120 and 620 Film

dominicLF

dominicLF

EV Zero
Local time
6:23 PM
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Messages
120
I have to pass on my recent discovery about 120 film. I owe this discovery to William (wlewisiii)who told me in another thread that 620 film is the same media on different spools. Well, it’s true. 620 is on a thin steel spool. The thin sheet metal that made up the end of the spool was thinner than the plastic that makes up the end of a 120 spool. That, my friends, is the ONLY difference. So, I just took a roll of 120 Kodak Plus-X out in the garage and filed the ends with the flat file that I usually use to sharpen the lawnmower blades (about $5 and your hardware store). I filed the ends of the 120 spool to about half their original thickness—very quick and easy. Then I wiped and blew off the dust and PRESTO, I popped it in my 620 camera and it works perfectly. Interestingly, there is even a depth-gage molded into the 120 spool. You file until the ring-shaped indentation in the ends are gone, then its perfect.

Perhaps this is common knowledge, but I'm very excited to have discovered it!
 
Somewhere on the web there's a page something like "101 ways to make 620 out of 120" or something like that. It gave a whole bunch of ways of doing it, some as simple as winding the roll one way and then backwards onto a 620 spool, and some using washers to make a 620 spool.

One of my dad's old folders used 620. I never figured out why there were 2 separate types of film so much alike.
 
The reason for 620 was to be able to make folders thinner and therefore more pocketable into those big coat pockets men's coats had back in the '20's and '30's. I believe that with the dissapearance of MF folders and the fact that the skinny spools caused the film to curl more than 120, it was decided to phase 620 out.
Kurt M.
 
Wasn't 620 film one of those oddball Kodak inventions, or is that another urban myth? They seemed, at one time, to specialize in creating their own film sizes and forms, which continued through 126 Instamatic cartridges and APS. What were some of the other oddball Kodak sizes -- 616 or something like that. Am I in the ballpark with this or have I made an omlette of these factoids in my head??

Gene
 
GeneW said:
Wasn't 620 film one of those oddball Kodak inventions, or is that another urban myth? They seemed, at one time, to specialize in creating their own film sizes and forms, which continued through 126 Instamatic cartridges and APS. What were some of the other oddball Kodak sizes -- 616 or something like that. Am I in the ballpark with this or have I made an omlette of these factoids in my head??
Click to expand...

I remember 828 as the "Bantam" 35mm roll film, IMAO a solution for which there was no problem. :) I think that was exclusively Kodak.

I also kinda remember 818 film but don't know what size it was, and then there were 616 and 116 on the drug store shelves as well.
 
I've got a 620 TLR, a "Marvel-Flex" and found a few ways get spools. A 120 spool will work for the supply spool, but I need a 620 for the take up spool. I've bought a few rolls of way outdated film on eBay (outdated, like 1953). I went to my special dark place and rewound them onto 120 spools, just in case I ever wanted to use them. Also you can go garage sales or flea markets and buy old 620 cameras, many of them are really crappy cameras but some still have spools in them.
If you can get an old roll of film or old camera for a coupla bucks, it's not a bad deal.

I just tell the people at the lab to save my spools, they haven't lost one yet.
 
I understand some 620 cameras will use 120 in either the supply side or both. Some neither. For some, you can make 120 fit by thinning the end plates of the spool as described, others may need this or a diameter reduction or both. When it comes to diameter reduction, I believe a very common need, if it takes any more than a very minor reduction, it's probably better to re-spool the film on 620 spools. These are just my recollections of some reading after I picked up a 1930's German-made Kodak 620 Junior folder. This is one that really needs 620 spools unfortunately...
 
Last edited:
It's just as simple to re-spool 120 film onto 620 spools. I'd be concerned with an accumulation of dust resulting from filing a spool down.
 
dmr said:
I remember 828 as the "Bantam" 35mm roll film, IMAO a solution for which there was no problem. :) I think that was exclusively Kodak.
Click to expand...

There were a few non-Kodak 828 cameras, although I can't think of any off the top of my head.

It wasn't really a solution without a problem, though. Back when Kodak introduced 828, most people used cameras that took 8-exposure or 12-exposure rolls of film. Photography and processing were expensive relative to wages, so people shot very economically. Many people liked the idea of having a smaller camera, like them thar newfangled 35mm cameras, but they didn't want a 20- or 36-exposure roll -- they'd wind up with Christmas and Easter pictures on the same roll!

