For some time now, I have seen various references to differences between Fuji 120 film spools and Kodak 120 film spools as a possible source of problems with film spacing on many medium format camera backs. Evidently, there is no agreed upon standard, with Ilford and others having their own spool differences too.

If you have your slides mounted, you may not notice these frame spacing errors unless they are bad enough to impinge on the visible slide area. You can check by doing a roll of slides and getting unmounted processing. If you do your own developing, this problem will be much more noticeable.

It is not a bad idea to make and keep a film strip from your initial camera testing on file. You can use this reference strip to see if a frame spacing problem exists, and to check periodically to see if your back is wearing out. Similarly, you might check out a new film with unmounted slide processing, again to see if there is a frame spacing problem developing due to film spool size differences.

The problem appears to be most acute and common in the cameras designed in the former Soviet sphere, such as the Kiev 88 and related models. The cameras usually take the blame, when it now seems the film spools may be at least partly to blame.

As Willem-Jan Markerink suggests in the post below, be careful if you switch film spool brands as the spools of one brand (e.g., Kodak) may not frame accurately with another film brand's film roll (e.g., Fuji).

Another trick noted below is that you can experiment with where you start loading your film (e.g., the red arrow can be moved above or below the red dot loading point to increase or decrease spacing on some models).

Another potential problem is winding rapidly and hard versus slowly and less forcefully. Some reports suggest that mis-spacing in some cameras may be a factor of winding variations. So experiment to see if this is a problem, especially if you use a fold-out hand crank or similar faster winder setup.

Finally, it may just be a worn out back or winding mechanism. If so, the problems will often be consistent and repeatable, and get better or worse in the same way from roll to roll. Repair is the only answer.

Date: Wed, 26 May 1999
From: Willem-Jan Markerink w.j.markerink@a1.nl
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: Noblex 150 spacing problems

Dear Gang,

For those with inconsistent/too-large frame spacing in the Noblex 150, I just read on the Dutch newsgroup that some have found inconsistencies in spool width when switching from brand to brand, by loading one after the other....to the point that a too small film on a too wide spool allows light leakage, and very tight film winding vice versa. (sample given was Ilford vs Fuji NPH)

Since the 120 system relies on alternating/switching spools, this might be a good explanation for the Noblex spacing problem.... Try to remember what film that old spool was used for, and whether it differs with the one you are loading next....or try a few same-brand sequences to proof that the camera itself is not the problem.

--
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink

w.j.markerink@a1.nl

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Scott Jaqua jaqua@centerlinewheels.com
[1] Re: Kiev 88 problems
Date: Sat Apr 11 16:22:42 CDT 1998

Paul and Woody,

I find your experiences with the Kiev 88 hard to believe. Both my father and I own this camera and are very pleased. We have both noted a minor problem in frame spacing, but I have had the same problem in older 35 mm underwater camera before . The work around, if you are using paper backed film, is to open the back port and adjust the film position until the frame number is in view for the first two or three frames. After that, there is enough film on the take up spool to prevent frame overlap. As I do not do action shots, I don't see this a major problem. Other then this minor problem, my father and I love this camera. For the record, my dad got his via Kiev U.S.A., while I got mine direct from Russa via my wifes friend in St. Petersburg.

Scott Jaqua

From: graphic@delphi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kiev 88 problems
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 98

I have a KIEV 60 whose frames usually "kiss"....the new Fuji spools seem to have corrected the problm on a roll by roll basis. Give them a try with the "88" and let us know if this works.....

...in my case, there is no special procedures to use, except the "new-type" fuji rolls (on NHGII-800 and possibly other emulsions by now).

Look thru the slit for the leader and you'll see an inverted "T" molded in.

Graphic@delphi.com

From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: Re: [HUG] Film spacing problems... sometimes
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 

David Meiland wrote:

> One of my A12 backs has an occasional film spacing problem. This back was
> bought about 6 months ago serviced immediately by Brad Sherman. I first
> used it quite a few times with Portra 160 and got 12 negs every time. I
> very recently used it with Delta 100 and got 11 (actually 11.5). A previous
> owner of this back filed a couple of tiny notches into the window, so I can
> tell which one is having the problem. I am quite sure I load the film and
> advance it correctly. All my gear is carefully handled and stored. I should
> probably just send the back in for re-servicing, but it bugs me. Is film
> spacing that difficult to adjust, or that easy to knock out of adjustment?
> Do film backing papers and base thicknesses vary enough to make a big
> difference? Anyone else battled this problem?

Apparently Ilford films do this. Nothing wrong with the back.

