Photogtaphy Forums

Photography Forums > Photography Newsgroups > Photography Archive > Darkroom Developing and Printing > Bulk Loading 120 film?

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes

Bulk Loading 120 film?

 
 
Alan Smithee
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      04-22-2005, 02:00 PM
Bulk loading 120/220 film. Was this ever common? Why not?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Frank Pittel
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      04-22-2005, 04:59 PM
Alan Smithee <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: Bulk loading 120/220 film. Was this ever common? Why not?

It sounds like a pain to me.

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Stefan Patric
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      04-22-2005, 09:31 PM
On Friday 22 April 2005 07:00, Alan Smithee wrote:

> Bulk loading 120/220 film. Was this ever common? Why not?


No. In fact, the only medium format bulk loader I ever heard of was for
70mm film (sprocketed) that loaded into magazines for long roll,
motorized school portrait type cameras or for Hasselblad's 70mm film
backs.

Hasselblad even had a tank and reel system with loader, so photographers
could process their own film.

Why it wasn't common, I don't know, but I can guess. To load a 120
roll, you need to align exactly the film to the backing paper, so the
frame numbers on the paper line up properly, so you can load the film
to the first frame whether it automatically stops there or you have to
use a window to view the frame numbers on the back of the paper. Also,
the film has to load exactly straight on the paper.

220 would be a little easier, since it doesn't have backing paper, only
a paper leader with alignment arrows and a tail to cover the exposed
film.

In any case, if you're shooting lots and lots of 120/220 and don't want
to change rolls frequently, 70mm was the solution. I think most
general medium format camera manufacturers have discontinued 70mm. Not
enough people using it to warrant continued production.

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan Smithee
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      04-23-2005, 12:57 PM
Stefan Patric wrote:
> On Friday 22 April 2005 07:00, Alan Smithee wrote:
>
>> Bulk loading 120/220 film. Was this ever common? Why not?

>
> No. In fact, the only medium format bulk loader I ever heard of was
> for 70mm film (sprocketed) that loaded into magazines for long roll,
> motorized school portrait type cameras or for Hasselblad's 70mm film
> backs.
>
> Hasselblad even had a tank and reel system with loader, so
> photographers could process their own film.
>
> Why it wasn't common, I don't know, but I can guess. To load a 120
> roll, you need to align exactly the film to the backing paper, so the
> frame numbers on the paper line up properly, so you can load the film
> to the first frame whether it automatically stops there or you have to
> use a window to view the frame numbers on the back of the paper.
> Also, the film has to load exactly straight on the paper.
>
> 220 would be a little easier, since it doesn't have backing paper,
> only a paper leader with alignment arrows and a tail to cover the
> exposed film.
>
> In any case, if you're shooting lots and lots of 120/220 and don't
> want to change rolls frequently, 70mm was the solution. I think most
> general medium format camera manufacturers have discontinued 70mm.
> Not enough people using it to warrant continued production.


Yes it does sound like a pain. And I'm guessing the price per frame didn't
do much to incourage it either. The 70mm sounds kind of interesting though.
What types of emulsions are available in 70mm?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Nick Zentena
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      04-23-2005, 01:30 PM
Alan Smithee <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> Yes it does sound like a pain. And I'm guessing the price per frame didn't
> do much to incourage it either. The 70mm sounds kind of interesting though.
> What types of emulsions are available in 70mm?



Today? About one colour film from each company. Usually a portrait film I
think. Kodak might have one B&W film. J&C is going to have Efke in a couple
of weeks. But the perforation issue might bite you. The 70mm back I have
can take either perforated or non. Some backs can only take perforated film.
In todays world you might not have a choice of perforation/non in your film
of choice. Plus only bulk rolls are available now. At least I don't think
anybody is selling the pre loaded cans. I think a few films designed for
aircraft camaeras may also be available.

Nick
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stefan Patric
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      04-23-2005, 05:34 PM
On Saturday 23 April 2005 05:57, Alan Smithee wrote:

> Stefan Patric wrote:
>> On Friday 22 April 2005 07:00, Alan Smithee wrote:
>>
>>> Bulk loading 120/220 film. Was this ever common? Why not?

