Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,682   Posts: 1,548,521   Online: 864
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: 120 vs 220 Film

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Woolliscroft
    I have the similar RB67 and have never had trouble with 220 backs and I have had it since the mid 1980s. There might be a fault with yours.

    David.
    Point taken. I no longer have the camera to check. My main point is that there is nothing inherent about the design of 220 film that will cause light leaks.
    Take care,
    Tom

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Datchet, Berkshire UK- about 20 miles west of London
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    342
    "My main point is that there is nothing inherent about the design of 220 film that will cause light leaks."

    I don't agree with that. 220 doesn't have backing paper and its strange that on my several Bronica 120 backs I never see leaks but on two (serviced) 220 backs I do. Equally I have had this issue on my Mamiya 7ii with 220 but never with 120. I think you'll find there's a lot of people with similar experience. I do think though that the issue can be minimised with careful management. I do not think that in general terms the ingress of light into the roll takes place inside the camera.

  3. #23
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Duffy
    Point taken. I no longer have the camera to check. My main point is that there is nothing inherent about the design of 220 film that will cause light leaks.
    Take care,
    Tom
    I think it does require more care and that care is required because the film lacks the added protection of the backing paper. A loose 120 is less likely to leak than a loose 220.

    *

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by mrcallow
    A loose 120 is less likely to leak than a loose 220.
    Well, I can't argue with that... I still think that a back or camera that creates the loose 220 roll is a deficient design; it not the fault of the film format. Both my Contax and Fuji produce rolls that are as tight as a drum.

    Edit: and let's add that the superior film flatness of 220 against the pressure plate is very helpful when you are shooting at a wide aperture.

  5. #25
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Defective back or photographer... In my experience I think I have been mostly at fault when the roll is loose. If the roll isn't tight when loaded it isn't likely to be tight when you unload it -- but then that is pretty obvious.

    *

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    726
    I agree that film handling is more important with 220 because of the lack of backing paper over the film area itself. The rolls need to come out wound tight and I tend to put them into the foil package for the next roll when I change over and put them in a dark bag, so that they stay in the dark. As for fogging in camera, it might help that my films are rarely in the camera for more than a few minutes, we get through so much film in the air.

    David.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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