Cutting 220 Roll Film down to 120

[rguinter]

This could be a strange question but I am wondering if anyone has suggestions for cutting 220 roll film and respooling it in 120 lengths. I recently acquired a bulk lot of VPS 220 which I am cross processing with outstanding results. But I find the 220 lengths are wasteful in my 6x17- and 6x12-cm format cameras. I normally set up to do a scene and then shoot a roll of 120 with appropriate bracketing. Then move on to another scene or a different film. So to me there is no benefit with 220 and find myself wasting film which is becoming hard to replace. So thoughts or suggestions from anyone who may have tried this would be greatly appreciated. Or perhaps someone knows of a lab that could do if for me professionally. Thanks to anyone with ideas. Bob

[BrianShaw]

If you have some 120 backing paper and masking tape this shouldn't be a major problem. The specification for how 120 film is described at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_732

I don't know if it is worth the effort, though.

[venchka]

Too bad. Walmart will process 220 C-41 film as color negatives for $0.88. That's right, 88 pennies. I just picked up a roll last night. Sleeved and properly cut 6x7 negatives. The film is sent to a Fuji lab for handling. Get a 220 camera or a 220 holder for your view camera.

[rguinter]

If you have some 120 backing paper and masking tape this shouldn't be a major problem. The specification for how 120 film is described at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_732

I don't know if it is worth the effort, though.

I'll check the wikipedia link and see what it says. In my 6x17 the difference between 120 and 220 is 4 or 8 frames respectively. So yes it could be worth the effort... it depends. But if I can make 150 rolls out of the 75 I have it would be worthwhile. The film was discontinued some time ago and getting scarce. My technique with 4-frames per roll is 1-scene = 1-roll with bracketing. Then I either change film for a different effect or move on to another scene. With 220 I tend to bracket a bit closer but overall the extra length is often a waste.

[rguinter]

Too bad. Walmart will process 220 C-41 film as color negatives for $0.88. That's right, 88 pennies. I just picked up a roll last night. Sleeved and properly cut 6x7 negatives. The film is sent to a Fuji lab for handling. Get a 220 camera or a 220 holder for your view camera.
-----------------------
Wayne: My cameras can use 120 or 220 interchangeably. That's not an issue. 220 is double the length but 120 is more efficient for the technique I use. And I'm looking to make a limited amount of film go further since it's no longer made and getting scarce......

[venchka]

What am I missing? 6x12 = 6 exp. on 120 and 12 exp. on 220? 6x17 is 4 and 8 correct?

Good luck rolling your own 120.

OK, I see the light. I don't get it, but it must for you.

[Alan Davenport]

Seems like a lot of effort. Buy some 120, save the 220 for projects where you can use the extra exposures.

And seriously, what's this doing in a LARGE FORMAT forum?

[Terence McDonagh]

6x17 and 6x12 are fairly common film-back sizes on view cameras. So while the film size might not be considered LF (or borderline), the camera probably is.

[BrianShaw]

The film was discontinued some time ago and getting scarce.

Ahh... now I see why you want to respool from 220 to 120. If I were you I'd go to my closest pro lab and ask for some 120 spools and used but untorn backing paper. They should be able to supply you with both. Then you can basically cut the 220 in half and tape it to the backing paper and roll it onto the spool. You'll see the "tear mark" from the original film. You can always sacrifice a roll of 120 to find out the exact length and start point -- a lot cheaper and easier than tracking down the ISO standard.

p.s. I, too use 120 film on LF cameras! :)

[rguinter]

Ahh... now I see why you want to respool from 220 to 120. If I were you I'd go to my closest pro lab and ask for some 120 spools and used but untorn backing paper. They should be able to supply you with both. Then you can basically cut the 220 in half and tape it to the backing paper and roll it onto the spool. You'll see the "tear mark" from the original film. You can always sacrifice a roll of 120 to find out the exact length and start point -- a lot cheaper and easier than tracking down the ISO standard.

p.s. I, too use 120 film on LF cameras! :)
---------------------------
Brian: Thanks for reading my mind and understanding my question. The technique you suggest is exactly what I was thinking. But I have no obvious source for the materials... nor the experience with re-spooling film. Although it sounds easy I would have trouble doing it without a darkroom anyway. But I'll ask a couple of pro labs for their thoughts on what you suggest. Maybe one of them could assign a technician to do it for me for a price. The result could be getting 200 rolls from the 100 I have with less wasted film over the 5 or so years that I might continue using it. Cheers. Bob

[GPS]

Among other problems you will encounter these two - the numbers printed on the backing paper will not correspond to the pictures you will take, because of the difference in thickness of 120 and 220 films and the different diameter they create when rolled. The other problem will be the correct alignment of the film with the backing paper. A small difference would lead to the film being rolled diagonally...
Not to speak about the difficult handling, the finger prints and the necessary dust and scratch problems. Roll films are professionally rolled in pristine ambiance for a good reason.

[BrianShaw]

I believe that 120 and 220 is the same film base. At least that is what the data sheets indicate. The "diagonality" issue isn't a major problem in real life... at least not the times that I've re-rolled 120 to 620, and vice-versa. The more common problem is caused by rolling from the tail to the head, since the tape is at the head... a small pucker can form. That pucker is fairly easily resolved by lifting the tape and re-tapong. Dust, scratches... yup... that is a risk area. The scratch risk can occur in handling, but also from over-tightening the film roll.

[GPS]

I believe that 120 and 220 is the same film base.
...

You're right Brian, I just checked it too. :)

[BrianShaw]

Bob, here are a couple of sites that helped me learn to re-roll roll film:

http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart/respool.htm

http://www.brownie-camera.com/respool/respool.shtml

Both are 120 to 620, which means just a swap of hte spool. Your situation is a little more invovled, but the principles should be the same.

