shooting 220 on a fuji GW

[c4-contemporary-art]

Okay - yet ANOTHER Fuji GW question. I really appreciate the feedback I've

been getting from the forum - this is GREAT! ANYWAY, I'm JUST learning to

use my GW670III after a week of ownership. Since it's a bit of a pain to

change rolls (compared to a hassy magazine for instance) - the idea of

shooting 220 seems kind of desirable to me. NOW - can anyone tell me if

there's a downside to shooting 220 on these cameras? Thin film base? I'm

planning on shooting velvia 100 and/or NPS for aerial work - the velvia stuff

is for direct scanning use only (better gamut off a transparency I figure) and

the NPS where I may need to make C-prints directly as well (cheaper and

easier!) So - if anyone's had any experience with this - it'd be greatly

appreciated! One related question though... why on earth do you need to

change the position of the reseau plate (or whatever it's called) inside the

back of the camera? Is it to compensate for a thinner film base?? That

seems barely possible... I mean - what's the difference in thickness - 4 mils

or something??

 

Thanks

Jonathan

[roman_kuznetsov]

Black backing tape on 120 film adds great degree of protection just in the case something goes wrong. I once opened my GW's back, but forgot to wind film to the end. Only couple of frames got fogged, one of them still printed great! With 220 film I would ruin at least half of the roll.

 

Roman

[link]

the 220 film has no paper backing except at the head and tail of the roll. The 120

film has paper backing over the whole roll. Thus, the 220 is thinner, by virture of no

paper backing. You must have the pressure plate in the correct configuration so that

there is not too much film flopping for the 220 rolls and not to tight to wind the 120

rolls. I don't know if the 220 film itself is any thinner than the 120. I certainly haven't

noticed it handling the negatives.

 

The one downside? My lab charges $3 to develop 120 and $6 for 220. No free lunch

here

[nick_wilson2]

I have a GSW, but never really bothered to wonder why the pressure plate had to be flipped for 120 versus 220 except for the film thinness issue.

 

Not really relevant, unless one forgets to do it. I can't see any problem with 220, especially as aerial photography presumably cries out for less film changing.

 

On the processing cost issue...in my part of the world there ARE labs that charge less per frame for 220 (eg about 50% more than 120), but it seems that the more serious and 'pro' the lab the less difference there is.

 

One can only shop around (and the cost is unlikely to be MORE than double 120!!). There is a slight environmental benefit, too.

[richard_deimel1]

Once when going on a long trip I took both 220 and 120. Every roll of 220 was unusable -- all kinds of marks on every frame. I can't say if this was a problem with this specific camera or not as I've never used 220 again. (And never had the problem again. And before someone asks, the settings were all properly changed when the film type was changed.) But go ahead and try a roll and see what happens with your camera, if it's important to you to have so many exposures available.