Re: 220 film

[Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

Tom wrote:
> Hey, what's the deal with 220 film?
> 
> I know that the film is twice as long as 120.  I pictured it in my
> mind as being a bigger roll to accomodate the longer fillm.  I just
> bought a roll last night.  It's the same dang size!  Although it
> feels heavier, it seems like it's an exact replacement for 120.
> 
> I have not actually shot a roll of 220 yet, so maybe I'm missing
> something.  Why doesn't everyone use 220?
> 

The longer 220 roll can fit on the same size spool because it doesn't
have a paper backing (except for the leader and tail).  Not all
cameras can use 220 (or 220 and 120).  Because there is no paper
backing cameras with a red window frame counter (like the Lubitels)
can not use 220.  Also because of the lack of paper backing, a camera
that uses both types of film has to be able to adjust the film
pressure plate position and film counter.  Many cameras don't let you
use both types of film.  For example the Yashicamat 12 can use only
120 film, the Yashicamat 24 can use only use 220 film, but the
Yashicamat 124 (and 124G) can use both types of film.  MF cameras that
have removable backs tend to requre a different type of back for each
film type, or a different insert for the back.

In addtion to this, not all emulsions are available in 220, and I've
heard that some (bad) labs do stupid things to 220.

Another reason for using the shorter 120 rolls is that you can change
film emulsions more quickly.  If your lighting changes, or you decide
you want to switch from B&W to color (or negative to slide) you only
have to shoot 12 frames with 120.  If you always shoot the one film
emulsion, or you have a camera with multiple backs (or mutiple
cameras) then this isn't that big a deal.

-- 
Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"