Also, most people had started out with box cameras that took paper-backed rollfilm, so they were more comfortable loading this type of camera than a 35mm camera. The film-advance system needed for an 828 camera also was a lot simpler, and less expensive to manufacture, than the sprocket wheel system needed for 35mm.

And Kodak wasn't the only company that tried introducing weird film sizes and cameras to match. Any Agfa fans remember the Rapid system? Not a bad idea, and a few other manufacturers did make cameras for it, but it never really went anywhere...
 
You "youngsters" don't go back far enough to remember the real oddball films. My first camera, received for Christmas around 1938 or so, was a Bakelite Univex box camera that used size "00" film, a paper-backed film about the width of 35mm but without the sprocket holes. My only picture of my Mother's parents was made with this camera.
 
At least you did get one. For that, any smile of the gods of silver halide is enough.

I have a tintype that is the only known photo of my great-great-grandfather, so I appreciate what you say. My grandmother left it to me, I've never been sure why. All I know is that it was taped to the back of the print of my high school graduation portrait (a bad monster as I refused to let the photographer touch it up... Oy!) with a note in her hand simply saying "for bill". But I have it in a small frame near the computer I scan my negs with. In a real way it keeps me grounded.

William
 
I use side cutters to cut the "ring" off the ends of the roll and presto-it works- much faster than filing!
 
What you want is a Rollex 20 folding camera. It was a piece of junk from US Camera Company, but it had two very important features. First, it had knobs on both ends - you can turn the film in either direction. Most folding cameras had a knob on only one side - since you don't rewind roll film. Second, you can load 120 or 620 film in it - this camera will digest either one with no mods.

Put your 120 in one side, and roll it onto a 120 reel. Of course, you don't take any photos, you just wind.

Then, open the back and put a 620 reel where the 120 fresh roll was before. Close the back and rewind the film by rolling the other way.

You now have a roll of 120 on a 620 reel. Take your photos with your 620 camera.

If you have film processed, get the reel back, they're a bit scarce. If you do your own B&W, no biggie.

How do you get 620 reels? Buy a couple of 620 el cheapo cameras on eBoy. They usually have one in them. You can always ask to be sure.

Here's a link to a Rollex 20:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Rollex-20-Foldi...ryZ11717QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Also, there are a few other differences between 620 and 120 roll film besides the width. If you look closely, the 120 is slightly taller than the 620 reel. Film spacing can be a slight issue as well, but usually not enough to matter.

I've tried to modify (with a Dremel) a couple of 620 cameras to take 120 - with varying success, mostly of the no-freaking-way variety. Better to reload 120 onto 620 spools, I think.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Today's Film Vendors

Today's Film Vendors

I don't Know the big reason why Today's Modern Film Vendors do not roll 620 Film since it is the same size as 120. We are talking about the 620 Spool being a smaller size, so why do they not make a 620 size modern spool and run quantities of 620 spooled film and be done with it. There seems to be a Lot of people rolling their own 120 film onto 620 spools or altering spools to fit, so why is it not so popular ? Maybe just to keep the 620 price up? I am let down by the lack of availability of 620 spooled film at a comparable price as the 120. Yet there are Articles and Forums all over the Internet on how to spool 120 onto 620 spools yourself. I just found 620 spools on e-Bay today, for average of $ 9.00 each ! Everyone is cashing in on the 120-620 issue.
I guess I will continue to roll my own, right along with you guys.
 
TheIndifelDog said:
I don't Know the big reason why Today's Modern Film Vendors do not roll 620 Film since it is the same size as 120. We are talking about the 620 Spool being a smaller size, so why do they not make a 620 size modern spool and run quantities of 620 spooled film and be done with it. There seems to be a Lot of people rolling their own 120 film onto 620 spools or altering spools to fit, so why is it not so popular ? Maybe just to keep the 620 price up? I am let down by the lack of availability of 620 spooled film at a comparable price as the 120. Yet there are Articles and Forums all over the Internet on how to spool 120 onto 620 spools yourself. I just found 620 spools on e-Bay today, for average of $ 9.00 each ! Everyone is cashing in on the 120-620 issue.
I guess I will continue to roll my own, right along with you guys.
Click to expand...

though we might hear of quite a few people using or wanting to try out that old 620 camera in the back of the wardrobe, shed or bargin of ebay, the reality is the demand for 620 film compared to 120 is a pretty minute %, just think of plethora of hasselblad, bronica and the hundreds (thousands?) of other pro and semi pro cameras (not to mention holga's) out there that people still use on a regular basis, not just for fun or interests sake. although there are some very nice quality cameras that use 620 ,there is always a camera of simular quality, features or better that can be chosen that take 120 film...so why would they bother type thing!

