On 5/18/22 6:31 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 18/05/2022 06:21, 25.BX945 wrote:
>> On 5/17/22 6:44 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 17/05/2022 06:29, 25.BX945 wrote:
>>>> On 5/16/22 7:49 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-16, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16/05/2022 05:22, 25.BX945 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     I have an actual Brownie ... it's brown. Can't get
>>>>>>>     any film for it anymore - but, in theory, it can
>>>>>>>     be made from 120/220/70mm ... alas the trick is in
>>>>>>>     making a compatible paper backing. I don't think
>>>>>>>     they've made 620 since the mid 90s.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 120 is still made, - its 620 on a spool
>>>>>
>>>>> A different spool, IIRC.  My father's camera took 620,
>>>>> which came on a spool.  It looked to be the same size
>>>>> as 120 - I couldn't figure out why one film was almost
>>>>> exactly unlike the other (thank you, Douglas Adams).
>>>>
>>>>    620, thickness of 220, was meant for older-style cheaper
>>>>    cameras and was taped to an opaque paper backing. You
>>>>    threaded it, rolled it through, and then sent the take-up
>>>>    spool to the lab. 120/220 comes in a cassette, 35mm on
>>>>    steroids. You thread, shoot, then REWIND it into the
>>>>    cassette.
>>>
>>> No, I don't think it does.
>>>
>>> https://analoguewonderland.co.uk/collections/120-film/products/lomography-berlin-kino-film-120-b-w-iso-400
>>>
>>>
>>> is not a cassette - it is a spool of paper backed film.,
>>
>>
>>    120/220 is NOT paper-backed. I don't know if "cassette"
>>    is the perfect term, but basically 120/220 goes into a
>>    holder that looks like an oversized 35mm cartridge. I
>>    own a device for reloading those cartridges from bulk
>>    rolls of 120/220. (ok, you have to buy pop-top versions
>>    of the cartridges ...)
>>
> Well I used 120 film for about 20 years and it was all paper backed and
> came on a spool like in those links I posted

??? Somehow we're having opposite experiences here with
what's supposed to be the same product. Very mysterious.

As soon as I started using 220 I bought a bulk loader
and used that exclusively. Maybe my memory is kinda
contaminated because of that. The 35mm-like cassettes
might have come with the bulk-loader kit ....

Ah HA ... WikiPedia to the rescue.120 DID come with
a full-length paper backing just like 620. But, for
convenience, I initially used 220 which gave twice as
many exposures. Store-bought 220 is "naked" BUT has
a paper leader/tail to keep the light out.

Anyway, this shows how long it's been since I've used
chemical photography. I don't have any of the equipment
anymore and don't wanna pay big $$$ to send the big
negs off to a lab.

Oh, I do remember one tiny detail - you generally
can't shove a roll of 120 into a 620 camera. I've
got a WikiPedia link and quote further down. The
120 spool is larger in diameter and maybe 1mm taller.
SOME 620 cameras might have had the room, but none
I'd ever put my hands on.

Side-by-side photo of 120 & 620 spools :
https://thedarkroom.com/app/uploads/2020/06/120-and-620-film-spool.gif

That site says you MUST manually rewind 120 film onto
a 620 spool - but again some cameras may have been made
to accommodate both. 620 into a 120 camera would probably
work, but not so much the other way around.

>>    620 IS (was) a paper-backed format. You had to peel
>>    the film off the backing - held on with surprisingly
>>    sticky tape.
>>
>>
>>>>    Anyway, it worked well enough ... but over half the
>>>>    thickness of the spool was the paper backing, thus
>>>>    usually limiting you to 12 exposures per roll.
>>>>
>>> 8, or 16 with a half frame mask
>>
>>
>>    Well, 620 was always full-frame. You just wound it
>>    until the next number came up in the little round
>>    red window in the back. Once you got to 120/220
>>    some cameras did offer half-frame - basically
>>    60mmX35mm vertical. However 6x6, 6x7 and 6x45mm
>>    were the most common standards. The Blads 6x6
>>    and Mamiya 645s were always extremely popular.
>>
>>
> You have no idea at all, have you. 120 or 620 - no one cared - they both
> fitted, both came paper backed on spools and both had the numbers on the
> back
>
> The half frame cameras has two windows so the same number gotr exposed
> 'twice' one half at a time

See above, the spools WERE very slightly different
in size. Sometimes this might be an issue, sometimes
not, depending on the target camera.

