Historically, why 120/220 is referred to Medium format?

I checked the film dimension.

Physically,

120 type= 6cm(wide) x 72cm (length).

220 type = 6cm (wide) x 144 cm (length)

 

How they obtain the name 120 and 220 respectively? Help me plz.

Thank you

The answer to the question in your header is simple: 135 (35mm, or 24×36mm) was the small format (compact cameras, from the Ur-Leica), and the bigger cameras were large format.

 

As to the origin of the names of 120 film (defined by the Kodak Brownie nº 2) and 220 (a derivative), both standardised in the ISO 732 standard, it will take deeper research.

I believe it was just ordinal. There were other sizes that preceded it - not sure if there was literally a 119, but you had 110, etc, and eventually you had 120, which worked well as a format. I think that's how it was.

I had wondered the same thing. In fact, when I was first researching medium format, I figured that it MUST mean a 120mm

frame, right? Anyway, I found this article on Wiki.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_formats

 

BTW, Allan, yes there was a 119; a 4¼" × 3¼" (approx 108mm x 82mm).

Well, just a guess, but logically 220 is (2x1)20, i.e. twice the length of (1)20. But where 120 comes from ... ?

Good ole sometimes right Wikipedia, not the ultimate in accuracy, has this ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format ... looks like it was just a numeric series in the naming process. Film was around when I was born LOL. Jim M.

kodak just arbitrarily gave different films numbers.

exanple 135 (35mm) is a larger number but a smaller film than 120.

828 must be huge- but it 35mm in roll film format..

126 film is 35mm wide and very close in dimension to 828, .

122 seems to be a logical number because it yields postcard sized negatives and it larger than 120.

 

actually the numbering system makes little sense. Agfa and Ansco used other numbers to decribe 120 film.,

 

I think Kodak MAY have reuses some numbers after many years.

 

early on the metric system was ignored in america. so the numbers bear little relationship to the size of the film.

 

My teeth grate when I hear 120 film referred to as 120mm.

that would be a pretty large camera. The film would be close to 5 inches wide.

It would require a wide neck strap and a strong neck.

The way I see this terminology:

 

120 = 12 exposures 6x6 size

 

220= 2 times the 120 or 24 6x6 size exposures.

Re the ``Film Numbering`` (which has survived):

 

It is kinda ordinal; chronological; and kinda arbitrary, but it does have some sense to it.

 

I align my answer mostly with Walter Degroot: especially in regard to the metric system and its initial non

acceptance in the USA. That had many other consequences, not only in Film numbering but also Film`s speed

rating; F-stop numbering; other lens specs; also Filter Numbering many other issues with cine, and later Television.

 

Remember these films and sizes developed, (and in different countries) so like any development over time, they

could not easily RE number what preceded to make it all nice, and they could not look easily into the future to give

nice numbers to what they had, with a view to the future.

 

And there were many more film descriptions which did not survive.

 

I understand that 120 / 220 numbering is simply that 220 has twice the capacity. Remember that 120 and 220 not

only run in 6x6 but also: 645; 6x7; 6x9; and many panoramic cameras.

 

***

 

Re the ``Medium Format``:

 

Historically cameras / films were defined. In earlier years, everything was more defined and technical terms were

quite prescriptive and their meaning was part of the courses studied: Photography WAS, primarily a technical course.

 

Commonly, and generally this is a condensed overview of Cameras and Films Sizes (proper nouns and acronyms

with a Capital Letter, are key words for further research:

 

Large Format: e.g. 10 x 8, 5x7, 5 x 4, (Cut Sheet Film - with notch codes used in mainly View Cameras and Field

Cameras).

 

Medium Format e.g.120 / 220 (Roll Film - used with 6x6, 6x7 6x9 - SLR, Rangefinder, TLR and some panoramic

cameras, later 645 SLR)

 

Miniature Format: e.g. 135 (mainly Sprocket Film used with 35mm SLR and Rangefinders)

 

Sub-miniature Format e.g. 110: (e.g. the first ``pocket cameras``)

 

***

 

What I think confuses the issue for many who have not used film, or have only used 135 format film, is the now

common reference to ``FULL FRAME``, when comparing the 5D to the 400D for example.

 

This reference certainly creates the impression, in many newcomers I have spoken to, that 135 format is the

BIGGEST, which obviously it isn`t: not even for Digital.

 

***

 

RE wiki accuracy:

 

Read my answer in conjunction with the list of film (and camera) sizes on the page linked above, which seems

accurate for all the films I recall and the ones I cross referenced.

 

My Specific REF were: Kodak Profesional Film Guiide (1990); Kodak Porfessional Darkroom Guide (1985); Ilford

Manual of Photography (1985)

 

 

WW

120 was a kids; ie childrens format once for toy cameras; the spools were originally wooden a century ago..Folks contact printed. Adults used the larger 116/616 or even larger roll film.

"Medium format" is a NEWer term for the childrens ;ie learner little kids format; one that tended to be used in the last say 3 to 4 decades. In the 1950's folks called 120 or 620 often box camera film; brownie film etc.

> In the 1950's folks called 120 or 620 often box camera film; brownie film etc.<

 

Hmm, yes. . . absolutely: that (and your other) comments triggered old and forgotten nerves.

 

:)

 

I got my first camera in 1959. It was a box brownie and it took 620 film.

