120 Film in 220 Back

[jkapcoe]

Hello,

Just found this site and it is pretty cool!
I recently got a 500CM and was looking around for film to fit the back. It is a 220 film back but I am curious if 110 will work in it? I am new to film after having used digital for a couple of years so please excuse my ignorance.

Thank you!

John

 

[Tim Gray]

I think you mean 120 film. As far as I know, 120 won't work in a 220 back. You should be able to get a 120 back for not too much from KEH or something. Or buy some 220 color film.

 

[SuzanneR]

I've edited your thread title for clarity, and agreed... you'll need to find a 120 back for your Hassy.

 

[dentkimterry]

Not so fast! You can use 120 film in a 220 Hasselblad back with out problem. The spacing between frames will be wider than normal and you will get only 11 frames instead of 12. It works! Try it!

Terry

 

[jkapcoe]

Thanks for the clarification! Again...sorry I am a newbie in this world.

So do you need to do anything special to get it to work?

Thanks!

John

 

[DannyW]

From what I have read, 120 and 220 have a slightly different thickness, so the image will not focus exactly onto the film plane. I have also read that using the wrong film can jam focal plane shutters, though that doesn't apply here. I probably wouldn't chance it and would just buy a 120 back.

 

[heespharm]

Yeah you CAN but it's not preferred... besides the spacing problem the extra paper thickness may jam up the back because the tension on it is too much...you could always cut the paper in a dark bag off after where it's masked on... and use that... but even then you run the risk of light leaks..

 

[Q.G.]

From what I have read, 120 and 220 have a slightly different thickness, so the image will not focus exactly onto the film plane. I have also read that using the wrong film can jam focal plane shutters, though that doesn't apply here. I probably wouldn't chance it and would just buy a 120 back.

The film position is determined by the film gate. The pressure plate will push both 120 and 220 film against that.
So absolutley no problem.

Film also cannot jam shutters.
Nor the back. The only (!) difference between Hasselblad 120 and 220 film backs is the spacing and counter mechanism. And that, because that is the only thing that needs to be different.

The only thing that will happen is that film spacing thing already mentioned.

You could try starting the film a bit before the start mark. But that will not guarantee that you get 12 frames, so i wouldn't bother.
So no, nothing special you should do. Just run the film through the back and stop and change film after frame 11.

 

[sandermarijn]

The only (!) difference between Hasselblad 120 and 220 film backs is the spacing and counter mechanism.

So when you load 120 film in a 220 back the image will be in focus? The whole thing about film thickness is just an old wives' tale?

Many MF cameras have adjustable pressure plates. Isn't that to correct for focus?

Bit confused here.

 

[2F/2F]

In general, 120 film in a 220 back will put the film at the proper plane of focus, but 220 film may not be held snugly against the film gate in a 120 back. 220 backs have a thicker pressure plate, as the cross section of 220 is narrower, due to lack of a backing paper. Load a 220 back with 120, and the pressure plate is simply pushed back into its springs, and still presses the film firmly against the gate. Do the opposite, and the pressure plate will not hold the 220 against the gate as firmly as it would with a thicker roll of 120.

Three notes of importance are that there may be minor frame spacing/shots per roll issues, the advance action may feel stiffer than normal, and that after shooting through your roll of 120, you may have to advance through what your back thinks is the second half of a 220 roll, or at least part of it.

 

[Q.G.]

In general, 120 film in a 220 back will put the film at the proper plane of focus, but 220 film may not be held snugly against the film gate in a 120 back. 220 backs have a thicker pressure plate, as the cross section of 220 is narrower, due to lack of a backing paper. Load a 220 back with 120, and the pressure plate is simply pushed back into its springs, and still presses the film firmly against the gate. Do the opposite, and the pressure plate will not hold the 220 against the gate as firmly as it would with a thicker roll of 120.

In general, yes. But (to reassure the OP) not when you are using Hasselblad backs.
They handle both types of film equally well.
As i mentioned before, the only difference between them is the spacing/frame counter mechanism.

So...

So when you load 120 film in a 220 back the image will be in focus? The whole thing about film thickness is just an old wives' tale?

... As long as you are using Hasselblad magazines: yes.

