Developing 220 Film

[PATB]

I just discovered that Kodak 320 is available in 220. Since my Mamiya 7II takes 220, I want to try experimenting with this film to get twice as many shots per roll. Some questions:


1) Can I develop 220 using the same tank I use for 120? I currently use Hewes 120 reels and a stainless tank. I also have a Patterson system 4 tank and reels.

2) Does developing 220 use the same amount of chemicals as 120?

Thanks much for any information.

 

[ItsReallyDarren]

I believe for 220 you need either stainless steel MF reels that can take 220 length . You can tell the difference between 120 and 220, the 220 has more spirals. Patterson plastic reels I believe can take 220 film.

Since 220 is twice the length of 120 it needs twice the minimum amount of chemicals to develop properly. For example, Kodak recommends a minimum of 100ml of Xtol to develop a 120 roll/36exp roll. For 220 it would recomment 200ml.

 

[sepiareverb]

Double the minimum amt of stock solution required for a 135 roll or an 810 sheet. Loading 220 on metal reels is a real pain in the a$$- I've never managed to do it without immense frustration. The Paterson reels will take 220, but I've not tried it.

 

[David Goldfarb]

Get Hewes 220 reels. I use them even for 120, because they load so easily. They fit in a regular tank. The wire is the same gauge as the wire on a 35mm reel.

There are older Nikor tanks around with big reels that use wire the same gauge as a 120 reel, if you don't care for the small 220 reels.

Normally you need 500ml of developer to cover a medium format reel, and most developers have enough capacity to handle 120 or 220 at the same development time. If you use a very dilute developer like PMK or Rodinal 1:100, you may need more solution, or you might want to replace the developer halfway through the development time.

 

[PATB]

Thanks for the info.

Regarding the amount of chemicals, how can I use more compared to 120 when the size of the tank is fixed? Does this mean I need to get a bigger tank?

I am beginning to think I should stick with 120, LOL!

 

[David Goldfarb]

Regarding the amount of chemicals, how can I use more compared to 120 when the size of the tank is fixed? Does this mean I need to get a bigger tank?

For a single reel tank, you could double the concentration of developer (which will change your development time, of course), or change developer halfway through the development time. For a larger tank you would use one empty reel for every loaded reel, but you would only have to do this, if you were using a very dilute developer that might not have the capacity to develop the equivalent of 2 rolls of 35mm/36 exp. in 16 oz/500 ml of working solution.

 

[vdonovan]

It's true that loading 220 onto reels is a royal pain. Borrow a 220 reel somewhere and try it first to see if you have the temperament.

I actually prefer 12 exposure 120 for general photography, because I can more easily match development time to light conditions. I love the longer 220 rolls for group portrait sessions, where I can have a line of 30 people waiting. It means I don't have to reload as often, but also that I sometimes lose a frame or two in development because I screwed up loading onto the reel.

In tanks holding 2-4 reels, using XTOL 1-1, I find no differences in development.

 

[PATB]

Thanks for the info everyone.

 

[oftheherd]

I'm sure some of the people here have more experience than I, since I haven't developed that many 220. However, my experience was that I didn't need more developer. I would try some test rolls and see. It may depend on you choice of chemical, exposure, and how you adgitate you film.

 

[ruben]

Thanks for the info.

Regarding the amount of chemicals, how can I use more compared to 120 when the size of the tank is fixed? Does this mean I need to get a bigger tank?

This question reveals that you use a single-time developer, or use and throw.

But had you been using a reusable developer, like Tmax developer, with which you gradually increase the developing time according to the number of films you have already processed, then all your trouble would be reduced to count a 220 film as 2 standard films.

Neverrtheless, it would not harm is you stop processing single films in small tanks for single films, and start processing single films in tanks dedicated to three fillms, like those that Patterson manufactures.

This type of tanks will be more suitable in many senses, including using re-usable developers.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[ed1k]

I use patterson reels to load two 120 films, I stick them to make a-la 220 re-using the tape the film is glued to paper cover. I am pretty sure patterson reels will take 220 film with no problem. I develop using matched tank but it is not the patterson tank, just it is big enough to take one patterson reel, volume is around 460ml.
Unless you use some extreme diluted developers, like Rodinal 1+100, you're good with the same amount of chemicals that you normally use for 120 film. It's absolutely similar boil you one egg or two - developer should cover all film surface, that's it.
I wish we had Kodak in 220 format here, I mean cheaper than two 120 rolls.

Cheers,
Ed

 

[leicavidom]

some thoughts on 220 processing

some thoughts on 220 processing

I have been catching up with a back log of misc. films recently inc. about 7
220 TXP. Using regular paterson reels,I run a hot hairdryer over the reels
for a minute or so making sure the the ball bearings are moving freely in the process. I do find 220 roll film has a tendency to "curl inwards".More so than regular 120 film,so before attempting to load my reels,I snick the corners of the film off and this helps a lot.
Fumbling around in a changing bag,this could spell disaster,but I find by touching the corners of the film with the last digit of my forefinger and then
using a pair of straight nail scissors I cut as close as I can to the skin to achieve the desired "snick" I have not drawn blood yet and the film slips on to my reels really easily.
All the best from a blustery North East England.