120 vs. 220 film

Say there. I recently bought a new RZ67 ProII, with two 220 backs. I got the 220s because i'm used to 35mm and didn't want the hassle of frequent reloadings (i shoot fashion). But, another photographer/assistant (12 years experience) told me that 220 film emulsion is thinner than 120. I thought that it was just the length of the stock that was wound around the spool that was different. I hadn't made any comparisons, just an assumption. I e-mailed Mamiya, Kodak, and Agfa with this question, and was told by Mamiya that the difference is that 120 film has a paper backing. So. I'm lost. If there is a difference in emulsions, it stands to reason that one would be superiour to the other. If not, then i'm okay, except that i'll have to get a 120 insert just to be able to use Scala in medium format. Mamiya also said that there is a difference in film plate pressure between the two, so he'd advise using 120 film in a 220 back only in the event of an emergency.

What's the real deal here? Thank you for your consideration.

220 film is slighter thinner and only has backing paper at the ends. There also may be a difference with how the film is treated in processing depending on the lab. Some labs are setup primarily to handle 120 and take a shortcut or two in handling 220. For example, the lab may be setup to hang 120 strips in the processor. For 220, they may fold the strip over a hanger which has the potential to produce some uneven development over the middle frames. Check with you lab on this if you detect a problem.

 

<p>

 

A good friend of mine never shoos 220. His rationale is that if you or the lab botches a roll, it is better to lose 10 or 12 exposures rather than 20 or 24. I've lost a few rolls of 120 to lab errors and was glad that the rolls weren't 220. I still, however, shoot 220 on occasion because of the convenience and have not had a problem.

Perhaps I am the only one who has experienced this problem, but I have had fogging near the edges of almost every 220 roll of film that I have used. Using the same camera equipment (mamiya c330) I had never had that problem with 120 film. This suggests to me that unless you load and unload your camera in the dark or a changing bag, there is less protection from light from the shorter paper strip of the 220 rolls.

Here is the physical difference between 120 & 200: 120 and 220 have exactly the same base (the clear "film") and exactly the same emulsion (the photosensitive gelatin coating). The difference is in the backing paper. With 220, it is attached to the ends, but the film itself has no backing behind it. With 120, a single piece of paper backs the whole roll. This is what makes 220 thinner, not the film. This is also why the pressure plate settings must be different, you have to squeeze 220 just a little harder because it's just film, not film and paper. Here are some drawbacks you may wish to consider: 1. 220 is more prone to fog, because there is less black paper to seal the light leaks. 2. The choice of films available in 220 is much more limited than 120. 3. I wouldn't worry too much about 220 being hard for a lab to process, it's about the same length as 35mm 36-exposure film. 4. if you shoot 2 film sizes in the same camera you WILL occasionally put the wrong film in the wrong back, or set your pressure plate wrong. This is the reason I don't use 220.

I agree with Henry that the only physical differences between 120 and 220 film is the paper backing and length. The convenience of 220 with Velvia is irresistable for me (30 exposures of 6x4.5cm). If you switch films frequently, from B&W to slides etc., with only one back, the shorter 120 rolls may be a better choice. 220 is more prone to fog, but rarely is this a problem in practice. Larry.

I have been shooting both 120 & 220 in my Minolta Autocord since 1965. Switching from one to the other size is just switching the back plate. One rule I observe especially with 220 is to carry small sheets of aluminum wrap, change in the shade out of the sun and immediately wrap the exposed roll in foil. This has never failed since I will not let the labs remove th foil until they are in the dark.

Recently I bought the Hassy 501c outfit. Still change in the shade and wrap the film. Still no problems. Love that Pro 400 vs the old VPS100.

Another factor to consider is that if you plan to travel overseas with your MF equipment,

220 is not readily available in many countries. In Japan, if you have a 220 back, you're

really out of luck. 120 is available at any camera shop or dept. store, but even the largest

camera chain store in the nation has been out of Fuji velvia 220 for more than three weeks

earlier this year, and this is their largest store in Tokyo! I also hear that 220 is

difficult to find in the U.K. (anyone have comments on this?).

In answer to the last posting on the availability of 220 film in the UK, there's plenty of it in the two places I get film from, namely Oxford and London.

Getting ready to go to MF w/ a Pentax 645 . Had many questions

about 120 vs.220 . Your web site answered them all!

Thanks so very much,

Mike Lewis

With reference to this debate, there is also the issue of which

camera you use. I use a Pentax 67 camera which I bought new about two

years ago, using it and an earlier Pentax 6 x & version, both of them

have proved to be useless when loaded with 220 film.

 

<p>

 

I don't know what the problem is, but even when my Pentax 67 was

brand new it struggled to wind on the film tightly enough on to the

roll, which resulted in a lot of frames being fogged. It was also a

lot harder to wind on and it felt like the camera was really

struggling to cope with the larger film quantity in the roll. But, if

I use it with 120 roll film it works perfectly all the time. The

older Pentax 6 x 7 did exactly the same thing.

 

<p>

 

So, although on the face of it you might think that 220 roll film is

more convenient, that would only be the case if your camera could

cope with it. Probably, a seperate back is a better option, the

Pentax just has a sliding pressure plate which is supposed to adjust

the camera to switch from one format to the other.

Allan:

 

<p>

 

I have a P6x7, and I have had no problems with 220 with the exception

of my own ineptness when I first purchased the camera. The problem

with 220 stemmed from not properly inserting the leader into the take-

up spool. I found that if I put too much leader into the slot, the

roll would be loose. Since I have modified my loading technique, I

have never had a problem.

 

<p>

 

My P645 also has no problem with 220. 220 on either camera sometimes

has fogged edges, but that's from the lack of paper backing and

unloading in direct sunlight. (something I know I'm not supposed to

do. Oh, well.)

If I could only use 120, would be real disappointing, it would seem

like I am always changing film, as it seems that way already w/220. I

also had problems loading 220 when i first got my p67, finally decided

to pre roll the film on the take up spool even before I loaded the two

spools. No problems since. Using 120 is a rarely for me, usually just

when i need Tungsten film or some other specialty film.

I use a Fuji GW690, and I can tell you that being constrained to 120

film would really be an annoyance as I would have only 8 shots/roll.

Luckily, the Fuji works fine w/ both sizes, and I have fogged more

rolls of 120 than of 220 (due to sloppiness during handling). So I

bite the bullet and use the more expensive 220, although I have to

buy it via mail order because no shop here has it on store... lately,

I'm wondering how I could fool the camera to make 17 exposures on a

roll of 220 as there seems to be enough room.

So many negative responses from the world about 220 films. I also own a Mamiya RZ67 ProII, but 2 120 film backs. Recently read from the Camera Lens News No.10 issue from the Zeiss web site an article titled "Is Rollfim 220 Better than 120 in Terms of Film Flatness?", I think you will be a bit happier to hear that "220 type rollfilm usually offers better flatness than 120 type by a factor of almost 2". But how much weight you put on it against the cons will be left to you.

 

I have checked the specs of my two most often used films, Velvia - base thickness for 120 and 220, same - 104 micrometers; while Provia 100F - base thickness for both types, same - 98 micrometers. Both data sheets have no mention about the emulsion thickness, but I can't see why they differ.

In the November 2000 issue of Popular Photography on page 22 a feature also saying that 220 offers 2 times better flatness than 120. The primary factor is the rollers which bend the film. Five minutes between exposures may be the time limit for optimum flatness. Fifteen minutes between exposures might cause the film to bend and two hours definately will. My personal experience with 220 and a Pentax 67 is that 220 is the way to go. I have had no problems using 220, use it all the time.

Kornelius Fleischer of Zeiss posted some information <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000w91&topic_id=35&topic=Medium%20Format%20Digest"> here</A> and <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000vqg&topic_id=35&topic=Medium%20Format%20Digest">here</A> regarding film flatness issues which was subsequently included in the Camera Lens News issue that was summarized (?) by Pop. As I remember it, the film unflatness problem observed at Zeiss was in film <I>magazines </I> which bend and rebend the film around rollers.<P>

 

I haven't noticed any problems with -- or any difference between -- 120 and 220 in my camera (which has a flat film path like your 67), but then -- as Dr. Fleischer observed -- this isn't much of a concern to those who, like me, generally shoot with the lens stopped down a bit.