Three notes of importance are that there may be minor frame spacing/shots per roll issues, the advance action may feel stiffer than normal, and that after shooting through your roll of 120, you may have to advance through what your back thinks is the second half of a 220 roll, or at least part of it.

Again, for Hasselblad backs:
Frame spacing will be problematic, in a non-minor, i.e. major, way.
Expect to only get 11 frames

There are no problems whatsoever pulling the thicker film through the back.

You don't need to shoot blanks until the counter has run off all the numbers. After exposing frame 11, just wind the film on using the wind crank until it is completely wrapped around the take-up spool (like you normally would), and remove it from the magazine.

 

[jkapcoe]

Thank you for the information Q.G.! I will have to give it a try!

 

[DanielStone]

just a quick question though:

is 220 film 'thinner' than 120? I'd imagine that it isn't, cause you don't have to worry about the thickness of the paper when rolling 220 onto the reels.

please enlighten me, I'm interested. if it is on a thinner base, does this impact the fragility factor of the film compared to 120?

thanks

-Dan

 

[Jon Shiu]

220 is on a thinner base than 120, according to Simon at Ilford.

Jon

 

[Q.G.]

please enlighten me, I'm interested. if it is on a thinner base, does this impact the fragility factor of the film compared to 120?

It perhaps does.
I can imagine that, with a thinner base, it is more flexible, and less fragile.

 

[Q.G.]

After exposing frame 11, just wind the film on using the wind crank [...]

The crank on the magazine.

 

[K-G]

In The Hasselblad Manual ( first edition 1980 )by Ernst Wildi, there is a description of how to use 120 film in a 220 magazine. It definitely states that this can be done. To avoid getting the first frame to close to the paper leader it recommends you to wind the black line with the arrows about 5 mm ( 1/5 of an inch ) past the red index. Regarding picture quality I quote "the images are satisfactory for anything exept the most critical work." whether this statement is a safety precaution for not being sued, I don't know, but I think it is well worth trying a roll. Like many other I am trying to adapt to the coming dark age of no more B&W film in 220 size as Kodak is discontinuing the TXP 320 in both 120 and 220 sizes.
Best of luck when trying !

Karl-Gustaf

 

[Q.G.]

Regarding picture quality I quote "the images are satisfactory for anything exept the most critical work." whether this statement is a safety precaution for not being sued, I don't know, but I think it is well worth trying a roll.

It is there to make us buy separate magazines for both film types, instead of making do with just the one.

As mentioned before, there is no difference at all between both types of magazine that would make one work better with one type of film, except the spacing and frame counter mechanisms (and something on the outside saying "12" on one, "24" on the other).
Same parts, put together in the same way, adjusted the same.

So if image quality wouldn't be satisfactory when running one type of film through it, it wouldn't be running the other type through it either.

 

[2F/2F]

Q.G. All of this is why I said "in general" and "may". The specifics re: Hassies are better posted by someone who knows the cameras well, not me...you, perhaps?

 

[Q.G.]

2F * 2,

I know, i know!
That's why what i wrote, i already wrote as an explanation of how the specific backs in question would deal with 220 film.

 

[Jeff Canes]

i have done it, seemed to work fine for me, the spacing was wider, and the last frame was good too, but my standards may not be as high as others

 

[jkapcoe]

Thanks for all the info and discussion. I have ordered some 120 film to try it as well.

Thanks all!

 

[TSSPro]

I have 220 Bronica sq backs and only one 120 back. I'm in a similar predicament since I dont have a great need for 24 frames, and the only bw 220 film just got discontinued.
I was afraid of stressing the gears in the 220s, but other than the counter there is the only difference. I hadnt really thought of running anything but 220 through them, but now I'm gonna give this a try.
Thanks.

 

[Stregone]

I have 220 Bronica sq backs and only one 120 back. I'm in a similar predicament since I dont have a great need for 24 frames, and the only bw 220 film just got discontinued.
I was afraid of stressing the gears in the 220s, but other than the counter there is the only difference. I hadnt really thought of running anything but 220 through them, but now I'm gonna give this a try.
Thanks.

I've heard from a few different people that bronica sq 220 backs are exactly the same as 120 backs, except for the counter. I've run a couple 120 rolls through a 220 back no problem. Spacing seems to be about the same as my 120 back.

 

[TSSPro]

Sweet!