220 film, how is the situation?

[audun_sjoeseth1]

I would like to use 120 film, to get as good film flatness as

possible and 24 6x6 pictures. I use Hasselblad (with 80/2.8), so I

have to buy a A24 back. My main film will be Provia 100F, og other

high quality films for transparencies (50-100 or 400ISO), and may be

some B&W.

 

Here in Norway its no problem to get the films developed, but it's

not easy to buy 220 film. No distributor take in 220 film, one have

to order a number of 100 films :-(

 

Should I buy a A24 back? Will there be 220 film available in at least

the next 10 years?

[audun_sjoeseth1]

Sorry, typed wrong: "I would like to use *220* film, to get as good film flatness as possible......."

[pete_andrews]

Why would 220 film give any better flatness than 120? If the film takes a curve in the film back, then it's just as likley to affect 220 as 120, surely?<p>I've now used a fair variey of MF cameras, and never noticed any improvement, or difference, in the sharpness of shots on 220 film as opposed to 120.<br>The simple answer to film curl has got to be not to leave the film hanging around in the camera between shots!

[audun_sjoeseth1]

When both film and paper curves, the film is harder to stretch out compared to when there is no paper. The problem is reduced by using 220 film to half compared to with 120 film (Zeiss).

[diegobuono]

In Italy too is hard to buy 220 film. I find it only in milan and only in 2 shops for pro. And for processing they ask more than twice than 120 film.

[uncle_ziba]

Pete, not only the lack of paper backing but also the thiner base of 220 films contributes to better flatness. For me 220 is also much easier to load on paterson plastic reels.

 

I think the 220 is limited because the backs for this film are not widespread and expensive. A good thing is that my favorite B&W film (HP5+) is available in 220, so are the major slide films like Velvia or Astia. The greatest economy and convenience comes when you develop the film yourself. A three bath E6 process is not harder to do than B&W. It's even easier because you don't have to puzzle with various film/chemistry/development time combinations - everything is pretty much statandard in E6. As far as predicting the availability for the next 10 years - I wish I had a crystal ball :)

[scott walton]

220 has been around for a long time and it is unfortunate that some places don't carry it. Here in New England it is all over the place and is in most situations, preferred. I shoot 220 everyday because of it extended number of shots. Film should be around for a long time because Kodak states that it is a very profitable commoditity. Try getting a shipment from the US... Calumet, Hunt's or some of the NY stores.

[pete_andrews]

Sorry, but this 220 v 120 film flatness thing sounds like one of the many photo myths that come from some journalist's guesswork, or the overactive imagination of an advertising twit whose brief was once to push 220 film.<br>Is there ANY firm evidence to back it up? Or that any difference is worth bothering about?<p>Whenever I've run a dummy 120 film through a camera to check the frame spacing, its flatness has always looked almost mirror-like to me.

[david_henderson]

Pete

 

"Sorry, but this 220 v 120 film flatness thing sounds like one of the many photo myths that come from some journalist's guesswork, or the overactive imagination of an advertising twit whose brief was once to push 220 film. Is there ANY firm evidence to back it up? Or that any difference is worth bothering about?"

 

If you're interested in this suggest you look at contributions here by Kornelius Fleischer ans Sal Santamaura, both proponents of this theory.

 

Personally I've noticed no difference. But then I mostly operate at f11 or smaller and don't leave film hanging around in a back. I'm so far unconvinced of the relevence of this to me.

[bill_barton]

read this from Zeiss on 120 vs 220 film......

 

s rollfilm 220 better than 120 in terms of film flatness?

 

Zeiss has recently developed a new measuring system to

evaluate film flatness in medium format photography.

 

The new system is based on an computerized microscope

that can automatically scan and focus on multiple points of a

film frame in a medium format camera magazine. The

obtained focusing data are recorded by a computer and

evaluated by a propriatory Zeiss software. The result is a

mapping of the film topography with an accuracy of one

millionth of a meter (1 micron), according to the developer of

this system.

 

The purpose of this new device is to find out how well film

magazine mechanics are designed in today's medium

format camera systems, how precise they position the film

and how well they hold it flat. From these findings Zeiss can

draw conclusions about the field flatness required for

medium format lenses and Zeiss can also trace causes for

lack of sharpness in customer's photos. This is particularly

interesting since more than 99% of all customer complaints

about lacking sharpness in their photos can be attributed to

misalignments of critical components in camera, viewfinder,

or magazine, focus errors, camera shake and vibrations,

film curvature, and other reasons.

 

So far, Zeiss has found that film curvature can have a major

influence as a source of unsharpness. This has also been

known by Zeiss' camera making partners Alpa, Hasselblad,

Kyocera (Contax) and Rollei. Since Zeiss' evaluation

program is not completed yet, we would like not to draw too

many conclusions prematurely. But two things can be stated

already as hints to enable sharper photos with medium

format cameras at wide open apertures, since exactly those

are invited by the high level of aberration correction in Zeiss

lenses:

 

1.

220 type rollfilm usually offers better flatness than 120 type

by a factor of almost 2. This is an advantage with fast,

motorized cameras like the Contax 645 AF, Hasselblad 555

ELD (and previous motorized Hasselblad cameras) and

Rolleiflex 6000 series cameras.

 

2.

Film flatness problems are mainly caused by the combined

influence of two factors: the rollers in the camera or

magazine that bend the film, and the time a certain part of

the film is bent by such a roller.

 

Camera manufacturers usually space the rollers in a way

that bent portions of the film will never be positioned near

the center of the image. Therefore only marginal regions of

the image should be affected by sharpness problems due

to film flatness errors.

 

Since the photographer cannot alter the geometry and

mechanics of his camera, he can only influence the other

factor: time. A film run through the camera without much

time between exposures should result in good flatness and

hence sharpness. Five minutes between exposures may be

some sort of limit, depending on brand and type of film. 15

minutes are likely to show an influence of bending around

rollers. Two hours definitively will.

 

As a rule of thumb: For best sharpness in medium format,

prefer 220 type roll film and run it through the camera rather

quickly.

 

Camera Lens News No. 10, Summer 2000

[Quit]

[reinhold_schable]

Diego:

 

What is the name & address of the two shops in Milano that carry

220 film? A few weeks ago I needed some, and found only Tri-X

220. That saved me from running out of film, even though I would

have preferred Ilford FP4. I can't remember the name of the shop

at the moment,, but I'd like to know all possible sources of

supply for 220 when I'm travelling.

 

On a related note, do any users of Ilford 220 films find that the

final wraps are loose enough to cause light leaks? My Mamiya

M7's, RB-67's and Horseman 612 backs can't wind the film tight

enough to prevent leaking on the last frame or two. The Tri-X

however, wound much tighter.

 

I haven't measured the thickness of the paper leader and film for

Ilford-vs-kodak, but it's for certain that the Kodak 220 films wound

much better in my equipment. Any comments?

[uncle_ziba]

Pete, see this link http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/flat.html which has extensive information on the issue of film flatness. After you go through it come back and tell if you still think it's a myth.

 

Whether the problem affects you personally or not is another question... :-) Cheers

[duane_kucheran]

To Reinhold about Ilford film winding:

 

I have a Rollei SL66 will a number of film backs. I have found the Ilford film in 120 to be harder to wind on than Kodak film, ie., it takes a greater force on the film advance handle. I've also found that the Ilford film doesn't pack as tightly on the spools as does Kodak and have had some cases where the edge of the film was fogged. I feel that the Ilford film and spool don't have as much clearance as Kodak which may lead to binding but haven't measured this to make sure. (I now use Ilford almost exclusively so I don't have any Kodak).

 

Cheers,

 

Duane

[uncle_ziba]

Reinhold, interesting is that tri-x as most know it is not available in 220. There is a similar film also called tri-x 320 in 220 rolls but it's very defferent from classic tri-x.

 

I also own an SL66 and I haven't had any problems with Ilford film. Slight light leaks have occured on the edge of the film (on 120 film as well) but if it doesn't spill on the frame I wouldn't worry. If the exposed roll comes out too lose you may need to check your magazine.

 

regards.

[audun_sjoeseth1]

With my new A12 and 501CM I made a test of spacing and film flatness with an old Fujichrome RDP120. I took off the back and marked the framing with a pen (spacing was perfect), and I looked at the film flatness.

 

The film had perfect flatness on frame no 1 in a session, but frame 2 looked not good if the film had stayed more than 15 min over the roller. I could see where the roller had curved the film, and it was not hard to see.

 

After 1 hour the film was flat again. The next frame had not perfect flatness. It will always be frame 2 in a session within say 5 min that does not have perfect flatness.

 

I hav'nt got any pictures yet, but I'll check frame no 2 in a session with a landscape photo at aperture 2.8 with my 80mm to se if I need to get a A24 back.

[pete_andrews]

Thanks for the references guys, (which incidentally all seem to hinge on that single Zeiss report) but until Zeiss puts an actual figure to that "factor of two" difference that's quoted, then it's pretty meaningless. A difference, for example, between 2 and 4 microns out of flat would be totally irrelevent in practical use.<p>Can I just blow one myth while I'm at it?<br>There is NO difference in the base thickness between 120 and 220 film, they're both coated on the same base.<br>There IS a difference in base thickness between manufacturers, and between types of film, but not between 220 and 120 film of the same type.<p>If you look at Kodak and Ilford's specs, you'll see that 120 and 220 are both lumped together as having the same base thickness. This is hardly surprising, since it wouldn't make economic sense to have two different coating lines running for the same film.<br>Interestingly, Kodak's Tmax is coated on a much thicker base than almost any other rollfilm, so we should be seeing a difference in the sharpness of T-max versus other films, shouldn't we?<p>I seem to remember when 220 film was first introduced, that there were concerns about its flatness, and several tests were run by (respected) photographic publications to see if the new film was as good as time-proven 120. None of these practical tests showed any significant visible difference between the sharpness of 120 and 220 negatives.<p>If any film takes a kink in the film back, and it's bad enough to affect the image sharpness, then isn't that the fault of the camera designer, and not down to the film used?

[sal_santamaura]

"If you're interested in this suggest you look at contributions here by Kornelius Fleischer ans Sal Santamaura, both proponents of this theory."

 

I may have at some point referred someone to Kornelius and Zeiss' publication, but am neither a proponent nor opponent of "220 is flatter than 120." Couldn't be, since I've not done any testing/research on the subject. What I have explored and do consistently report is that, with few exceptions, reverse-curl film backs put a 'set' in the film that manifests as a bulge toward the lens when advanced for exposure. Optimum design would advance the bulge into the gap between frames, and Kornelius said that Rollei's rotating 645 back for the 6008 camera does this. The only difference between thick film bases and thin ones concerning bulging is how steeply they ramp up and down to/from an essentially fixed maximum displacement. I also point out that presence or absence of resulting visible artifacts depends on the specific photograhic situation involved, especially lens focal length and working aperture, and that one should conduct tests before worrying about bulges.

[david_henderson]

Sal

 

I'm sorry, I should have checked you posts more thoroughly.

[sal_santamaura]

No problem David. I only clarified because posting my bulge findings in past threads has drawn such "spirited" response that the prospect of defending Zeiss was more than my constitution wanted to consider! Thanks for remembering my interest in film flatness.

[gary voth]

I much prefer shooting 220 to 120. It's possibly my 35mm background, but I don't find 12 exposures on 6x6 adequate. Even with backs pre-loaded it takes a moment or two to swap, and the interruption usually occurs in the middle of a nice moment. I've never understood the apparently broader appeal of 120 film and backs... Good luck in finding a good supply in your home country.

[audun_sjoeseth1]

"I've never understood the apparently broader appeal of 120 film and backs... Good luck in finding a good supply in your home country."

 

Tank you Gary and to all of you.

 

I'll probably buy a A24 back, but it looks like I have to buy my Provia 100F in 220 from Sweden.

[q.g._de_bakker]

May i suggest that this 120 vs 220 film flatness thing was presented from a somewhat different perspective than pure concerns about image quality?

The Zeiss report on how 220 film lies flatter coincided with introduction of the Zeiss/Contax 645 vacuum back. Such an apparatus does only work with film without paper backing, i.e. 220 film, not the omnipresent and very popular 120 film...

 

I'm not suggesting that the Zeiss report is bogus, but spare a thought on the possibility that there may be another reason too why we should be persuaded to change 120 film for 220 film: marketing considerations too were involved. And they certainly have helped inflate this mosquito until it had the size of an elephant. ;-)

[audun_sjoeseth1]

OK. But anyway I think my next back will be for 220 film. What do you all prefer and why, 120 or 220 film?

[stefano_allari]

I also do not understand the wider usage of 120 vs 220 rolls. In my view, 220 is more practical and preferable in most situations.

[diegobuono]

Reinhold,

sorry for the delay in my answer but I had not read your post. If it will be yet usefull I give you the name of the shop above mentioned:

F.C.F Forniture Cine Foto

20135 MILANO (MI)

Via Maestri campionesi, 25

Telephone (+39 for Italy) 02 5453512

 

S.M.A.F. Super Magazzino Articoli Fotocine

20124 MILANO (MI)

Via Timavo, 32

Telephone (+39 for Italy) 02 67074018

 

The first is in the ring-road (Viale Umbria), the second is near the Central Train Station.