120 vs, 220

Simple question, what is the difference between 120 and 220..is it only the

numer of pictures each roll will allow you to take?

Yes.

 

Background:

120 has a paper backing with the frame number on it, so you can see what frame you're on through the little ruby window on older cameras.

 

But that paper takes up space....

 

So 220 only has the paper at the start and finish of the film, and in that way is able to have twice as much film length in a single roll. 220 film is used on cameras that advance the film correctly without the ruby window.

 

That answer it?

 

Personally, I wish one or more of my MF cameras could use both. I'd love to be able to use whichever MF film was on sale.

220 film has better flatness in the camera due to the lack of the paper (according to Zeiss). Together with the fact that you can take twice as many pictures until you have to change film, I would say that 220 film is definitely to be preferred, if you have the choice.

If I had a camera with removable backs, I'd prefer 220, but because I like to change films a lot, even 12 frames is too much for me with a TLR.

During a day I find a whole bunch of situation where I want to use a specific film. Sometimes, when shooting outside, stuff like nature, I see this sight, and I just have a specific idea what film I want to use it because it just feels a lot like that film, and then I still have half a roll inside, so I have to skip it and shoot something else then go back to that when I finish the roll, then put the new film inside, shoot a couple of frames, and again I'm stuck with that film inside for a couple of more shots.

 

With 35mm it's no problem, because I tend to shoot with more freedom and I spend 36 frames in a second, but with MF i won't shoot unless I think it's perfect, and I want every frame to be something I will use and something unique (otherwise I don't even bother with MF).

 

With 35mm, it's just a roll of film for me, but the large frames of 120 feel like a gallery to me, and I hate wasting them, they just have to feel like a gallery when I look at the developed film, I'd rather have a blank frame then one that I won't use. I know it's crazy.

I'd be even crazier if I used 4x5

If there was a film format that alowed, say, 6 frames for 6x6, I'd use that instead of 120.

Or even better if they made 6x6 in little sheets, that would be best for me.

My Rollei TLR takes both...120...220. It has a pressure plate that does a fine job of adjusting for film thickness. Though the 220 choices are fewer lately.

I forgot to, I remember that there were some 6 exposure 120 rolls made for police work. I think I saw some available as closeouts at Freestyle a few years back.

I've been using more 220 lately: I've got two 220 Hassie backs & one 120 back. I use a lot of Kodak Portra 400 (both NC and VC) -- still available in both sizes.

12 frames are to much for me too. I expose every scene twice. In this way I have 6 frames

and a spare for each frame, in case I scratch one.;)

 

Rudy

I love the longer film length, but even after 100's of rolls through my Mamiya 7II I still have trouble with fogging the edges of 220 film.

 

I tend to shoot mostly 120 just to avoid loosing images due to such fogging.

<i>220 film has better flatness in the camera due to the lack of the paper (according to Zeiss).</i> ... promoting their Zeiss/Contax vacuum back, which thing would not work with paper backed 120 film ...<br><br>Using both 120 and 220 film in one camera/back is not so much a matter of adjusting pressure plates for film thickness in the film gate, but of adjusting the transport and spacing mechanism.

The paper backing on 120 also has frame numbers for cameras that have a window on the back to view which frame you're on. Also, the paper keep the window from fogging the film.

 

Bummer that 220 has a poorer film selection then 120 also.

220 film can scratch more easily than 120 because the film is exposed to the camera mechanics from both sides. Availability of 220 film is not good outside USA.