Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,218   Posts: 1,532,217   Online: 862
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 40 of 40
  1. #31
    erl
    erl is offline
    erl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    15
    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'.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,644
    Images
    5
    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

  3. #33
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,212
    Images
    20
    I like Hewes the thin gauge 220 reels. I find them easier to load than the heavier gauge 120 reels, even for 120.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  4. #34
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,780
    One twenty, two twenty,... whatever it takes.

  5. #35
    Thanasis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by JBrunner View Post
    One twenty, two twenty,... whatever it takes.
    I like that. It's a good motto.

  6. #36
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,213
    Images
    296
    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
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    726
    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.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,044
    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.

  9. #39
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,212
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    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.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    17

    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.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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