Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,704   Posts: 1,482,743   Online: 1014
      
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 51
  1. #31
    Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,493
    Images
    30
    Honestly, if there was Fuji Acros, Tmax 100 or Pan F+ in 220 that's all I'd shoot.
    K.S. Klain

  2. #32
    wotalegend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Melbourne (the big one)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    361
    I have several 220-capable bodies/backs/inserts, none of which cost me any extra. However I have never set eyes on a 220 film, and as an amateur I am quite happy with 12 or 15 images per roll. 220 was never really popular or widely available here in Oz, and I suspect that the amount of current talk emanating mostly from the US, e.g. this thread, might indicate that it was more popular in the US than other parts of the world. I also have the thought that the longer rolls may have been most popular with pros who have largely gone digital.

  3. #33
    drkhalsa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    103
    mike c,

    good question, I don't remember now as I only ran 1 or 2 rolls of 120 through the 220 back a couple of years ago.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,872
    Images
    54
    drkhalsa, I was thinking that there seems to be room for one more frame at the end a roll of 120 using the 120 back,if the spacing is the same on 220 back there should be no reason to get the full 12 exposusers. I'm referring to the Hasselblad backs.

  5. #35
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    TMK, the reason you lose a frame in certain backs is because the frame spacing is wider.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  6. #36
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,047
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    424
    Also, don't forget that the frame counter is based on the thickness of the film, so the paper backing on the 120 plus the already thicker film base screws up the film advance.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,872
    Images
    54
    It does not seem like the paper backing would make up that much differnce,I'll run a roll throw and see what happens.could not hurt to try.

  8. #38
    K-G
    K-G is offline
    K-G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Göteborg , Sweden
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    279
    About a month ago I made a test with my Hasselblad 220-back and ran a roll of ILFORD Delta 100 through it. When loading the film I stoped winding about 1/4 of a revolution before the film and the camera arrovs were aligned and then closed the back. All 12 frames were captured on the film but towards the end the spacing grew bigger. As I normally store my negatives in 4-frame lenghts, this caused a litle problem with the last length as it is sticking out of the negative sleeve. If you use 3-frame lengths and negative sleeves with four pockets, that should solve the problem as there will be more extra space for a 3-frame length of 2 1/4 square negatives. My filmback is from the early eighties but I don't think there has been any major change to the mechanics after that. Everything else worked fine and as long as you don't forgett about the 120 size and plan to have the best shots on frames 13 and onwards, there shouldn't be any great problem.
    Give it a try !

    Karl-Gustaf

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,872
    Images
    54
    Ok,thanks K-G.I understand the use of 3frame and 4frame and have both so it should not be a problem.

    Mike

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ottawa Ontario
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    62
    Well Ilfords 220 machine was broken if I remember correctly so no hope there, Foma and Efke have never done 220 have they ? And Kodak/Fuji simply dont do 220 anymore no doubt to low demand. 220 was always a limited film compared to 120, now that most wedding photogs use digital there isint as much need for it but the need for 120 still exists.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin