In the Old Days: 120 vs 220 film

[35mmdelux]

Hi all,

 

Here is a question for some of the older PNET members.

I'd like to know from your experience if in "the old days" 120 or

220 film was more fashionable, used more? I think MF was the default

format in those days,no? Didn't most people (US, European)have

Rollies

or other twin lens?

I know my parents used formats smaller than 2-1/4, some square,

others

rectilinear, all BW.

 

I've always wondered about those using MF in the 40s and 50s.

 

 

Thank you.

[agardner58]

Paul,

 

I don't exactly consider myself an 'older' PNET member, but if I recall, 220 film didn't come out until some time in the 60's. Before that you had 120 (and 620 and others I can't remember now). Actually, none of the medium format cameras I have owned have ever taken 220 film (all pre 1960 at least.)

 

Maybe someone even older than I can answer the question better. ;-)

[jmf]

A lot of the pocket folders from mid 20th C. used 620 which was 120 on a different spool. 220 didn't allow for the use of the frame window (no paper back). 120 dates from the begining of 20th cent (about 1901)

 

Accoring to the following link, 120 was the popular format till the 1960's

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/format.htm#120

 

another source says that 220 didn't debut till the mid 1960's. One might suspect it was a response to the growing use of 135 and the larger number of images per cassette. 24 60x60mm frames per roll vs 24 24x36mm frames per roll

[35mmdelux]

Wow, thanks so much for helping put MF into better context. I guess Penn and Avedon, amongst many others, must have had a stable of Rollies.

 

Big difference between shooting 12 shots +/- and shooting 100+ on 1 gig HD.

 

Speaking of pocket folders....are there any that are head-and-shoulders above the rest? I'd sure like to get one to carry around when I can't take my H'bld.

 

Thanks guys.

[paul_neuthaler]

Been using 220 Portra 400 in both my 'blad and Rollei. -- makes great sense to me!

[jtk]

220 was used mostly by wedding/portrait photogs. Commercial photogs (advertising/fashion) shot crome, mostly 120...they used Hass almost exclusively from the 60s-90s and short rolls weren't an issue because they had assistants and many backs (assistants and many Rolleis would accomplish the same thing): just my observations from visiting dozens of commercial studios and observing the film/proofs of hundreds of wedding photogs.

[stephen hazelton]

If I understand right, 220 film doesn't have the paper leader the whole length of the film, correct? Meaning it is automatically disqualified in all the red-window cameras. Which is what the vast majority of those old cameras were.

[john_amiet2]

I still shoot 220 along with 120 in my Blads.

 

I remeber when 220 was introduced (but not the date!). It would have been in the 60's. I used to shoot a lot of weddings, stage work, and similar stuff that would not wait while I reloaded magazines, so I carried numerous pre-loaded mags and very quickly changed when empty. I used 120 when I calculated the shoot was near an end, just to finish off.

 

220 does only have a paper leader at both ends to permit a smaller roll on the spools. It also has a thinner base for the same reason. I used to boast that with a 45Deg finder + winder, I could keep up with the 35mm shooters, but achieve better quality because of the larger format. It was only true some of the time! I think it came down to differences in photographer skills rather than gear type mostly.

 

Today, in similar situations, I use Leicas with mostly better results, and much more convenience. The Blads are now mostly used for larger scale repro work or my personal indulgence.

[elliot_n]

220 has to be hung over a roller when processed in a dip-and-dunk tank. This can cause

minor defects along the edges of frame 12 or 13 (if you're shooting 6x6). That's why I avoid

it.

[edward_deangelis]

See this:

 

www.nwmangum.com/Kodak/FilmHist.html

[john_amiet2]

Elliot, you are correct about Dip 'N Dunk machines, but the problems don't stop there! Anything going to a lab, especially these days, is a high risk, with lower volumes and less skilled staff doing the work.

 

For those, and other reasons, I process all my own films, both colour and B/W. I am not excluded from making errors, but the frequency is considerably less than with labs.

 

IMHO, the only future for film users is to set up for doing their own processing, if they have not already. It is no more onerous than setting up up computers and learning to use a plethora of software, as the 'digi brigade' needs to.

