Developer exhaustion can be an issue with very dilute developers, like PMK, and 220. A 120 roll is the same film area as a 36 exp. roll of 35mm, but the 120 roll needs twice the volume of developer for adequate coverage in a daylight inversion tank, so insufficient developer is not likely to be a problem with 120. 220 uses the same film area and the same developer volume as two rolls of 35mm.
Last edited by David A. Goldfarb; 10-02-2007 at 03:43 PM. Click to view previous post history.
What equipment and developer did you use to develop the film?
the clip only held half a Qtip tips worth of film and was working at about 100 psi, i was barley able to slip the film in.
Using a Jobo tank and reel you can happily develop one 220 or two 120 rolls on one 2500 series reel.
This sounds a bit like insufficient fixing which leaves a foggy haze over the film. Try re-fixing the film in fresh fixer (you can do it in daylight - any light damage is already done if that is the problem) - even partial fixing protects against the light to some extent.
It comes out with a pale hazy backing
Good luck, Bob.
Actually, those "purple flame" marks sound like undeveloped area from bad winding.
WHAT YOU NEED TO DO:
Take that roll you'ave already done, and practice winding it, in the light, then looking away, until you can nail it in the dark
I am primarily a LF and ULF photographers who uses B&W sheet film. However, I also do a fair amount of work in medium format, especially on trips abroad where LF is not practical. The use of 220 film in this kind of circumstance is a major convenience factor, both for the time it saves in re-loading film, and in space saving as well. In fact, I value this convenience factor so much that have switched from B&W to color negative films because of the much wider choice of emulsions in 220 size in color. Far from a child like obsession, I consider the use of 220 film an important professional decision that enhances my ability to do good work.
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.
Originally Posted by sanking
Last edited by PhotoHistorian; 10-03-2007 at 05:01 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by PhotoHistorian
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.
Last edited by sanking; 10-03-2007 at 09:45 AM. Click to view previous post history.
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.
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
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"!
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