Cinderella's Ugly Sister Succeeds!
By Dirk HR Spennemann
7 Dec 2008
We all know the story...Cinderalla's ugly step sister desired Prince Charming so she chopped off part of her foot to fit that mysterious shoe.. alas she chopped in vain and she did not go to the ball nor did she win said Prince's charming hand...
Well.. in my story here she does...and as all stories start with 'Once upon a time.." so does mine.
Once upon a time Kodak in its marketing wisdom (cunning?) introduced a film format, called 620, that was ever so slightly different from the popular 120. Same film stock, just the spools were differently sized. While most Kodak cameras then used that format, only few other manufacturers followed. The reduction in camera size this format was to supposed to allow was in effect very very minor.
I recently bought a Olbia 6x6, a French pseudo TLR camera built in 1946. A what? A pseudo TLR is a not a true through-the-lens-reflex (such as the Rolleiflex of the Yashicaflex) but a viewfinder camera with a very large brilliant viewfinder. It merely imitates the double lens optics more expensive TLRs and was en vogue in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
Although it was destined for my collection of cameras with GITZO shutters, I wanted to try it out. And with old cameras trouble is usually just round the corner. Sometimes a camera is mechanically unsound. Sometimes it has major light leaks. Well, this time it was the film format. 620 film hasn't been sold for over a decade. And as is obvious from the images, the Olbia takes 620 film and modern 120 spools just do not fit. The cause of the problem is quite clear: the spool for a 620 film is narrower and thinner both at the centre and the flanges
A quick search of the internet resulted in lots and lots of pages discussing how to roll a 120 film from a 120 spool onto a 620 spool. The process looked fiddly and cumbersome, and required total darkness. As I do not own a darkroom bag and as my house is not totally dark at any time of the night, I looked around for other options. Somewhere I found some comments on modifying the 120 spool into a 620 one using a file. I decided to give this a go, as the worst that could happen was that I might waste a roll of 120 film.
To recap, the problems with a 120 spool are that a) the flanges are too thick and b) the diameter of the flanges is too large.
Step 1: Thinning the flanges. This was done on a flat metal file. The grinding creates a great deal of fine plastic dust, which has some static properties. Care needs to be taken to blow it off completely. How far should one grind before the flanges admit light to the film? Well... the modern plastic spools actually gives you a guide. There is a thin concentric groove. I ground down until that groove disappeared. And did the other side to the same depth.
While the grinding down allowed the spool to fit into the slot and turn easily, it was still too wide in diameter.
Step 2: Following suggestions on the world-wide web, I simply cut off excess plastic flange with a pair of nail clippers. The edges of the cuts were smoothed off with the file. The film now rotated smoothly in the loading bay.
Don't first cut and then thin the flanges. That way you'd loose the telltale groove that so conveniently marks the grinding depth.
So far so good. But did my mangling of the film spool affect the film? The proof is whether the film rolls off easily and whether you can successfully take photos with the modified 120 film spool. It worked like a charm. While the film quite happily rolled off the modified 120 spool, I would not suggest to use that modified spool as the take-up spool for the next film. The cut edges are just not even and smooth enough for that. Well not mine at any rate. So make sure that your original 620 take-up spool is retuned by the lab after processing.
So... in my story, the modified 120 spool may be the ugly stepsister of a true 620, but it fitted the camera, and I had a ball taking images with it...
8 responses
-
Alain Mijngheer said (7 Dec 2008):
Hey Dirk,
I recognize myself in your story havibg recently bought a Kodak Duaflex II. That camera uses 620 film too. So I went through those respooling pages, probably the same as you did read.
Instead of putting a film into the camera I chose the option of shooting with my D80 through the viewfinder, thus reproducing the ancient camera effect.
Will try your technique one of these days :) -
Dirk HR Spennemann added a link (7 Dec 2008):
Hi Alan
I tried the through-the viewfinder as well..certainly has appeal (www.flickr.com) -
Dirk HR Spennemann added a link (7 Dec 2008):
-
Andre Easter said (7 Dec 2008):
The introduction of 620 film was one of Kodak's Great Mistakes, even though that format lingered about longer than it had any right to. Kodak had grown so large that they thought they could dictate to the world market. "Our film 'might' fit your foreign cameras, but your foreign film won't fit into ours." This strategy worked for a few years in America where post-war affluence allowed far more consumers to buy cheap brownies and duoflex-style cameras. But the rest of the world paid no attention. Rebuilding their war-ravaged industries, the Germans and Japanese began offering far better gear than Kodak could afford to produce. 620 became synonymous with cheap entry-level, a niche later filled by the 126 and 110 instamatics, and now by point-n-shoot digitals and phone-cams.
-
Dirk HR Spennemann said (7 Dec 2008):
Andre...well said..!..
-
Jason Barnhart said (9 Dec 2008):
Excellent story and well written. There is a company called Film For Classics. They sell a number of antiquated film formats. You can buy 620 direct from them no trimming required.
http://www.filmforclassics.com/
Keep up the good work and have another look at your old cameras. You might find some ready to get back to work. -
Dirk HR Spennemann said (11 Dec 2008):
Jason. thanks for comment and praise.. And thanks for the heads up... However, I am basd in Australia. If I order from he supplier you suggest, a roll will cost me about Aus$ 15.00 plus postage. Assuming I buy, say, 10 rolls, then postage from the US to down here still comes to about Aus$2.50 per roll... while a roll of 120 over here costs me Aus$ 5.00. Thus for less than 5mins of work I am aving Aus$12.50, which is half the development costs...but I may use them for 127 film when I get another camera working... will be posting a story on the Olbia soon..
-
Dirk HR Spennemann added a link (12 Dec 2008):
More Feature Stories
The BigHeads Series
By Adam Balkovic — 26 Dec 2009
An independent project focused around a fictitious redneck family named the Cooters
