Difference between 120 and 220?

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is the difference between 120 and

220 formats? I see that most medium format camera systems can be

provided with both, but I have never come across an explanation of

the difference. Thanks.

 

Jorgen Peter

120 has a paper backing. 220 has not. Eliminating the paper allows more film to be wound, so you get twice as many shots per roll. There are not very many films available in 220, compared to 120.

120 film will give 12 exposures in a 6x6 camera. 220 gives 24 exposures on 6x6 format. 120 film has a paper back which fits behind the film. 220 gets more exposures on the same film spool by putting on a paper leader and a paper trailer, but does not have backing paper behind the film. 220 obvously reqires less film reloading.

No really fine B&W film, such as Tmax 100 or Ilford Delta 100 comes in 220 sizes. Nearly all color film, both print and slide, comes in both 120 and 220 sizes.

Jorgen -- the difference is that a roll of 220 is twice the length of 120.<P>There is also a difference in the paper backing -- 120 has full length backing -- 220 has backing at the beginning & end of the roll, none in the middle section.<P>I should mention that usually you have to use a separate back ('blad) or insert (Pentax 645) or adjust the film pressure plate (Contax 645) when changing between the two lengths.<P>And to close -- There are unfortunately only a limited number of emulsions in 220 format. I'd like to see Delta 3200 or XP2 Super in that length.

Wow! Thank you so much.

 

Jorgen

Just a little tip. 120 and 220 are not different formats - they are film types/lengths. It's the 6x6 or 6x17 that is a format using 120/220 film and length choice. Like the man said 220 is just twice as long as 120 allowing 2 times the number of exposures. Some cameras / film backs allow both 120/220 to be used. While all Hasselblad are 120 film users there are 3 backs - one for 120 film and giving 6x4.5 images (A16 designated for 16 exposures); another for 120 giving 6x6 images (A12 designated for 12 exposures); the other using 220 film giving 6x6 images (A24 designated for 24 exposures). The A24 back can only use 220 film as too the A12 and A16 can only use 120 film. The reason being that the longer /shorter films won't fit with precision.

 

But the old Rollei TLRs had a special device fitted where a moveable plate inside the film chamber enabled the alternative use of 120 or 220 film!!

" But the old Rollei TLRs had a special device fitted where a moveable plate inside the film chamber enabled the alternative use of 120 or 220 film!! "

 

Rollei TLR allowing 220 film are pretty rare.

 

The pressure plate was designed for the use of 120 film or 135 film (24x36) with the Rolleikin.

 

Regards.

 

S.

I was curious about why it is not 120 and 240 (rather than 120 and 220). It's a bit like scoring in the game of tennis. Makes no logical sense to neophytes.

120 is the amateur "brownie format" started in 1901; that evolved later into professional usage; decades later. It started with the Brownie No2 camera in 1901; with a wooden spoo1. 1901 was the last year of the Spanish American War; Theodore Roosevelt became president in 1901; The youngest President in the USA's history...<BR><BR>The Brownie 120 ameras use a red window; which peaks at the frame numbers; printed on the paper backing.<BR><BR> 220 film was introduced in 1965; and has no paper backing; and is twice as long. These cameras cannot use the window for each frame advance; since they would fog the film. Here the camera crank and mechanism determine the frame spacing. 220 is available in a subset of 120 film types; and is used in a subset of MF cameras. It also requires a special; more spirals; bigger 220 reel for home developing. When 220 came out; the Kodapak 126 instamatic was 2 years old; and replacing 120 for the snap shot set of users. President Johnson was President in 1965; New York had a Blackout; we were in Vietnam; the BEATLES were HOT!<BR><BR> Rollei TLR with 220 were expensive 3 decades ago; and are expensive today.

VIC; The 240 number cartridge was for APS and was introduced in 1996. I believe Kodak et all just changed one digit on 120; to make it easy to remember. Ie 120 to 220.

The Yashica Mat 124 and 124G also accept both 120 and 220 film.

 

And you're right -- film size designations make no sense whatever; even 35 mm was originally designated 135 (at least by Kodak), and there was also 828 and 126 (the instant load cartridge, not the roll film format from prior to 1920) that were 35 mm wide. And although 60 mm film has different designations for different lengths (and it used to be worse, because 6x6 and 6x9 had different designations, not even to mention 620 with the same film on a different spool), 35 mm "cine film" as it was once called does not -- possibly because the same camera can handle any film length up to 36-or-so exposures without adjustment or modification, while a 120 camera typically has problems of one sort or another with 220 -- not least being that, historically, most 120 cameras are wound with a red window, which will fog 220 film, and have no way to accurately advance film without looking at the framing numbers on the backing paper, while even 120 cameras with a frame counter system typically aren't made to handle 24 frames (probably because most were made before 220 film was introduced, in the early to mid 1960s).

 

FWIW, I think the "logic" behind the 220 number is that it's "2 times 120" -- there was a certain amount of such thinking in film numbering at Kodak over the decades; 828, for instance, was 8 exposures, 28 mm frame width (by 40 mm length, which isn't mentioned). Similarly, 616 was six exposures on the same film size as 116 but a proprietary Kodak spool, and 620 was originally six 120 size exposures (6x9) on the compact spool, though by the time it saw market thinner film stock and a slight reduction of the spool core diameter allowed putting the same eight exposure length (or twelve exposures of 6x6) as 120 onto the thinner spool, meaning a more compact camera that would make the same number of pictures, the same size, as a 120 -- which was a significant selling point in the days when a 120 folder was still considered a compact camera and a 620 version could be more than a quarter inch thinner.

Thanks for the history lessons. I hope MF film lasts longer than I do!

Just one little point that was missing. the 120 film and paper backing put the film closer to the lens than does the 220 without the paper backing. This means, if you run 220 film through a camera which only has a 120 backing plate, or 120 film back, or 120 insert, then you run the risk of ALL your images being out of focus, as without the paper backing, the film moves away from the plane of focus for the camera. Sometimes, shooting at small apurtures will allow you to get the image in focus, but not always. Cameras like the Mamiya TLRs, the Yashicas, and others which have rotating film pattens, move the patten closer to the plane of focus putting the 220 film in the correct position. Similarly, if you run 120 film in a 220 back, or in the 220 position on an adjustable patten, you will apply too much pressure to the film, causing scratches and the possibility of the film not being located correctly in the film plane. Just my 2 cents! - Victor

Victor,<br><br>The pressure plate needing adjusting for either 120 or 220 film depends on the design of the camera / film back.<br>If the position of the film surface is determined by something the pressure plate is pushing the film against (rollers, the film gate edge) there is no need for different pressure plate positions at all.