
To go back to this thread's original question, oh I do hope so, especially if Kodak's commitment to film is weakening. I use more more 220 than all other films put together in B&W and it is getting ever more difficult to get. I use it for air photography from tiny light aircraft where changing roll films is a real operation. The extra length of 220 makes it viable to use medium format as my Pentax 67II manages to squeeze in 21 shots a roll. With 120 I am down to 10 and I really would have to give up and go down to 35mm, a dramatic drop in resolving power. I used to use Delta 400, but Ilford have dropped 220 so I am stuck with Tri-X. A great film for many roles to be sure, but already a backward step for a type of photography where resolution is all.
I believe Kodak still makes T400CN in 220 rolls. C-41 process, but the image should be less coarse than Tri-X. Plus-X is also still available in 220 for the time being (although the last I heard it was being killed off at the end of the year), but it is a slower film. B&H stock both films.
It might be worth contacting J&C to find out what it would take to get one of their emulsions packaged as 220. If there's enough interest, they might be willing to help. (I'm pretty sure that they're gone for the next week, but should be back after that.)
Sadly, I have to pass on chromogenic films. As an archaeologist I am expected to produce truly archival permanent results and these films are essentially B&W colour neg and so fade with time. I have to use silver neg film, but thanks for the thought.
Have you thought about developing it to a silver image?
I don't think any manufacturer is going to take this on. Ilford dropped the format before their current problems, saying it wasn't feasible to continue, economically. Fuji and Agfa never made B&W in 220.
My question is, what's wrong with Tri-x 320 in 220 format? Excellent film, no quality control problems, great in pyro developers. Let's keep this one alive as long as possible, at least.
Nothing is really wrong with Tri-X. It is an all time classic and I will be very happy to keep using it if Kodak keep making it. I have bought almost 200 220 rolls this year alone. I do, though, have two problems with it, one potential and one actual. 1. Will Kodak keep making it? They seem determined to get out of silver photography and there is nothing else to replace it. 2. for my particular and (I freely admit) minority needs: archaeological air photography, resolution is everything. I have to use high speed film to freeze camera shake, because the aircraft moves quickly and vibrates like crazy, so I need to use 1000th shutter speeds in all conditions, and Delta 400 had higher resolution + plus a 1/3 stop speed advantage, so for my particular needs it was an all round more suitable stock. 6x7 Tri-X is still way better for recording detail than Delta 400 in 35mm, though, so, as I say I will keep buying it as long as Kodak will let me.
p.s. Thanks Helen, I didn't know that was possible. Can you tell me how it is done and how the results compare with, say, Delta 400?
I have tried turn counting in a Lubitel TLR (that little ruby window shows nothing at night)... and yes, there is a dramatic drop in turns needed over the length of a 120 roll, I can only imagine it on a 220 - there has to be a better way. I am surprised that 220 is not bieng pursued by the eastern European companies that seem to havemade themselves a good little niche out things the big western internationals can't justify making anymore...
Maybe an inquiry from someone like one of the suppliers (JandC, etc.) would be a plausible way to look into it - if their distributors tell them there is a need, perhaps we wouldhave that film here... Just a thought - I have no clue how realistic that is.
Gnashings, you should see about the same change in number of turns per frame over the full length of a 220 roll that you would over 120 -- after all, they're the same final rolled diameter. The 220 is longer, yes, but the paper backing is left off the film itself specifically so the longer strip will fit on the same spools.
I have two cameras (both currently in need of work) that could potentially use 220 -- Kodak Reflex II TLRs, which have a nice frame counter that would need resetting partway through the roll in order to count 24 exposures. I don't shoot enough, however, to make such film more than a novelty for me; it's not a big deal to change the roll every 12 exposures, generally, and it'd be a much bigger deal to remember to reset the counter (twice, because it doesn't lock after 12) in the course of a roll in order to get the full 24 exposures.
With my budget, the price of a roll of 320TXP in 220 is a problem, too -- something like $8, last time I checked; my speed these days is shooting J&C Pro 100 at $1.29/roll or Lucky SHD 400 at $1.89.
DUH! Thanks for pointing that out - I had a brain fart
I still would not want to do it... I'm too scatter brained to keep track, I know it.
It has its uses, but like I said earlier, what I like about MF (and please keep in mind, I am an amateur - so time is not money, its just fun) - what i like about it is that it makes me work and think, compose - I take better shots, the limited number of frames somehow makes me do it.
But I would like to have the option of taking more film at a time - especially when a long hike is in order!