# Medium Format Film



## Bigguy136 (Jan 1, 2017)

Hi,
I'm very new to film photography and just got a Mamiya RB67 and M645 1000S camera (see into thread for details). I know the difference between 120 and 220 film and have the backs for either but is there anything else I need to know? I plan on taking daytime outdoor nature photos of still objects. I also plan on having the film developed and scanned to digital. Are all companies doing this service the same?
Thanks, Kevin


----------



## john.margetts (Jan 1, 2017)

It is all very well having backs for 220 but you will struggle to find 220 film. Where you get film developed depends on where you live. In the UK, there are a number of places that do a good job of developing and scanning - no, they are not all the same.

Do you have manuals? I didn't find loading film backs to be intuitive.


----------



## Bigguy136 (Jan 1, 2017)

john.margetts said:


> It is all very well having backs for 220 but you will struggle to find 220 film. Where you get film developed depends on where you live. In the UK, there are a number of places that do a good job of developing and scanning - no, they are not all the same.
> 
> Do you have manuals? I didn't find loading film backs to be intuitive.


Good to know. I saw a few on-line film developers that also scan to digital. Any on-line company recommendations?
I haven't tried loading any film yet. I was looking on Amazon and there are many choices. I suppose I will also screw up the first roll or two trying to load...


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 1, 2017)

*Be VERY VERY selective on where you have film developed these days.*

MANY outfits are developing the film, scanning it in, printing the files digitally and then.........(hang on to your jewels!)....... *destroy the film*.

You end up with lo-res 4x6 prints and NO negatives.

Where to send your film depends largely upon what portion of the globe you happen to reside.


----------



## john.margetts (Jan 1, 2017)

480sparky said:


> *Be VERY VERY selective on where you have film developed these days.*
> 
> MANY outfits are developing the film, scanning it in, printing the files digitally and then.........(hang on to your jewels!)....... *destroy the film*.
> 
> ...


I haven't heard of anyone in the UK doing that. I am fortunate in having a local lab (Snappy Snaps in Lincoln) that do a superb job - even to the point of asking me what length I want the negatives cut.


----------



## Bigguy136 (Jan 1, 2017)

I live in the USA (Twin Cities, MN)
I'm not trying to promote anyone but I was looking at thedarkroom dot com. They show $11 to develop, scan to digital and return ship a CD and negatives.


----------



## Bigguy136 (Jan 1, 2017)

Bigguy136 said:


> I live in the USA (Twin Cities, MN)
> I'm not trying to promote anyone but I was looking at thedarkroom dot com. They show $11 to develop, scan to digital and return ship a CD and negatives.


If I knew more and likes black and white, I would grab all of their processing supplies and develop myself. Maybe this will become a new passion and I will go in that direction.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 1, 2017)

*Ask about the scanning*, and how high- or low-resolution it is; many places are offering crappy, low-rez scans as sort of "previews", and a simple way to get images, "Into a computer," at a scan rez that just sucks for serious work.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 1, 2017)

Bigguy136 said:


> If I knew more and likes black and white, I would grab all of their processing supplies and develop myself. Maybe this will become a new passion and I will go in that direction.



You can easily get everything you need to soup b&w for around $100, chemicals included.  

You might want to check with some of the local brick-n-mortar camera stores for processing.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 2, 2017)

Bigguy136 said:


> john.margetts said:
> 
> 
> > It is all very well having backs for 220 but you will struggle to find 220 film. Where you get film developed depends on where you live. In the UK, there are a number of places that do a good job of developing and scanning - no, they are not all the same.
> ...



These used to be based 10 minutes walk from my home in the UK but moved to Canada late last year they do a wonderful job and probably the best scans you will be able to get online
http://canadianfilmlab.com/


----------



## gsgary (Jan 2, 2017)

john.margetts said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > *Be VERY VERY selective on where you have film developed these days.*
> ...



Uk film lab now Canadian film lab hold onto the negs but only till they have a good amount to make it cheaper for postage or you can request to have them sent but they don't destroy


----------



## limr (Jan 2, 2017)

You might try Film Photography Project for 220 film if it's important enough to try that, or just stick to 120.

As for developing, as Derrel said, check the scan resolution and make sure they return your film. I've sent color film to Dwayne's and they seem fine. There's another place, whose name escapes right now, that does an excellent job with color scans, though of course they are a bit pricier. I'll dig around and get the name for you a bit later.

You could develop the film yourself - it's not hard and the costs are low after the initial outlay - but you would still have the job of scanning or printing yourself or sending it out for scanning.

If you decided film is awesome and you want to take the plunge, that's when you start thinking about the DIY costs and time investment. Until then, shoot a few rolls, send them out to a place that gives you good high-res scans (it makes a difference!), and then decide what it's worth to you to keep shooting film.

Having said all that, I love medium format and my Mamiyas, and I can't help but feel like you're gonna get sucked right in!


----------



## Dave Colangelo (Jan 4, 2017)

I see a couple of labs in your area that look like they process film may be worth calling a few. 

As for film I seem to have a far easier time getting 120 than 220 and FWIW 22o seems to be falling by the wayside a bit. In reality, frame count aside its physically the same film just without the paper backing on the roll. The outcome should be identical. 

either way you go MF is way different than 35mm and you will love it right away. 

Regards 
Dave


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 4, 2017)

Dave Colangelo said:


> I see a couple of labs in your area that look like they process film may be worth calling a few.
> 
> As for film I seem to have a far easier time getting 120 than 220 and FWIW 22o seems to be falling by the wayside a bit. In reality, frame count aside its physically the same film just without the paper backing on the roll. The outcome should be identical.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## Dave Colangelo (Jan 4, 2017)

480sparky said:


> 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


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 4, 2017)

Dave Colangelo said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jan 4, 2017)

480sparky said:


> Dave Colangelo said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



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 (Jan 4, 2017)

webestang64 said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Dave Colangelo said:
> ...



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


----------



## webestang64 (Jan 4, 2017)

480sparky said:


> webestang64 said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...




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


----------



## john.margetts (Jan 4, 2017)

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 (Jan 4, 2017)

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 (Jan 4, 2017)

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

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


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 4, 2017)

webestang64 said:


> 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 (Jan 4, 2017)

480sparky said:


> webestang64 said:
> 
> 
> > hmmmmmmm...... 120 thicker than other roll films........
> ...


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 (Jan 4, 2017)

john.margetts said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > webestang64 said:
> ...



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 (Jan 4, 2017)

480sparky said:


> john.margetts said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...


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


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 4, 2017)

john.margetts said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > john.margetts said:
> ...



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 (Jan 4, 2017)

480sparky said:


> john.margetts said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...


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 (Jan 4, 2017)

john.margetts said:


> 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 (Jan 4, 2017)

480sparky said:


> john.margetts said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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?


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 4, 2017)

john.margetts said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > john.margetts said:
> ...



Yes, but the film gate only touches the film at the edges.  Lacking a film gate everywhere else on the film, if the pressure plate is too far back, the curl of the film could cause the film to 'pull back' from the actual focus plane.

Again, maybe such differences are minute enough to matter in the dangerous world we live in.  I don't know.  Nor do I care to know. I haven't shot 220 film since, oh,......... 1985.  I don't have any 220 backs for my Boat Anchor.  So it's all academic to me.


----------

