GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

For us medium format film shooters, an interesting story on how 220 film came to be.

"Calumet, being the industrious company that it was, decided to see if they could create a longer roll of film that would double the amount of film and exposures, and still fit onto the existing 120 spools and be developed with existing processing equipment with as little modification as possible. An experiment began in 1964 by Calumet employee, H. Lynn Jones. He went into a darkroom with two rolls of 120 film, unrolled them from their spools, removed the paper backing and taped them together end-to-end. He then taped a short paper leader and trailer to each end and rolled it all back onto the spool. “Thereafter,” Jones says, “I carried it around the block in the hot Chicago summer sun, waving it about and giving it every opportunity to fog (or be exposed to even the slightest amount of light). Then the film was processed for twice the normal developing time and it showed no signs of fogging.” The initial plan was to take the idea to Kodak and have them private label the long-roll film for Calumet, which had also developed a slide-in roll-film holder for 4×5″ view cameras that would take both 120 and 220 films. The concept was such a hit with Kodak that they decided to produce 220 films under their name, and began production in 1966."

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Whole story here:
http://blog.calumetphoto.com/2013/11/a-short-story-of-long-roll-220-medium-format-film/?cm_ven=Cheetahmail

Budnjax Loc: NE Florida

In the distant past I had a couple Rolleiflex twin-lens reflex cameras which took both 120 and 220 film. Unfortunately, the film wind mechanism in both cameras ground to a halt and locked-up, putting both cameras out of business until 2 very expensive repair jobs....my last experience with supposedly wonderful German cameras.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

I never had trouble with 220 in my Yashica 124G or Mamiya C330f. Surprised that the Rollei's could not handle it. To shoot 24 pictures before reloading was great. Now, I go out and shot 200 or 300 pictures in a session and sort them out in less time developing the film took. And then, I can proof them in less time needed to get a single color print.

What the youngsters do not know about what we went through let alone earlier generations did.

My avatar, a Ricohmatic 225 did not take 220 but did have an adapter for 35 mm.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I had a Yashica, too, and I always tried to get the 220 film. I had no idea it was improvised by Calumet.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

I did not know either about Calumet. Along with Central Camera, Helix, Altman's, Reed, Standard Photo, Darkroom Aids and others, it anchored the retail camera business in Chicago. Only Calumet and Central are left. How many hours I spent in those stores when photography had an excitement and thrill of discovery that today's digital lacks.

I used only Kodak 220 and they may have solved some of Calumet's problems.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

I found it a bit harder to wind onto the processing reel at first, probably due to the knowledge that it was twice as long as 120. Compared to a 70mm reel (50 exposures on a Graflex XL), it was a breeze!

UP-2-IT Loc: RED STICK, LA

And here I thought all Calumet made was baking powder, go figure. Interesting post thanks.

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

Most of the Kodak 220 was color neg aimed at wedding photographers who had it processed in dip and dunk processors in Pro Labs, IMHO.

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

I used to shoot two blank frames half-way through the
50 + exposures. Made it easier to cut and hang-up to dry in the cabinet. Never knew the history of 220 film, used lots of it. Still got some Tri-X rolls. (Emergency stock)

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Good idea.
I don't recall how we dried ours... that was in the early '70's. With 220, we put a twist in it so the part at the bottom would drain.