there are a few sources to buy 620 film, its not cheap, it can be 3 or more times the price if i recall. I doubt that if Kodak supplied it on special order it would be economical at all. i have some Whole Plate format film that kodak made a special run of; i forget just now off the top of my head how much money it was, but it took quite a large deposit and quota from all the Whole Plate users to collectively give to kodak before they would make the sheet film available to us, even then they were only going to box it in boxes meant for 8x10 sheet film, if it wasnt for the fact that we objected to this because of the need to save space storing in freezer thats all we would of got, as it turned out with twisting their arm that made boxes the correct size.

given the difficulty in getting them to supplied cardboard boxes in a size different to what they have standard. i cant imagine being able to get them to supply roll film on different spools!-without LOTS of money waved at them. I would suspect Ilford would have the same problem with their annual run of special order film, though if someone would supply them with the spools and if enough people ordered it then it may well be possible, not sure how cheap it would be though
 
Last edited:
bmattock said:
What you want is a Rollex 20 folding camera. It was a piece of junk from US Camera Company, but it had two very important features. First, it had knobs on both ends - you can turn the film in either direction. Most folding cameras had a knob on only one side - since you don't rewind roll film. Second, you can load 120 or 620 film in it - this camera will digest either one with no mods.

Put your 120 in one side, and roll it onto a 120 reel. Of course, you don't take any photos, you just wind.

Then, open the back and put a 620 reel where the 120 fresh roll was before. Close the back and rewind the film by rolling the other way.

You now have a roll of 120 on a 620 reel. Take your photos with your 620 camera......

............ Better to reload 120 onto 620 spools, I think.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
Click to expand...

Its not quite as easy as that though is it Bill?...how do you deal with the rewinding the film back on? winding on the loose end, and not having it exposed to light? then the other end not bunching up where it is glued together

I've tried it that way (once was enough for me!) and found it to be a real PITA, the other end of the film is not taped/glued on so it needs to fed on by hand to the new spool (with the back open which defeats the purpose of using the foldex) and when you have rewound and get near the other end (beginning of film) where the film is glued on to the backing paper, it bunches up a small amount and needs to unglued and repositioned a little bit so it is flat.

i found it easier to just do it without the foldex, by hand respooling onto the reel in the darkroom, changing bag would work as well; just unspool the 120, let it curl up in your hand, find the end (better to hold on to it as you unspool), thread backing paper onto new 620 spool, start spooling backing on, careful not to touch the film too much when you get to the start of where the loose film is, keep spooling on neatly, when it gets to the end (the actual beginning of the roll) where it is glued, slip your finger in-between to detach and press together again so film is flat on backing paper(no bulge or bump in film), just keep a little bit of tape handy incase it doesnt re-glue itself easily, finish spooling backing paper on, put a rubber band around it, done
 
Scarpia said:
The reason for 620 was to be able to make folders thinner and therefore more pocketable into those big coat pockets men's coats had back in the '20's and '30's. I believe that with the dissapearance of MF folders and the fact that the skinny spools caused the film to curl more than 120, it was decided to phase 620 out.
Kurt M.
Click to expand...

there is no real difference in size between a 620 folding camera and 120 folding camera Kurt, often it is only the moulding of the film chamber that is a fraction smaller (mere couple of mm's), the outer dimensions were the same. ;)
whilst no doubt kodak made money from selling its cameras, selling the film and having it processed was where the real money was for Kodak. Kodak often produced cameras and sold cameras for more than competitive prices to the masses, that took a new format/film delivery (many examples over the years-starting way back at the beginning up till APS and disk etc). the aim was always to get people locked into buying their film....now with digital people are paying up front when they buy their camera instead:p
 
Kodak had a lot of idiotic ideas when it came to film formats, and this certainly was one of them. Kodak has been big on creating new film formats and then abandoning them (and their users).

After Kodak introduced 620, it continued to make 120 film but stopped making 120 cameras entirely, as far as I can tell. Kodak made only one 120 camera after that, and it was made by Kodak's U.K. operation -- the Kodak 66.
 
TheIndifelDog

TheIndifelDog

yeah, I think you got the best idea, just go in the darkroom and do it yourself. I just thought to myself, that this film that is the same size as being spooled, why can't they just switch spools since it is same film. I don't know that they would have to use larger boxes, or packaging. But its just a thought. I appreciate all the feedback, I really enjoy vintage cameras, most all of my family history is recorded on an old Kodak of some sort, everything from Holidays to Birthdays, and Vacations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom