Trying 220 film on vacation?

[brian_carter2]

<p>I'm taking a 3 month vacation sailing and hiking in Vancouver, and hopefully Alaska. I have only ever shot 120 film in my 67. Sometimes the need to change rolls comes at a very inconvenient time (moving boat), and 220 would help.<br>

I've done a fair bit of searching on 220, trying to identify any potential issues. Most concerns I've found relate to scratches, loose rolling, light leaks. I don't see a lot of people saying 220 is a problem in the 67. I imagine it will be fine. The gotcha is I haven't tried it and likely won't get any processing done until the end of summer. I doubt I would purchase more than 50% 220 vs. 120, Just In Case. One challenge of using both is forgetting to set the film type correctly.<br>

Wondering if I've missed anything?<br>

While I have your ear.. I usually buy 120 film from Adorama... Any west coast supplier suggestions?<br>

Thanks!</p>

 

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>I've never jused 220. With 120 the paper backing is the entire length of the actual film plus the leaders of the paper. In 220 the paper is ONLY the leaders....ie they stop the paper when they get to the actual film. This is done so that twice as much film (220) can fit in the same area as film and paper (120).</p>

<p>So, if anything in your camera is not quite right on the back end....knicks on the pressure plate, the pressure plate not providing proper pressure, minute light leaks in the door seal they may not show with 120, but they do show with 220. Hence the problems you've heard about. If your camera is perfect, you'll have no problems. if not.........well, then......</p>

<p>I chose never to have to find out. Yeah, 10 frames is a pain in the butt...but, I'll deal with it.</p>

[tree]

<p>If the concern is only about having to change film at inconvenient times, then I would just invest in a a couple 120 backs: this is what I do when I go out shooting. Yes, it will slightly increase the weight of your gear, and the number of rolls you carry, but to me 220 is just too fragile to risk, especially if you are not going to have a chance to try it out before you go.</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>There seem to be enough issues with 220 vs 120, that I know I wouldn't go off into the wilderness with stuff I wasn't used to using and for which I had not worked out any bugs in using it in my equipment. At least shoot some rolls ahead of time and make sure there are no literal hangups.</p>

<p>If it were me, I'd just throw in more rolls of 120 and put up with the more frequent changes or get more backs, as Tom says.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>Apart from the limited choice nowadays, there is absolutely nothing wrong with 220 film.</p>

[charles_hohenstein]

<p>220 will save you a lot of aggravation, provided that the film you want is available in 220.</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>Never had any problems with 220. In B&W, I've only seen it in Tri-X 320 . Not, sure about color.</p>

[terry_dent1]

<p>I went to Key West last year with only 220 film. Beautiful results. No problems.</p>

[frank.schifano]

<p>The only real downside I see, as others have already mentioned, is a relative dearth of emulsions available in 220. Kodak's Portra line of color and monochrome C-41 films are available, but the only traditional B&W emulsion currently extant is Tri-X 320. Also available from Kodak are the Ektachrome E100G, E100GX, E100VS, EKTACHROME 100 Plus, and E200 transparency films.</p>

<p>My personal take on Tri-X 320 is simply this. It is a beautiful film, but not a very good one to use outdoors. It's contrast curve suits a controlled lighting, studio environment. Contrast in the shadow areas is low, and lacks the detail that you can get with Tri-X 400. There are workarounds, of course. Downrating the film by a stop and pulling back on the development to control highlight densities works pretty well, but what's the point? You'll really need the ISO 400 speed with medium format unless you plan to do all your work on a tripod. I would rather use Tri-X 400 and put up with more frequent film changes than use Tri-X 320 in uncontrolled lighting environments. But hey, that's just me.</p>

<p>The situation from Ilford is no better for traditional B&W films. None of their products are available in 220, though the entire product line of films is available in 120.</p>

<p>A quick look around shows that Fuji has many of its most popular color negative and transparency films available in 220 sizes, but no B&W.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I use both but 120 is easier to handle if you develop your own film - 120 is harder to get into the taknk and is much longer when you hang and dry. It is also possibly more vulnerable to getting exposed when it has been shot - I have never had any issues though. If you go 120 or 220 I would suggest at least 2 backs probably 3 - they are pretty cheap used these days. When I hike I always take a spare loaded back and may even throw a loaded insert into the pack as well. Especially if you are climbing or on snow changing film can be a pain- particularly if your hands are wet or dirty at the time.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>I sometimes use 220 film - and I've never had a problem.</p>

[philippartridge]

<p>I use 220 preferentially in wilderness areas: all the major films are available. Be very careful to tighten the spent roll as soon as you release it and open the back. 220 is very susceptible to bright light leaks! At least shield it from the sun or skylight. I am also very cautious to ensure the roll wind-off is not overdone - this can loosen the film on the roll; so just enough to release the roll, then careful handling to stick the end tape on it.</p>

<p>I also place the exposed rolls in a watertight ziploc bag and stick it in a dark corner of my pack. BTW, try to get your exposed film processed as soon as you can, especially if you have been in locations where it is hard to protect the film from high temperatures. Having said that, I routinely go 7-8 weeks in appalling conditions before processing with almost never a problem. With 6x7 giving 10 shots per 120, the attractions of 220 are too great for me to ignore, with regard to weight and roll changes. best regards..PS wind the roll quite tight when loading, and if your camera has adjustable pressure plates focus on getting it right - permit no distractions.</p>

 

[sfcole]

<p>Philip,<br>

What do you mean by "all the major films are available?" The only 220 film I see are the color neg. portrait films and Trix 320. The dearth of 220 choices totally stinks. If you have a source please post. I'd love to get Acros in 220.<br>

If I were going to chose just one film to take w/minimal changes, it would probably be Kodak 400VC if available as 220. I never have problems with 220.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>Even with 220, how much do you want to bet that the roll will need changing at an inconvenient time? It seems like a fact-of-life with film... no matter how long the roll is!</p>

[charles_wood]

<p>If you plan on shooting transparency film you can find plenty of cold stored Fuji Velvia and Provia on ebay. And if you're interested, i've got a refrigerator full of Velvia in 120, 220, 4x5. Lots of places where you can find it for far less than what Adorama will charge you per roll. FWIW, the only bad film that I've ever purchased was sourced from a local retail dealer.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Scott I am not sure where you buy film but look at Adorama they carry a wide range inclusing most Fuji slide in 220</p>

[frank.schifano]

<p>Scott, you make it sound like color negative portrait films are good for nothing else. Well, that's patently not true. They may not be super saturated, but they're far from flat looking and do have a very wide latitude. They're easy to work with and hard to screw up; and from my point of view that's a very good thing. Extra saturation, if you really want it, can be added in post processing, with the color palette of your choice. Same thing with contrast. Want more? Want less? Fix it in post. Of course this doesn't work in a completely analog workflow, but so what. There are precious few who still print B&W the old fashioned way. There are even fewer who print color that way. Once the film is scanned, the sky is the limit.</p>

[charles_wood]

<p>Brian, regarding your email. I should have clarified my post that I purchase out of date, cold stored film. I've never had any problem with any that I've purchased and it's always about half the rate of film within date. No guarantees, of course. I just saw 20 rolls of 220 Provia 100F on ebay with a current bid of about $20.00. I think the current going rate for fresh stock is likely around $6 or so a roll.</p>

[steve_larese1]

<p>Take a cotton ball to your pressure plate and spools. If there's a spur to deal with, it will snag the cotton. Take tin foil and wrap your film up after tightly winding it. Don't advance too fast to avoid scratching and static marks. 220 is great when you can't be bothered changing film all the time. Have fun :)</p>

[gregory_c]

<p>OK, I am a little late on this one, as others said that nothing is wrong with 220 film. But I like the paper backing on the 120 film for ease of mind. I had a perfect bronica ETRS with a 220 back for photo'ing weddings. Unknowingly at a wedding a small piece of adhesive from where the leader is glued to the film came off & was stuck to the pressure plate. So guess what happened ? all the wedding photos had a line from where the film was scratched. After 100's of weddings it never happened again. I did buy a couple of 120 backs to ease that thought,,</p>

[dougmiles]

<p>I use 220 by preference in all my 120/220 cameras. If your 67 is a Pentax, then be sure to switch BOTH the pressure plate position AND the frame counter setting to 220 (knob on right side below wind lever). It would be smart to run a roll of 220 to verify all is well before you leave on your trip. Have fun!</p>