[rguinter]

[QUOTE=BrianShaw;483372]Bob, here are a couple of sites that helped me learn to re-roll roll film:
--------------------
Hey thanks for the links Brian. I'll check them out. Neither of these came up on a google search I did prior to posting. Or if they did they were many hits back in the {exhaustive lists} one gets these days on google anyway. Yes it may be infeasible to do what I want to do {others' comments about clean-room conditions being required and potential for scratch damage}. But if it could be done it would extend the life of the bulk lot I purchased that has been giving me such interesting results. Bob

[venchka]

The film is already old. Older than my stash of early to mid 2000s Fuji C-41 film. How good will it be in 5 years? Use it up. Be on the lookout for more expired film. I cleaned out a cooler at a portrait/wedding studio going digital. 100+ rolls. of mixed 120 & 220 for $50.

Like some football coach once said, "When you do that, 3 things can happen. 2 of them are bad." Dust and scratches are at the top of the list.

[Wallace_Billingham]

FWIW I tried to do this very thing a while back. Your first issue is going to be to know where to tape the film to the paper. I solved that by attaching a piece of tape in the light and putting in a tiny crease that you can feel in the dark then tape the film to the spot with the crease. The other thing you will need to know is when to trim the film, to do that attach another piece of tape where you want it to end. It is very easy to do that in the light but very hard in the dark.

The next issue you will have is how to wind up the film and keep it tightly spooled. To do that I used an old AGFA Isoly medium format camera but any old ebay/flea market medium format camera will work. In the light load up the takeup spool with the paper backing and wind it up tightly until you get to tape. Then in the dark (or a changing bag) unwind the roll of 220 and tape it to your mark on the tape. Then turn the spool on the camera with one hand and use your other hand to guide it all along and keep it aligned. When you reach the piece of tape that marks the end, clip off the film with a pair of scissors (use kiddie scissors that do not have a sharppoint so you don't stab yourself in the dark) and then attach another piece of tape to hold the film on the paper backing. Once you do that keep on winding until the film and all of the paper is one the spool.

At this point the film will be wound so that it is like it is exposed and is backwards but it now ok to turn on the lights.

Then swap the film spools and put an empty one in the take up side load up the paper backing close the camera back and rewind it. When you are done you will have a reloaded 120 Spool ready to go.

[rguinter]

[QUOTE=venchka;483412]The film is already old. Older than my stash of early to mid 2000s Fuji C-41 film. How good will it be in 5 years? Use it up. Be on the lookout for more expired film....
-----------------------------
Yes Wayne. For sure it is already old. I'm sure there are a lot of discussion boards with comments one way or the other about old film. But for my hobby work I almost always use outdated film without any noticeable problems. When properly stored its shelf life is greatly extended. Probably on the order of 25+ years before anything significant would occur. Unless my basement freezer is being bombarded with cosmic or other natural radiation sources. Anyway yes the problem of introducing dust and scratches is a major concern. So the project is not something I plan to jump right into doing. Just pondering some others' thoughts and suggestions since 220 rolls are way too long for my usual technique with this film. Many thanks for your thoughts. Bob

[William McEwen]

The film is already old. Older than my stash of early to mid 2000s Fuji C-41 film. How good will it be in 5 years? Use it up. Be on the lookout for more expired film. I cleaned out a cooler at a portrait/wedding studio going digital. 100+ rolls. of mixed 120 & 220 for $50.

Like some football coach once said, "When you do that, 3 things can happen. 2 of them are bad." Dust and scratches are at the top of the list.

And the "crescent moon" crimps!

[Mark Sampson]

Strictly opinion here: You're talking about a lot of time-consuming, precise darkroom drudgery (if you do it yourself) or a lot of money spent (if you could find a lab to do it for you). It would be easier to adapt your shooting method to using 220 than to respool all that film.

[rguinter]

Strictly opinion here: You're talking about a lot of time-consuming, precise darkroom drudgery (if you do it yourself) or a lot of money spent (if you could find a lab to do it for you). It would be easier to adapt your shooting method to using 220 than to respool all that film.
----------------
Mark: Yes you are right absolutely on all counts. And sometimes I do adapt my shooting method for 220 lengths. But the VPS x-processed gives me the effect I want only at the end of a sunset when the sky is ev 2-3. And for anyone who may have tried this the results are beautiful beyond description. Sky becomes supersaturated blue and city lights become pastel. Exposures to make this effect are between 5-8 minutes and there is skylight enough for 2-3 frames max. After that, the light is gone. And the film has to be removed since it is never the first-in during my next shoot. I'm also considering the possibility of simply winding the unused tail all the way through... and then simply loading the film back (the next time) to go in the opposite direction. I may actually try that and see if it works.

Thanks to everyone who took the time to comment. I kind of knew at the start it would be a difficult chore to respool it I ever tried to do it. If I do try it I'll repost with my results. Cheers. Bob

[GPS]

[QUOTE=rguinter;484350...

I'm also considering the possibility of simply winding the unused tail all the way through... and then simply loading the film back (the next time) to go in the opposite direction. I may actually try that and see if it works.

...[/QUOTE]

You're in for a surprise that will probably cure you for ever from the idea...;)

[rguinter]

You're in for a surprise that will probably cure you for ever from the idea...;)
----------------------
GPS: Perhaps and I believe I'm with you on that. My suspicion is that the paper backing at the tail of 220 is not the same length as at the front. And I believe the film is not taped at the end of the tail either. So winding backwards might cause a camera jam with everything lost... perhaps even damaging the camera in the process. My suspicions anyhow. If I do try it I will do it with a junk roll. Alternatively I may try winding a roll back to the start carefully by hand after shooting my usual 3-frames. Then advance to 5 during a second shoot to use the rest. Another possibility......Regards.