Who is using 220 film?

DKimg said:
...

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... :)
Click to expand...

This is why A24 backs and 220 film were preferred by wedding photographers at the reception, etc.

I just have several A12 backs loaded before I start a session, if I'm going to shoot more than 12 exposures. It only takes a second to slide in the dark slide, pop the back off, pop another on, and pull the dark slide. I find it's a time I can put to use by making eye contact with the subject away from the camera and talking with them, letting them relax for a second.

Loading film into the backs, yes, takes some moments and your concentration. It can definitely break your concentration if you're working with a model or a sitter, in particular.

Handling the longer film load in the darkroom after the session is another, greater pain with 220 than 120 due to the additional film strip length, particularly with loading reels or when using dip and dunk machinery. The 120 film length is conveniently short for easy handling. :)
 
Thanks all for the clarification regarding 120 in 220 back -- and vice versa. I had heard of it being done, but rumors are rumors and should be treated as such.


I like the length of 120 in the darkroom. Any longer would be unwieldy. I need to double check that film in the freezer -- I'm hoping its not 220 now.
 
Late to the party. I shoot 220 film and have several cameras for it. There's a decent stock in the freezer but I'm always on the lookout for more.
It's easier to travel with and I like rare emulsions, even expired stuff...
 
I just picked a big lot of old velvia 50 in 220. tested a roll and it came out fine. I really wish 220 was available, I would shoot it a lot as its easier when hiking up at yosemite or lake tahoe as you need to only take half as many rolls with you to get the same number of shots
 
I think I've got some HP5 220...... but no more 220 cameras.
 
Years ago I was shooting weddings, and switched from Mamiya TLR to Hasselblad. My C33 had the 220 back, and the C330, C330F and C330S took 220. I still have six Hassy A24 backs, and some 220 left in my deep freeze. HP5+, 320 TXP, Plus-X, and a lot of Fuji NHG and NPH. I do eventually plan to shoot it up.

I used 220 in the church and switched to 120 at the reception. Never any problems.
 
I hate 220. I tried it years ago in my Rolleiflex 3.5F. Trying to put 10~12 feet of film on a 220 reel way beyond my ability. Even tried it with the lights on. Solution was to buy a 2.8F (also 12/24) and shoot two 120 rolls :)
 
My Fuji 690III and Mamiya 645 Pro TL love 220 film.
With the Fuji it's nice to be able to get 16 shots per roll.
 
Beemermark said:
I hate 220. I tried it years ago in my Rolleiflex 3.5F. Trying to put 10~12 feet of film on a 220 reel way beyond my ability. Even tried it with the lights on. Solution was to buy a 2.8F (also 12/24) and shoot two 120 rolls :)
Click to expand...

putting 220 on a reel when it is humid is the bane of my existence. Many a time I thought I was going to just throw it away and give up.
 
I have stainless reels and tanks in a larger diameter than those for 35 & 120, so the reels have larger guage wire and wider spacing in the coil, making it a lot easier to load. I really like 220 and have preferred it in all my cameras capable of handling it. Still have some in the 'fridge... :)
 
J enea said:
I just picked a big lot of old velvia 50 in 220. tested a roll and it came out fine. I really wish 220 was available, I would shoot it a lot as its easier when hiking up at yosemite or lake tahoe as you need to only take half as many rolls with you to get the same number of shots
Click to expand...
Huss said:
My Fuji 690III and Mamiya 645 Pro TL love 220 film.
With the Fuji it's nice to be able to get 16 shots per roll.
Click to expand...
+1 on both. Got a Fuji 6x9 as well, and bought a propack of 160NS 220 from Japan which lingers in my freezer awaiting a trip. A versatile film like Portra 400 on 220 IMO would be a boon in these situation, 8 to 16 exposures is quite a bit.

I can see the woes it may give developing (B&W specially), however.

Would be fantastic if there was even just a biannual run of 220. Fuji offered this format in quite limited availability and a very nice price. I recall Portra in 220 years ago and it was quite a bit more than the price of 2x120.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom