Medium Format Film

[480sparky]

There's a difference in the film holders, however. A 120 film holder will have the pressure plate just a bit further back to accommodate the thickness of the paper backing. 220 film will not have a paper backing, so the pressure plate needs to be moved towards the lens to maintain proper focus.

Some cameras build their film gate systems so the pressure plate is adjustable. Others require you physically change it to an entirely different piece.

Interesting I did not know that! I was more referencing the physical film which to my understanding is the same strip. But it does make sense that the plate is different. I never looked into the 24 back for my V system but I assumed something must be different.

For the record I just checked B&H and they currently have no 220 film listed for sale.

Regards
Dave

I could be wrong, but I think 220 film is also physically thinner than 120. Whether or not this makes a difference in the location of the pressure plate, I don't know. But I'm sure if it does affect the location of the film in relation to the actual focus plane, I'm sure the makers of 220 film holders would account for that.

 

[webestang64]

There's a difference in the film holders, however. A 120 film holder will have the pressure plate just a bit further back to accommodate the thickness of the paper backing. 220 film will not have a paper backing, so the pressure plate needs to be moved towards the lens to maintain proper focus.

Some cameras build their film gate systems so the pressure plate is adjustable. Others require you physically change it to an entirely different piece.

Interesting I did not know that! I was more referencing the physical film which to my understanding is the same strip. But it does make sense that the plate is different. I never looked into the 24 back for my V system but I assumed something must be different.

For the record I just checked B&H and they currently have no 220 film listed for sale.

Regards
Dave

I could be wrong, but I think 220 film is also physically thinner than 120. Whether or not this makes a difference in the location of the pressure plate, I don't know. But I'm sure if it does affect the location of the film in relation to the actual focus plane, I'm sure the makers of 220 film holders would account for that.

There is no difference between 120 and 220 are far as thickness goes, it's the same just longer. And, yes, the 220 backs are calibrated to allow for no backing paper.

 

[480sparky]

There's a difference in the film holders, however. A 120 film holder will have the pressure plate just a bit further back to accommodate the thickness of the paper backing. 220 film will not have a paper backing, so the pressure plate needs to be moved towards the lens to maintain proper focus.

Some cameras build their film gate systems so the pressure plate is adjustable. Others require you physically change it to an entirely different piece.

Interesting I did not know that! I was more referencing the physical film which to my understanding is the same strip. But it does make sense that the plate is different. I never looked into the 24 back for my V system but I assumed something must be different.

For the record I just checked B&H and they currently have no 220 film listed for sale.

Regards
Dave

I could be wrong, but I think 220 film is also physically thinner than 120. Whether or not this makes a difference in the location of the pressure plate, I don't know. But I'm sure if it does affect the location of the film in relation to the actual focus plane, I'm sure the makers of 220 film holders would account for that.

There is no difference between 120 and 220 are far as thickness goes, it's the same just longer. And, yes, the 220 backs are calibrated to allow for no backing paper.

Maybe, maybe not. There are sources that claim both.

 

[webestang64]

There's a difference in the film holders, however. A 120 film holder will have the pressure plate just a bit further back to accommodate the thickness of the paper backing. 220 film will not have a paper backing, so the pressure plate needs to be moved towards the lens to maintain proper focus.

Some cameras build their film gate systems so the pressure plate is adjustable. Others require you physically change it to an entirely different piece.

Interesting I did not know that! I was more referencing the physical film which to my understanding is the same strip. But it does make sense that the plate is different. I never looked into the 24 back for my V system but I assumed something must be different.

For the record I just checked B&H and they currently have no 220 film listed for sale.

Regards
Dave

I could be wrong, but I think 220 film is also physically thinner than 120. Whether or not this makes a difference in the location of the pressure plate, I don't know. But I'm sure if it does affect the location of the film in relation to the actual focus plane, I'm sure the makers of 220 film holders would account for that.

There is no difference between 120 and 220 are far as thickness goes, it's the same just longer. And, yes, the 220 backs are calibrated to allow for no backing paper.

Maybe, maybe not. There are sources that claim both.

I'm going by what Kodak and Fuji sales reps have said over the years.

 

[john.margetts]

Maker's data sheets always specify film thickness and I would have thought that was what we should go by - or would be if anyone still made 220 film.

 

[Derrel]

According to what I've heard, Richard's is the lab, located in the Los Angeles area, for people who demand really,really good film processing, scanning, proofing, and custom printing and enlarging. I watched a rather lengthy video showing their crew, equimement, staff, and operations: extremely impressive. I've also seen one film wedding they developed and proofed...OMG...great enlarged proof prints. Beautiful color print work from Portra on 6x7...realllly nice. Ken Rockwell used to talk about them, and I believe if was fStoppers or somesuch web site that led me to the Richards Lab video on YouTube.

Anyway...I've long heard that 220 film is the same base as 120, but lacks the backing paper over the entire length of the film, which is how they can literally get all that film to stay within the confines of the standard 120 film spool. The actual SPOOL itself is fairly small,and standardized across thousands of camera models, so....

I think the idea that 220 film is "thinner than 120" is an urban legend. As far as I know, Kodak manufactured its 220 offerings on that company's standard Estar base, not their Estar Thick or Estar Thin, so...my belief is that 220 is the same thickness, but minus the paper backing, except at start and finish of the rolls where it is essential for loading, and then for the wrapping/securing the end of the film for light-proofing.

Two summers ago, I bought developing tanks and 120 reels (both steel tanks and reels and also a vintage, NOS plastic tank and adjustable reel kit), changing bag, vintage Kodak process thermometer, dev/stop/fix chemicals, and it was all around $94 or so as I recall. I also bought a 2.25 x 3.25 baby Speed graphic from 1937 with sheet film holders, a 6x6 rollfilm Graphic back, and some other accessories. I am NOT "all that up on 220" film; I suspect finding developing reels that accept 220 might not be as easy as 120, at least in all-steel reels. Perhaps the easy-loader type plastic tank and reels can accept the 220 films? Keep in mind, many people find loading 120 film onto a steel reel a bit tricky, and it is a bit harder than 35mm, since it is "floppier", but it is not that difficult to learn.

 

[webestang64]

hmmmmmmm...... 120 thicker than other roll films........

KODAK T-MAX Professional Films: Tech Pub F-32: Features

 

[480sparky]

hmmmmmmm...... 120 thicker than other roll films........

KODAK T-MAX Professional Films: Tech Pub F-32: Features

Compared to 'other black & white roll film'. This would include ALL roll film, no?

 

[john.margetts]

hmmmmmmm...... 120 thicker than other roll films........

KODAK T-MAX Professional Films: Tech Pub F-32: Features

Compared to 'other black & white roll film'. This would include ALL roll film, no?

Doesn't actually say 'all' other roll films, does it? If you scroll to the bottom of the linked page, there is a further link which will take you to an index - and from there to 'sizes available'. Only T-max roll film available was 120 size, so 'other roll films' must be other makes, not other Kodak sizes.

 

[480sparky]

hmmmmmmm...... 120 thicker than other roll films........

KODAK T-MAX Professional Films: Tech Pub F-32: Features

Compared to 'other black & white roll film'. This would include ALL roll film, no?

Doesn't actually say 'all' other roll films, does it?

Well,

120-size film coated on a thicker (4.7-mil) base than other black-and-white roll films

Lacking any specific exclusions, then yes, 'other' would include 'all'

 

[john.margetts]

hmmmmmmm...... 120 thicker than other roll films........

KODAK T-MAX Professional Films: Tech Pub F-32: Features

Compared to 'other black & white roll film'. This would include ALL roll film, no?

Doesn't actually say 'all' other roll films, does it?

Well,

120-size film coated on a thicker (4.7-mil) base than other black-and-white roll films

Lacking any specific exclusions, then yes, 'other' would include 'all'

See my edit above. I was editing while you was posting.

 

[480sparky]

hmmmmmmm...... 120 thicker than other roll films........

KODAK T-MAX Professional Films: Tech Pub F-32: Features

Compared to 'other black & white roll film'. This would include ALL roll film, no?

Doesn't actually say 'all' other roll films, does it?

Well,

120-size film coated on a thicker (4.7-mil) base than other black-and-white roll films

Lacking any specific exclusions, then yes, 'other' would include 'all'

See my edit above. I was editing while you was posting.

OK, so now I'm totally confused. Your edit makes zero sense to me.

I think the question is: Is the acetate & emulsion thickness of 120 roll film different that the acetate & emulsion thickness of 220 roll film? The thickness of the likes of 620, 122, 127, 135, 118 etc isn't the issue.

 

[john.margetts]

hmmmmmmm...... 120 thicker than other roll films........

KODAK T-MAX Professional Films: Tech Pub F-32: Features

Compared to 'other black & white roll film'. This would include ALL roll film, no?

Doesn't actually say 'all' other roll films, does it?

Well,

120-size film coated on a thicker (4.7-mil) base than other black-and-white roll films

Lacking any specific exclusions, then yes, 'other' would include 'all'

See my edit above. I was editing while you was posting.

OK, so now I'm totally confused. Your edit makes zero sense to me.

I think the question is: Is the acetate & emulsion thickness of 120 roll film different that the acetate & emulsion thickness of 220 roll film? The thickness of the likes of 620, 122, 127, 135, 118 etc isn't the issue.

When Kodak's data sheet says that T-max size 120 is thicker than other roll films, they are saying it is thicker than Ilford 120 and thicker than Foma 120 and thicker than Adox 120. They are not saying it is thicker than Kodak 220 T-max which they did not make.

 

[480sparky]

When Kodak's data sheet says that T-max size 120 is thicker than other roll films, they are saying it is thicker than Ilford 120 and thicker than Foma 120 and thicker than Adox 120. They are not saying it is thicker than Kodak 220 T-max which they did not make.

Seems strange that the thickness would vary. Maybe the variations are minute enough to not matter, but I'd think focus could be an issue when shooting with fast lenses wide-open.

 

[john.margetts]

When Kodak's data sheet says that T-max size 120 is thicker than other roll films, they are saying it is thicker than Ilford 120 and thicker than Foma 120 and thicker than Adox 120. They are not saying it is thicker than Kodak 220 T-max which they did not make.

Seems strange that the thickness would vary. Maybe the variations are minute enough to not matter, but I'd think focus could be an issue when shooting with fast lenses wide-open.

Surely we focus onto the surface of the film which is always (dangerous word!) held against the film gate in the same position regardless of the emulsion thickness or substrate thickness?