 

My Mother`s camera, which I was NOT allowed to touch, took 120 film. She had a Voigtlander 6 x 9 folding camera, and latter as I understood, it had a VERY fast lens, around F3.5 or F4.

 

But what is interesting is that although the film was the same for the two cameras, the ``620`` for the Brownie, was considered inferior, whereas the 120 for the Voigtlander was ``real film``.

 

***

 

All of the surviving images, from both these cameras are simple contact prints.

 

WW

Hi William,

 

So here is my question for the thread :-). Why are large format classes in inches and medium format in cm? No Devils Advocate here just something I have often noticed but never thought about.

Take care, Scott.

> ``No Devils Advocate`` < :)

 

Hi Scott, no need to say that . :)

 

***

 

That`s a really good question, I do not know.

 

I`ll make a guess:

 

Plates (all around the world) originally were in inches, and those (I think) have an history in Imperial Paper Measure. (I am open to and interested in, any sourced and referenced commet on this)

 

But when the roll film became more common, there were big players in Europe, where the metric system was used. As Walter mentioned, America was slow to come on board with the metric system, but had essentially done so, when roll film was being used expensively. And by that time America was a big world player in the industry.

 

I think, once any term is used enough it sticks, so we have 6x6 and 6x7 and 6x9: but 5x7 and 10x8 . . . and these labels have just stuck.

 

Frankly, I still refer to all print sizes in imperial measure, (5x7; 6x4; 10x8; 11x14; 16x20; 20x24 30x40 etc), though we are supposedly metric, here.

 

Nice to talk, regards

 

Bill

Personally, I think it's a linguist's notion of recursive humor.

 

"Medium format *is*, because it *became* ... after having been supplanted by miniature format as the former small format, and now is the intermediate step between large format and ... everything else."

 

The aspect ratios, which are a separate issue from the actual dimensions, are related to classical standards for aesthetics derived from observations of the natural world, which were codified through geometry. See: Golden Mean; Fibonacci Numbers; etc.

 

Years ago I heard the square format for 120 commonly referred to as 2-1/4" by 2-1/4". Perhaps it was just easier to write 6x6cm, tho' even that isn't precisely accurate (I forget the precise dimensions).

When young and contact printing, I bought a 2 1/2" x 3 1/2" which used 620. The image size would be close to 6x9 cm.

 

For what ever reason, I suspect it was an attempt to co-op the 120 film trade, Kodak made the dimensionally equivalent film 620 and made Kodak cameras to accept 620 film, I do not buy the idea that the smaller spool made for a more compact camera. Kodak made a lot of 620 cameras and sold a lot of 620 film. I have several early 20th century Box Kodak cameras that take 120 film.

 

I recall 119, and the autographic films, and I printed old family negatives which were very large, perhaps 616 size from large folding cameras?

 

As I recall, during my youth, 135 was considered Miniature film, and everything else was roll film, or sheet or plate film. People would still refer to sheet film as shooting plates, the holders were often converted from glass plate holders. Some cameras today, such as 5x7, will accept a plate size, metric film- 13x18cm, or 5x7 inch film or plates depending on the holder you put in to them.

 

I am guessing most film sold when I was a kid was roll film, probably 127 and 620, in the US, along with No. 5 or 25 flash bulbs, which were the same size, and Verichrome or Kodacolor, unless you had a "slide camera". People asked if your camera would shoot slides-- meaning 35mm.

 

Press cameras were Graflexes, and Leicas were fairly exotic and expensive, SLR's and were just developing, but were expensive by community standards. I may have seen one SLR, my Pentax H1a, by the time I was finishing High School, and the school had 4000 students.

 

People thought Hasselblads were Swedish Cars, at that price they had to be. I probably had the only Rolleiflex in the school. There were a few "slide" cameras, Argus, and Kodak Signets. I worked at a Camera store, and watched the shift to SLR's with the Pentaxes, and for the rich, Nikons and Leicas.

 

I know also from some old cameras with stickers recommending you use their film, that there were other number designations for roll films from other suppliers.

 

In more modern times, with more serious roll film cameras and international markets, 120 film was used for many formats, and these format cameras were essentially not made in the US, so certainly there was little reason to use both inches and cm in their common description.

 

As far as the actual dimensions of the image size, relative to film size, what we say is a 6x6, or 2 1/4" square as an example, -- I am not too sure of the precise size, but as long as it fits the camera and the film holders, it is convenient designation.

 

When I got my Rollei in the 60's, everyone here called it a 2 1/4 square, but with all the formats derrived in Europe and Japan from the same film, eventually everyone started using metric sizes to describe them.

 

As to the OP question, I do not recall when people just started calling anything from 120 - Medium Format, I hear younger people calling it Large Format as I am guessing 99.9 % of film today is probably going to be 35mm or 120.

 

220 being much later was clearly derrived from 120. I was very happy to have 24 exposures to shoot a wedding, first I shot was with 4x5, and I had to go home to change film, and I changed a few 120 rolls on the move with the Rollei. I looked at my M8 with a 16gb card, and it is still reading 999. ;-)

 

I, for one, would read a book about the history of film size names, am not sure millions of others would ;-). I expect to find only limited logic in any of the names. Time may be running out to find their origins.

 

I suspect Medium Format as a term will be defined in terms of its current usage. Is 6x17 Large Format?

 

Sorry, guess this is a "large format" post to actually what to me is an interesting topic.

 

Regards, John