>>>>    There were some odd cameras that took 620 that had
>>>>    good lenses and were as sharp as any more expensive
>>>>    medium-format (though the f-number of the lenses was
>>>>    usually inferior). "Brownies" and their ilk had kinda
>>>>    crappy lenses, "good enough" for consumer snaps. The
>>>>    larger format helped hide the lens lackings.
>>>>
>>> My late fathers Zeiss Ikonta took remarkable pictures.
>>
>>> <https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/165482903689> is the exact model
>>
>>
>>    A 6x9 vertical ??? Kinda rare - but I've seen negatives.
>>    According to a source :
>>    "The A, B, & C size took 120 film. The A, B, & C produced
>>    negatives in 6x4.5 format, 6x6 format, and 6x9 format,
>
> Well that camera, looking at the negatives here on my desk was a bit
> smaller than 6x9 or 6x4.5 in half frame mode.
>
> You turned the camera on its side to take landscape mode .  Same as you
> do with a 35mm
>
> And yes, it took 120 (or 620) film, on spools, paper backed with numbers,.

According to that WP article, some cameras were set
up to produce up to 6x24 negs. I think I've seen some
prints - always "group photos" like the Graduating
Class or The Club.

Still saying ... it was easier to put 620 in a 120
camera than the other way around. The more expensive
the camera likely the more exacting the size tolerances.

Ah ... WP again :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120_film

"The 620 format was introduced by Kodak in 1931 as an
intended alternative to 120. Although mostly used by
Kodak cameras, it became very popular. The 620 format
is essentially the same film on a thinner and narrower
all-metal spool (the 120 spool core was made of wood
at that time)"

>>> I showed you an image of an aircraft earlier in the thread.
>>>
>>> This picture would have been shot with that make of camera on 120 film.
>>>
>>> <http://vps.templar.co.uk/Hughs%20Photos/15.%20P.O%20M%20Shepherd%20RAAF,%20Self,%20Sgt%20H%20Cargill%20RAAF%20XI%20Squadron%20Bengal%20May%201943.png>
>>
>>
>>
>>    Yep - 6x9 vertical. DID have its hey-day.
>
> Turn the camera sideways and you have 6x9 landscape
> <http://vps.templar.co.uk/Hughs%20Photos/22%20-%20Hawker%20Audax%20Habbaniyah%20Iraq%201941.png>
>
>
> The point is that camera took 120 as did all our box cameras - not 620.
> 620 was rather rarer.

At the time of the photo ... probably true. But from 1945
to maybe 1965 the 620 format was extremely common for those
'consumer grade' cameras. Mid 60s saw a big swing towards
35mm because all the "cool people" were snapping away with
them by then and the grittier-looking snaps gained a certain
aesthetic/"more real" popularity. Then we saw compact 127
cartridge cameras for the low-end market - zillions of them.
Auntie Em would always have a 127 in her purse with the
rotating flash-cube on top. People always used the flash
even in gigantic stadiums ......

> And the film all came paper backed tightly wound on a spool with numbers
> on the back.
>
> I am sure you can get for some medium format cameras a cassette loaded
> with 120 sized film., but that is not the way it was sold in the 40s 50s
> and 60s
>
> Please educate yourself by watching how 120 film is sold, and how its
> loaded  - with backing paper - into a vintage camera
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR_oSKKOe3U
>

I think I've addressed the cause of my mis-remembery - I didn't
DO it like most people. Really liked those bulk rolls, half to
a third the price per shot.