>>
>> No. In fact, the only medium format bulk loader I ever heard of was
>> for 70mm film (sprocketed) that loaded into magazines for long roll,
>> motorized school portrait type cameras or for Hasselblad's 70mm film
>> backs.
>>
>> Hasselblad even had a tank and reel system with loader, so
>> photographers could process their own film.
>>
>> Why it wasn't common, I don't know, but I can guess. To load a 120
>> roll, you need to align exactly the film to the backing paper, so the
>> frame numbers on the paper line up properly, so you can load the film
>> to the first frame whether it automatically stops there or you have
>> to use a window to view the frame numbers on the back of the paper.
>> Also, the film has to load exactly straight on the paper.
>>
>> 220 would be a little easier, since it doesn't have backing paper,
>> only a paper leader with alignment arrows and a tail to cover the
>> exposed film.
>>
>> In any case, if you're shooting lots and lots of 120/220 and don't
>> want to change rolls frequently, 70mm was the solution. I think most
>> general medium format camera manufacturers have discontinued 70mm.
>> Not enough people using it to warrant continued production.

>
> Yes it does sound like a pain. And I'm guessing the price per frame
> didn't do much to incourage it either. The 70mm sounds kind of
> interesting though. What types of emulsions are available in 70mm?


I haven't check lately on what's available in 70mm. Not much, I
imagine. With digital coming of age and the camera manufacturers
adapting to that market, film is falling more and more into disuse.
And with the reduction in film use, film manufacturers are adjusting,
too, by discontinuing many film types that are not profitable or have
little demand like 70mm. (Like I said: Hasselblad has discontinued
their 70mm accessories, but it's available used, usually at a very good
price, since their is little demand for it.) In any case, if you
really like a particular emulsion, and if it's still in production, I
sure you can special order it in 70mm. I don't know what the minimum
order would be, but years ago, I had a friend who shot 8x10, 11x14 and
20x24 b&w, and special order it (Super Double-X, I think. It was still
being made.) from Kodak. The miniumum order was $1000 US, but that was
like a year or two supply, all the same emulsion number, regardless of
the format. Saved him a lot of time with Zone System calibrations.

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joshua Putnam
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      04-23-2005, 10:36 PM
In article <gDrae.1115438$6l.594165@pd7tw2no>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...

> Yes it does sound like a pain. And I'm guessing the price per frame didn't
> do much to incourage it either. The 70mm sounds kind of interesting though.
> What types of emulsions are available in 70mm?


I've only used Kodak 70mm films. The selection has gone down a lot, but
you can still get quite a few varieties -- Kodak Infrared Aerographic is
a 70mm version of HIE, there's also 70mm Panatomic-X which is beautiful
for landscapes and portraits. Aerochrome II is color reversal film, if
you want to shoot 6x6 slides. And several manufacturers still make 70mm
portait negative films.

--
(E-Mail Removed) is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Updated Infrared Photography Books List:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/irbooks.html>
 
Reply With Quote
 
Thom
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      04-24-2005, 12:15 AM
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 09:30:02 -0400, Nick Zentena
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Alan Smithee <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes it does sound like a pain. And I'm guessing the price per frame didn't
>> do much to incourage it either. The 70mm sounds kind of interesting though.
>> What types of emulsions are available in 70mm?

>
>
> Today? About one colour film from each company. Usually a portrait film I
>think. Kodak might have one B&W film. J&C is going to have Efke in a couple
>of weeks. But the perforation issue might bite you. The 70mm back I have
>can take either perforated or non. Some backs can only take perforated film.
>In todays world you might not have a choice of perforation/non in your film
>of choice. Plus only bulk rolls are available now. At least I don't think
>anybody is selling the pre loaded cans. I think a few films designed for
>aircraft camaeras may also be available.


Years ago I had an X_US Army 70mm Combat Graphic (Graflex) with 3
lenses and it was a ball! 6x9cm images and a huge cassette. It took
15' of film (I may be wrong on that its been so long)

In the 80's and early 90's I got a 90mm Keith back for my Crown
Graphic and boy did that save lugging around hundreds of film holders.

THOM
>
> Nick


 
Reply With Quote
 
Thom
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      04-24-2005, 12:15 AM
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 10:34:28 -0700, Stefan Patric
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Saturday 23 April 2005 05:57, Alan Smithee wrote:
>
>> Stefan Patric wrote:
>>> On Friday 22 April 2005 07:00, Alan Smithee wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bulk loading 120/220 film. Was this ever common? Why not?
>>>
>>> No. In fact, the only medium format bulk loader I ever heard of was
>>> for 70mm film (sprocketed) that loaded into magazines for long roll,
>>> motorized school portrait type cameras or for Hasselblad's 70mm film
>>> backs.
>>>
>>> Hasselblad even had a tank and reel system with loader, so
>>> photographers could process their own film.
>>>
>>> Why it wasn't common, I don't know, but I can guess. To load a 120
>>> roll, you need to align exactly the film to the backing paper, so the
>>> frame numbers on the paper line up properly, so you can load the film
>>> to the first frame whether it automatically stops there or you have
>>> to use a window to view the frame numbers on the back of the paper.
>>> Also, the film has to load exactly straight on the paper.
>>>
>>> 220 would be a little easier, since it doesn't have backing paper,
>>> only a paper leader with alignment arrows and a tail to cover the
>>> exposed film.
>>>
>>> In any case, if you're shooting lots and lots of 120/220 and don't
>>> want to change rolls frequently, 70mm was the solution. I think most
>>> general medium format camera manufacturers have discontinued 70mm.
>>> Not enough people using it to warrant continued production.

>>
>> Yes it does sound like a pain. And I'm guessing the price per frame
>> didn't do much to incourage it either. The 70mm sounds kind of
>> interesting though. What types of emulsions are available in 70mm?

>
>I haven't check lately on what's available in 70mm. Not much, I
>imagine. With digital coming of age and the camera manufacturers
>adapting to that market, film is falling more and more into disuse.


I must respectfully disagree. The digital is just replacing the
amiture cameras plus remember that acording to some computer magazines
only 29% of house holds have computers. Thats why they have come out
with these printing stations because they are running out of customer
base.

Digital is actually creating an interest in real photography where
none had existed before. Look at the interest in sheet film, look at
how quickly view cameras get snapped up on eBay and the new interest
in 5x7 and 8x10. 5x7 is the hottest and you will notice that Kodak
and overseas companies are again offering the film. Freestyle is a
big seller of 5x7 now along with incraesed sales in 8x10.

THOM
>And with the reduction in film use, film manufacturers are adjusting,
>too, by discontinuing many film types that are not profitable or have
>little demand like 70mm. (Like I said: Hasselblad has discontinued
>their 70mm accessories, but it's available used, usually at a very good
>price, since their is little demand for it.) In any case, if you
>really like a particular emulsion, and if it's still in production, I
>sure you can special order it in 70mm. I don't know what the minimum
>order would be, but years ago, I had a friend who shot 8x10, 11x14 and
>20x24 b&w, and special order it (Super Double-X, I think. It was still
>being made.) from Kodak. The miniumum order was $1000 US, but that was
>like a year or two supply, all the same emulsion number, regardless of
>the format. Saved him a lot of time with Zone System calibrations.
>
>--
>Stefan Patric
>NoLife Polymath Group
>(E-Mail Removed)


 
Reply With Quote
 
jjs
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      04-24-2005, 12:30 AM
"Thom" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote

> [...]
> Digital is actually creating an interest in real photography where
> none had existed before. Look at the interest in sheet film, look at
> how quickly view cameras get snapped up on eBay and the new interest
> in 5x7 and 8x10. 5x7 is the hottest and you will notice that Kodak
> and overseas companies are again offering the film. Freestyle is a
> big seller of 5x7 now along with incraesed sales in 8x10.


To add a data point. As I've mentioned I communicate with some Chinese
concerns as part of my day job. 70mm motion-pictures are big there. And why
not? The new Chinese economy is buying the best of everything. 70mm
motion-pictures are a natural. Digital? Well, yeah sure, but it's for
expediency. For real art, it's the real stuff: 70mm.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is there a way to BULK CROP photos NOT BULK RESIZE but BULK CROP? Giovanni Photoshop 5 08-22-2007 06:56 AM
need help loading 120 film into pinhole camera Scott Speck Digital SLR 6 09-26-2006 01:56 AM
Bulk loading and modern cameras. Peter Chant 35mm Cameras 12 09-15-2004 10:55 PM
120 sprial loading James Salisbury UK Photography 9 08-16-2004 08:34 AM
Bulk loading: duplicating film: 100' roll with a 2" U-Core Nicholas O. Lindan Darkroom Developing and Printing 4 07-16-2003 01:30 AM