Who is using 220 film?

raid

raid

Dad Photographer
Local time
5:27 AM
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
36,567
My 220 back for the SWC may have a light leak. Is it worth it to buy another one, considering there is no new 220 film on the market?
 
I purchased 4 boxes of Velvia 100 in 220 recently. I have a lot of Fujifilm Pro 400h in 220 as well. I'll use either a RB67 or Fuji GSW680III--the only two cameras I have that'll take 220.

Do you know where about the light leak is? Light seal kits are reasonably cheap and seem easy to install.
 
I have two rolls of Kodak Portra 160 in 220. I shot one roll last week in my Yashica 124G and will probably shoot the other roll in the weeks to come. I didn’t know that Velvia was available in 220. That is tempting. Other than that, since nothing else is available fresh, my 220 days may be over.

Jim B.
 
i've got quite a few frozen pro-packs of 220 konica and fujifilm. i plan on shooting them through my 500cm.
 
I use it occasionally, when I'm out visiting old buildings and pioneer houses in Australia or meandering in our beautiful botanical gardens - but only because I have 15-20 rolls of 220 E6 languishing in my film fridge at home. No other reason. I see no use for it and I won't buy it again.

It was more useful to me when I had a Fuji GA645wi (now sold) which could be easily converted 120-220 by sliding the pressure plate. Last year I lucked into a Rolleiflex 2.8F, a deceased estate sale find - the late first owner had the camera converted to 220 (a 12/24 switch on the side to reset the counter) - I've wondered why as he was definitely an amateur (a rich dentist who liked good gear) and apparently only used the camera for travel snaps during a handful of overseas trips. It was so little used when I bought it, I had to pay 50% more than the purchase price to get it CA'd and working again...

I used more 220 when I shot 645 format- with 6x6, 12 (or 24) on a roll gives me superb results but as much as I like Rollei negs or slides, 120 film is now too expensive here in Australia for me to do more than use up what stocks I've left in my chiller. When that film is gone, well... well, I'll decide then whether to sell the camera or not.

I've always viewed 220 as an oddity manufactured more for film era shooters who needed long rolls (wedding, industrial, news) and not really suitable for the casual shooter.

A gentleman in Melbourne who sells film OL still carries a small stock of 220 - last time I looked in 2017 he had three brands on offer, two Fuji E6 and, I think, a Kodak or Fuji C41. Not sure about now, or even if these films are still being produced in the 220 format.

My thoughts - perhaps it would have sufficed for me to say, when I'm out of what I have of 220 at home, I'll not buy it again.
 
When I've had a light leak I have sent the back to David Odess. Not cheap, but it may make more sense than buying another one (unless you need two).
 
I don't know if it is light leak from the A24 back or whether the old film over time has a leak.
 
Mackinaw said:
I have two rolls of Kodak Portra 160 in 220. I shot one roll last week in my Yashica 124G and will probably shoot the other roll in the weeks to come. I didn’t know that Velvia was available in 220. That is tempting. Other than that, since nothing else is available fresh, my 220 days may be over.

Jim B.
Click to expand...

220 Velvia is available only in Japan. A guy over on photrio will make the purchase for you. The price is way lower than buying from eBay. Expiration is 2020.
 
raid said:
My 220 back for the SWC may have a light leak. Is it worth it to buy another one, considering there is no new 220 film on the market?
Click to expand...

If the A24 back has a light leak, I'd have it repaired (or repair it myself).

I wouldn't buy another A24 back unless I knew I had a good source of 220 film that I wanted to use. I stick with A12 backs since I know 120 film is widely available.

G
 
I have plenty of 120 film and some 220 film (outdated).
I will inspect again the images from the last couple of 220 film rolls.
 
raid said:
Why do you favor 220 film so much to get 100 rolls?
Click to expand...

There was a seller on eBay who had a 150 rolls of expired Tri-X 320 film and being one of my favorite films, I just bought everything he had. Ended up that 100 of those rolls were 220.

Most of the work I do is portraiture so I find it easier to retain the subjects attention when I'm not fiddling around changing film. Not in the position to pay for an assistant to resolve that issue so I just keep it simple as having 220 film. Was seeing if I can find a solution of using 70mm film, and develop that at home, but haven't gone that far...

That's probably the only thing I can see benefiting of using 220 film... :)
 
I think I have a pro-pack of Portra in 220, but not sure I have a camera to put it in. Maybe one of the TLRs...


OK, so now a stupid question: Is it not possible to use 120 film in the A24 back? Or, is it 220 only? I'm quite Hasselblad ignorant :eek:
 
rfaspen said:
I think I have a pro-pack of Portra in 220, but not sure I have a camera to put it in. Maybe one of the TLRs...


OK, so now a stupid question: Is it not possible to use 120 film in the A24 back? Or, is it 220 only? I'm quite Hasselblad ignorant :eek:
Click to expand...

You can, but the spacing between each frame is wider. I believe you can still fit 12 frames but you have to place the "start" arrow just before or after the marker. I forgot which one it was. If not, you'll get 11 frames or 11.5..
 
rfaspen said:
I think I have a pro-pack of Portra in 220, but not sure I have a camera to put it in. Maybe one of the TLRs...


OK, so now a stupid question: Is it not possible to use 120 film in the A24 back? Or, is it 220 only? I'm quite Hasselblad ignorant :eek:
Click to expand...

The difference between 120 and 220, aside from the fact that the film is twice as long in 220 rolls, is that 120 film has paper backing the entire length of the roll plus leader and footer lengths, where 220 film has two lengths of paper backing: one that runs to the head of the film as leader and another than attaches to the end of the film as footer.

What this means is that the pressure plate and film rails in the two backs are different. The thickness from the rails to the pressure plate in a 220 back is thinner than that dimension in the 120 back. So 120 film loaded into a 220 back can bind and be scratched, where 220 film fitted in a 120 back can be fogged by light leakage, not advance correctly (due to the thinner film-only dimension), and not be as sharp (because the film can move in the space between the film rails and the pressure plate too much), and of course the 120 back will stop spacing and cocking the shutter at 12 exposures rather than 24.

(Note that the frame spacing problem mentioned with 120 film in a 220 back is again due to the different thickness of the film plus paper interacting with the geared drive of the back's counter mechanism incorrectly.)

I'm sure some folks have loaded 120 into their A24 backs and will say, "But it worked fine for me!" Perhaps it did, but I wouldn't count on it.

G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom