Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I used to have a fair amount of trouble loading 120 film onto my paterson reels but discovered that my techique was all wrong ... from the way I was removing the paper backing from the film to the way I was trying to get it started on the reel. Now it's much the same as doing 35mm ... I look forward to the challenge of the 220.
Actually naruto's post and idea has me thinking ... I may just burn a fair bit of this 220 up in my Bronica for the 14 day challenge.
Actually naruto's post and idea has me thinking ... I may just burn a fair bit of this 220 up in my Bronica for the 14 day challenge.
Sparrow
Veteran
One more query, and then I'll stop.
Is this on plastic reels or stainless steel? I use plastic reels in my tank, the kind that has a tongue to guide in the film into the ball bearings. Will this cause problems?
Personally, my first 120 load went terrible. But, since then, I have misloads only on 135 film. :bang:
They are plastic, it’s years ago now I just decided life was too short as it is, one could have sex stood up in a hammock but you wouldn’t do it for enjoyment's sake
naruto
GASitis.. finally cured?
ah! yes. But, I am relatively young, and there is the "thrill" factor.
Thanks for answering the queries Stewart. After searching online for prices, the 220 film doesn't make a lot of economic sense. I can buy 3 rolls of 120 TriX for the price of one 220.
Sparrow
Veteran
ah! yes. But, I am relatively young, and there is the "thrill" factor.
Thanks for answering the queries Stewart. After searching online for prices, the 220 film doesn't make a lot of economic sense. I can buy 3 rolls of 120 TriX for the price of one 220.
Yep there is that, I don’t think it was ever intended to be batch processed, it was expected to go through a dip’n dunk type machines
djonesii
Well-known
From my perspective for the way I'm working with my GA645, there is little effective difference between the two. The mini-lab that I use charges $1 extra to develop, and $1 extra to scan 220. The guy who does the work, seems to say that there is little difference for him.
As many people have commented, you must remember to slide the pressure plate BEFORE you put in the film! I was set for 120 and loaded a 220 roll, film loaded, and then remembered, my decision was to open the back, and I will see how may frames a lost with that little error!
I have used BW400CN in both 220 and 120 ( short/old ) from flea bay, and can see no difference other than more frames. Same for Fuji 400 NPH or something like that.
As for the "real" B&W films, I cannot comment.
Dave
As many people have commented, you must remember to slide the pressure plate BEFORE you put in the film! I was set for 120 and loaded a 220 roll, film loaded, and then remembered, my decision was to open the back, and I will see how may frames a lost with that little error!
I have used BW400CN in both 220 and 120 ( short/old ) from flea bay, and can see no difference other than more frames. Same for Fuji 400 NPH or something like that.
As for the "real" B&W films, I cannot comment.
Dave
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
That's not right. I am looking at a pressure plate for a Fuji MF camera, and moving it to 220 very visibly changes the relationship between the plate and the inner rails.
Beemermark
Veteran
It's because your trying to wind 10 feet of film onto a reel instead of 5 feet. All reels are the approximately the same diameter (35mm, 120 or 220). 36 exp of 35 mm is approximately 5 feet long and so is 120 film. 220 film is about 10 feet long so therefore the reel coils have to be spaced very tightly together to pack it all in. Also the 10 foot spooled onto the same diameter film spool makes for a very wicked curl. When you open it up in the darkroom you have a 10 foot snake on your hands. In 30 plus years my success ration in putting 220 on a 220 spool was very low. I finally got to the point of just cutting it in half (in the darkroom) and putting it on 120 spools. That way you only lose one picture.Excuse my ignorance, but, can I ask why is it so difficult to get the film into the reels? I thought the 220 width is similar to the 120 film. Will the absence of the paper backing make it tougher to wind the film into the reels? .
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
No - you strip the backing in either case. But 120 already is harder to load than 135, being wider, on a significantly thinner base and more curled. 220 doubles the length of 120. It threads like 120 for the first half, provided that you manage to peel the tape or make a perfectly straight cut. And it gets increasingly worse than the worst (last) bit on a 120 for the other half, as the surface resistance (and risk of warping) grows with the amount of threaded film.
Sevo
spyder2000
Dim Bulb
I don't get it. I load 220 onto stainless steel reels by removing the paper leader and trailer and keeping the film spooled up tightly inside of my hand. From there I load it into the reels just I do 36 exposure 35 and never experienced a problem except for the first time I did it.
If you want to have some fun, try loading 70mm film onto a Nikor spiral without the 'loader' gizmo they sold. It can be done by rolling the reel back and to on a tabletop. You can't do this one in a changing bag.
If you want to have some fun, try loading 70mm film onto a Nikor spiral without the 'loader' gizmo they sold. It can be done by rolling the reel back and to on a tabletop. You can't do this one in a changing bag.
kuzano
Veteran
I've used 220 in old folders....
I've used 220 in old folders....
I roll the film out on the table and measure off the frames. Then in the appropriate position on each frame, I place a number to coincide with the ruby window.