A quote from a recent discussion on Photo.net:

"I pulled out my 501CM manual. Page 10 under magazine tips -
"Align the arrow on the paper backing of all Ilford black & white films
against the oblong index (and no further) on the spool clamp bar and not the
triangular index as normal."

I pulled out my new style A12 back a found the red oblong index. It is
located on the upper left edge of the spool clamp. If it were a clock and
the triangular index is 12 o'clock, the oblong index is at 10 o'clock.

Therefore, if you have an older style back line the paper arrows at 10
o'clock. "



From: "Austin Franklin" darkroom@ix.netcom.com>
To: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl>,
	hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: RE: [HUG] Film spacing problems... sometimes
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 

> Apparently Ilford films do this. Nothing wrong with the back.
>
> A quote from a recent discussion on Photo.net:
>
> "I pulled out my 501CM manual. Page 10 under magazine tips -
> "Align the arrow on the paper backing of all Illford black & white films
> against the oblong index (and no further) on the spool clamp bar
> and not the
> triangular index as normal."
>
> I pulled out my new style A12 back a found the red oblong index. It is
> located on the upper left edge of the spool clamp. If it were a clock and
> the triangular index is 12 o'clock, the oblong index is at 10 o'clock.
>
> Therefore, if you have an older style back line the paper arrows at 10
> o'clock. "

Hi Q.G.,

Yes, but that's BAD information.  It's the TAKE-UP SPOOL that matters, not
the film.  If you have an Ilford take-up spool, the information is correct,
if you have Ilford film, and a Kodak take-up spool, the information is
incorrect/misleading.

Austin


From: "Austin Franklin" darkroom@ix.netcom.com>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: RE: [HUG] spacing and other problems
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 

Steve,

> I have read the explanations and reasons for this ( Film spools etc.) but
> can anyone answer this?
>
> I understood that Hasselblad were the last word in 'real' camera
> technology,
> that they made the best.
>
> I have been using Mamiya 330's for many years for mainly wedding and
> portrait work. In this time I have used probably thousands of
> rolls of film
> of almost all makes and I have NEVER had a spacing problem on any of my
> bodies, some of which are very old, some much later. I also know of no one
> else that has had this problem on the Mamiya. Why then, if Mamiya
> can do it
> , can't Hasselblad?

The Ilford change in spool size is recent (past few years).  EVERY camera is
subject to this...EVERY.  The depending factor is where the film starts,
that's it.  It is not a matter of  "why can't Hasselblad".

This issue is VERY VERY VERY simply solved by stopping your initial winding
a cm or two before the little mark, when using an Ilford take-up spool.  I
believe new magazines come marked with an additional starting mark.

> I have heard so many stories of poor film spacing, slow and
> sticky shutters,
> bodies failing because the lubricant used is 'too sticky', camera/lens
> jamming, light leaks etc.

I've been using Hasselblads for 25 years, and I haven't heard many spacing
problems, and I've never heard any sticky shutters or light leaks.  I have
heard a small group of jams, that are apparently ONLY on older
bodies/lenses, and solved with a CLA of the lense.

All this stuff is just such "non issues".  Yes, some problems exist...but no
more than in ANY other make of camera, and being that there are so many
Hasselblads out there, and they take such heavy use, I'd say the issues with
Hasselblads are even less.

Austin


Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 
From: Jesse Hellman hellman@home.com>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] spacing and other problems

Does anyone know WHY Ilford changed the size of the spool cores? Or why
they did not compensate by making the film a little longer (the answer
is probably either that they did not think of it, just as they did not
think to notify consumers of the ramifications of the spool change, or
that the film would then not work on all those developing reels we have)?

Why should Hasselblad put a permanent mark on the magazines because
Ilford changed their spools? What if every manufacturer used different
size spools?

How can a company that invents these great films not think of something
like this?

I sent out two magazines for servicing, which they did not need. So I'm
ranting a bit.

Jesse


From: "Austin Franklin" darkroom@ix.netcom.com>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: RE: [HUG] spacing and other problems
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 

> Does anyone know WHY Ilford changed the size of the spool cores?

I do now know, but I DO know that it is still within the spec for 120 film
spools though...as a range is specified...but no one else uses the high end
of the range except now Ilford.

Austin


Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: RE: [HUG] A-12 problem?

> I ran a
> roll of Ilford Delta 400 through the A-12 this past Sunday

If the take-up spool is an Ilford spool (+ on top and bottom flat, and round
holes in paper slit), then you need to stop the film about 1/4" or so BEFORE
the red loading triangle that you normally align the arrows on the backing
paper up with.  The Ilford spools are slightly larger than all others, and
therefore can cause a film spacing problem on the last frame if you don't do
this.