[stephen_kruft]

I recall:

 

My own first "real" camera in 1960-something was a Rollei 3.5F with a huge Graflex flash.

 

120 was always used much more than 220. It was widely available anywhere, 220 was not, and many cameras would not use 220. I think I never used 220 until later when I used Mamiya TLRs.

 

Those were the only rollfilms commonly used in high-quality cameras in the 60s anyway. There were box cameras and one Rollei in smaller roll formats, like 127 (4x4), and box cameras that used 620, which was the same size as 120 on different spools. MF was still the pro format, but many pros and soldiers had used 35mm in the wars, usually Leicas, and by the early to mid-60s when I started, already there were a lot of Nikon Fs with motor drives around. A huge "fad" of amateur photography, with Japanese 35s, was just starting up. Schools had classes in 35mm.

 

You are right that at the time TLRs were the common pro MF cameras, but there were some SLRs like Hasselblad and the early Bronicas. As I recall, the first Hasselblads with focal-plane shutters had been replaced not long before by the 500 series. It was funny that those old Bronicas, with Nikkor lenses, were in all the stores but I never saw one in use.

 

In the 40s and 50s there had been much more use of LF, as in the 4x5" press cameras. I remember seeing some as a child but they were mostly obsolete when I started to shoot. Rarely you would see someone taking school photos with them, and sheet film in all sizes was still available everywhere. I tried a press camera in high school.

 

If you had cameras without separate backs, like all or virtually all TLRs, and had to load often, 220 made sense. But you can load 120 in a TLR very quickly with practice, and pros have assistants.

 

Also there were developing tanks that would take several rolls of either 120 or 35 at once, while 220 needed specialized, fairly expensive tanks, and 220 was much harder for the amateur to learn to load onto the stainless steel developing reels because they were so wide. I remember ruining some shots the first time I tried.

[gaius1]

I was always surprised there isn't TX (not TXP) or HP5+ in 220 for PJs.

[h._p.]

"It was funny that those old Bronicas, with Nikkor lenses, were in all the stores but I never saw one in use."

 

The Bronica S2a was very popular in the UK, largely because it was sufficiently cheaper than the Hasselblad to attract photographers who used tungsten lighting rather than flash. A friend of mine used one for many years and made a good living with it. He specialised in photographing fine art objects and many of his enlargements were quite startlingly sharp.

[OCULUS New York]

I still shoot both in my Rolleiflexes. However, as you may surmise from the date of intro, most (if not all foldables) predate and are not made for 220. Smae applies to most popular MF cameras of the period. 220 was made for pros.

 

Lately, I have been having fun with an AGFA Clack, a point and shoot from the mid-50s that I discovered for about $12 on ePrey. Little did I know that it has become something of a cult camera, as it outperforms the dreadful Chinese Seagulls, Holgas, etc. (no light leaks!) It even has a curved filmplane back and takes standard 120. Because the shutter is about 1/30th, you need to choose your slower speed films for better results (ISO 100 or less).

 

It is a square little box, with swell imitation lizard print finish on it. It does a wonderful job and is lightweight. To see some of my first 2 rolls (Velvia and B&W print), visit here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=522419

 

FWIW, I had that Palace Theater Velvia chrome enlarged to 12x18 (no interneg) and sold it. Not bad for a plastic lens.

 

The only drawback to using this wonderful format is processing. Thankfully, I have a wonderful pro lab here in Albany that soups it (chromes anyway) in 4 hours.

Cheers,

Ray Hull

[OCULUS New York]

Forgot to mention an important detail: The Clack is a 6x7 wide format. You get 8 shots on a 120 roll (and the frame numbering and arrows etc. show properly through the back red window).

 

Ray Hull

[35mmdelux]

Thank very much for this incredibly valuable info. This has been very enlightening. It helps me understand the development of the medium and the manner the tools may have been used.

 

To hear that 120 or sheet film was available everywhere in those days is mind boggling. Its interesting to know that this was a pro format, even then.

 

Thanks again. Paul

[erik scanhancer]

Paul,

 

How old are you? I am quite shocked to see that it is obviously very difficult to get in touch

with yesterday's history. By the way, where I live (Holland) 120 film is simply widely

available. Most serious photo stores carry it.

 

O, and to answer your question: 120 film used to be the standard as has been pointed out

by others. My grandfather shot it in the fifties with his Rollei TLR. I still use that camera

occasionally, although I have to admit that it is kind of an ancient machine. For my daily

income I shoot using a modern Rollei 6008. Loaded with 120 film, that is.

[pete_c__uk_]

Before the last World War (gulp) my mother got a very simple folding camera as a result of collecting coupons in cigarette packs. It took 120 film (8 exposures, 6 x 9 cm). It was a Coronet (made in UK I think) Eventually this was passed to me in the early 50's when I became interested in photography as a boy. This was replaced around 1955 by a Kodak Junior II which was a bit more advanced, was also folding & 6x9cm negs but took 620 film. In those days most people used rollfilm cameras, including 127 & 828 sizes, because most 35mm cameras were too expensive. Also the vast majority of film used was black & white. When I first started using colour print film in my Kodak around 1957 I had to send it to Germany for developing & printing so as to get acceptable quality. How times have changed!

 

220 was introduced in the 60's and mainly appealed to professionals. But it never really took off in a big way, perhaps because so many rollfilm cameras weren't designed to take it. Now it is even less popular, particularly in black & white where only Kodak appear to still supply 1 or 2 emulsions.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The brownie format; 120; was a childs format; for amateurs; kids; introduced over 1 century ago with wooden spools; in 1900. 620 came out about 1931. Making a bastard spool helped lock in lab processing cash flow. 220 came out about 1965, it had a huge follwing with wedding photographers and some others.

[35mmdelux]

Hi Erik,

 

I don't know what my age has to do with anything? Does it matter if I'm 18 or 58 and just asking about individual's experience and personal knowledge? I've advanced my knowledge more on this thread alone than from many others. I've not only learned about film from first-hand accounts but also learned about the humanity behind it all (something impossible to extract from a book). Also, I didn't have to dissect a ton of books. I do own many books, mostly monographs. As you know the best research is from personal experience, hence my question.

 

"Yesterday's history?" Erik, my friend, that was more than 1/2+ century ago and I had other things of concern than to monitor the flow of film. How old are you?

 

PS: Amsterdam is a nice place. Been there once and almost ran over a bicyclist. They were everywhere.

[david_m]

At one time 120 was as (if not more) popular as 35mm, you could get 120 developing at the pharmacy/chemist. 220 was mostly used by professionals and only professional type cameras could use it. 127 was another very popular film format. Many cameras, Kodak and others used 127 film. Slides were then as popular as prints and standard 35mm projectors could project slides from 127 negatives. These were the so-called 'super slides' - far more impressive than 35mm slides because of the larger film area.

[patrick j dempsey]

If I am not mistaken, wasnt 120 film introduced with the production of the Brownie No.2? At $2 a camera, there were over 2.5 million No.2's manufactured in the first 20years of their production, starting in 1901. Its really amazing to me that one hundred years later you can pop a brand new roll of 120 film into a No.2 Brownie and make point and shoot snapshots the old fashioned way!

[BernardMiller]

<p><em>I was always surprised there isn't TX (not TXP) or HP5+ in 220 for PJs.</em><br>

Too bad there isn't TX in 220! I'd love to walk around with a Mamiya TLR loaded with that.<br>

Ilford did at one time make HP5+ and FP4+ in 220. I have a few rolls of both I am finishing off gradually. Roberts Imaging in Indianapolis was clearing the stuff out a few years ago--cases of it!--for peanuts. I bought as much as I could afford; wish I'd had a couple of hundred extra dollars at that time and I'd have bought the whole stock and frozen it.<br>

Lordy, how I wish Kodak and Ilford would offer 220 B&W again. Kodak just recently killed off the last 220 black & white film with their discontinuation of TXP.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Big difference between shooting 12 shots +/- and shooting 100+ on 1 gig HD.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But usually not a big difference in the number of useable shots!</p>