It works great, as I can then roll the 220 forward to exact frame registration. I glued a piece of backing paper from a 120 roll to the pressure plate, with a properly placed hole for the ruby window.
I am pleased with my effort and can get a roll of 220 through the camera without fail or jamming on the take up roll.
as I mentioned, this practice works well, with the exception that I have yet to see an image come out of the camera. I keep trying, and I am downright determined to use the 100 rolls of 220 that I have left in this old $50 folder.
Hang in there. I will repost when I resolve the minor SNAFU I have been plagued with. Continue to let your 220 age until I get this resolved. I'm working on a solution.
I've used 220 in old folders....
I roll the film out on the table and measure off the frames. Then in the appropriate position on each frame, I place a number to coincide with the ruby window.
It works great, as I can then roll the 220 forward to exact frame registration. I glued a piece of backing paper from a 120 roll to the pressure plate, with a properly placed hole for the ruby window.
I am pleased with my effort and can get a roll of 220 through the camera without fail or jamming on the take up roll.
as I mentioned, this practice works well, with the exception that I have yet to see an image come out of the camera. I keep trying, and I am downright determined to use the 100 rolls of 220 that I have left in this old $50 folder.
Hang in there. I will repost when I resolve the minor SNAFU I have been plagued with. Continue to let your 220 age until I get this resolved. I'm working on a solution.
If the camera uses a roller to track the length of film passing through, then the red window is unnecessary, and if it does not automatically stop after a 120's worth of shots, you luck out and can use 220 in the rig. But all my modern cameras are too 'convenient' to allow that and 'know' how many shots before disconnecting the shutter release and allowing free wind-on to the end!
As to loading 220 onto steel reels, it IS a bit trickier than 120 which is a bit trickier than 135/36 exp which is trickier than 24 exp. The trick not yet mentioned that helps the most is to *push* backwards on the film for each rotation of the wrap. This keeps the film strip from tightening up on the reel (which promotes binding/kinking)... this looseness helps the film stay lined up and straight on the reel. Longer and wider strips are just harder to manage than short.
Part of the difficulty with 220 reels is that the spirals are closer spaced with smaller-gage wire and this makes it harder to keep film lined up and not skipping and kinking. Still, once you have the technique down, and work carefully, loading 220 on the reels becomes routine. (FWIW I have a plastic reel made to hold a 72 exposure roll, back when Ilford briefly offered it, and that's a job to load!)
Also, not all reels and tanks are the same diameter. I've used Kindermann tanks for decades... but only a few years ago discovered a larger diameter variant. My original 18-oz tank that holds one 120 reel and two 135 reels is 8.5cm tall and 8.5cm in diameter. It needs 16-oz of fluid to fully cover the two 35mm reels. I also have a taller 8.5cm-diameter tank that holds two 120's or four 135's.
The larger variant is 11cm in diameter and still 8.5cm tall for one 120/220 reel holding 27-oz fluid and needs about 23-oz to fully cover the reel. A two-reel version is 15cm tall, taking about 44-oz fluid. The larger diameter reels for these tanks have heavier gage wire and the spirals are wound with more space between wraps, so they're easier to load.
As to loading 220 onto steel reels, it IS a bit trickier than 120 which is a bit trickier than 135/36 exp which is trickier than 24 exp. The trick not yet mentioned that helps the most is to *push* backwards on the film for each rotation of the wrap. This keeps the film strip from tightening up on the reel (which promotes binding/kinking)... this looseness helps the film stay lined up and straight on the reel. Longer and wider strips are just harder to manage than short.
Part of the difficulty with 220 reels is that the spirals are closer spaced with smaller-gage wire and this makes it harder to keep film lined up and not skipping and kinking. Still, once you have the technique down, and work carefully, loading 220 on the reels becomes routine. (FWIW I have a plastic reel made to hold a 72 exposure roll, back when Ilford briefly offered it, and that's a job to load!)
Also, not all reels and tanks are the same diameter. I've used Kindermann tanks for decades... but only a few years ago discovered a larger diameter variant. My original 18-oz tank that holds one 120 reel and two 135 reels is 8.5cm tall and 8.5cm in diameter. It needs 16-oz of fluid to fully cover the two 35mm reels. I also have a taller 8.5cm-diameter tank that holds two 120's or four 135's.
The larger variant is 11cm in diameter and still 8.5cm tall for one 120/220 reel holding 27-oz fluid and needs about 23-oz to fully cover the reel. A two-reel version is 15cm tall, taking about 44-oz fluid. The larger diameter reels for these tanks have heavier gage wire and the spirals are wound with more space between wraps, so they're easier to load.
Last edited:
Al Kaplan
Veteran
At one point Nikor made the larger tanks and oversized 220 reels as well. They also made wide spaced 35mm reels for the bigger tank. I think that was the same tank that could hold a cage for developing a few sheets of 4x5 sheet film in daylight.