Austin



From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002
From: Jesse Hellman hellman@comcast.net
Subject: [HUG] more Ilford spacing woes

Having sent two perfectly good A-12 magazines out for unnecessary
servicing, I've been following all the discussion on Ilford with
interest, paying more attention to loading.

Jim Brick's explanation that it is the thickness of the spool onto which
one is loading was a big help. And to align the arrows at the corner,
not the triangle.

But I still have occasional problems with Ilford, and it appears to be
due to this: As I wind on the Ilford leader, at times it does not make a
TIGHT roll with the first turn. If the film is not tight on the spool,
it actually creates a core with a greater diameter (an Inadvertently
Larger Core, or ILC, and this leads to increased spacing between frames
and the last frame being too close to (or worse, over) the end of the
film. I noticed that if I wound the film very carefully for the first
turn, the spacing between frames would not be off.

The Ilford film comes with a leader doubled over. If I use it that way,
I have to be careful it does not load at a slight angle - that is, the
film is not at an exact right angle to the core. This that can create
the ILC mentioned above.

How do you all deal with this? Are there secrets to loading Ilford? I
have tried un-doubling the doubled-over flap, but this is a pain and
does not hold well in the wide slot they use.

How do you all do it? I assume that a company that makes such good film
has not missed such an obvious thing, but I have not read anything about
it and do not know if I am the only person who occasionally has this problem.

Jesse



Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 
From: Tourtelot tourtelot1@attbi.com
To: Jesse Hellman hellman@comcast.net, hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] more Ilford spacing woes

FWIW, I unstick the doubled-over leader and get the bend in the leader to
catch the (how do I explain this???) far side of the slot in the spool..
Then I hold it back against the spool counter to the way that the spool
turns and get one good wind or two to hold the leader against the spool and
make the first wrap(s) tight..  I use my thumbs to keep both the supply side
and the take-up side taut (sorry if this recording studio terminology
doesn't translate).  I have yet to have any spacing problems.  But also for
the record, I only use Magazine 12s, and don't own any A12s.

D.
....





Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: RE: [HUG] more Ilford spacing woes


> >How do you all deal with this? Are there secrets to loading Ilford?
>
>
> The way I deal with it is that I do not use Ilford roll film. I use Fuji,
> Agfa, Kodak, and Efke. Plenty of good films here without having to deal
> with Ilford's idioms.

Hi Jim,

The problem isn't the film, but the take-up spool.  Just don't use Ilford
take-up spools, and all will be right with the world.  I use Ilford Delta
3200, since there really isn't any other high-speed B&W; 120 film that I am
aware of...but easy enough, I just keep a "few" "regular" spools round, and
throw the Ilford ones away.

Of course, this is easy to do if you process your own film.  I have probably
100 or more of these spools lying around, and if anyone wants a dozen or so,
please let me know, and I'll be happy to send them to you.

Austin




Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 
From: David Meiland david@meiland.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] more Ilford spacing woes

Since the recent discussion about film spacing and overshooting the end of
the roll (getting 11.5 frames), I've taken the step of winding my film on
just short of the 'Start' mark in the magazine. If the mark is at 12:00, I
wind to 11:00 and stop there, about 1/4" short. I have not had any problems
with spacing or overshooting since. I use 5 A12 magazines and Kodak, Fuki,
Ilford, and Maco films interchangeably. Prior to this I was having
occasional problems, in one case getting 11.5 frames on a dozen rolls in a
row (yes, rolls of Delta 100).




Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 
From: Jesse Hellman hellman@comcast.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] more Ilford spacing woes

Thanks to D. Tourtelot and others for their help.

Today I came up with a simple way to prevent the film loading
incorrectly as I described. As I finished the first full turn of the
film onto the takeup spool I used a finger of my left hand to push
gently down on the film against the pressure plate. This lets the film
wind tightly on the takeup spool and prevents the spacing problem caused
by any looseness, which tranlates into too much film being wound each frame.

Thanks again - I like Ilford too much and to change for such a reason,
when the solution is so simple.

Jesse




Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 
From: Oliver Bryk oliverbryk@attbi.com
To: Hasselblad Users Group hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] film spacing woes

I have used FP4+ and occasionally HP5+ with Ilford spools in my several A12
backs for years and - knock on wood - never had a spacing problem.

I wonder whether, in the opinion of wiser heads than mine, it might be worth
a look at the universe of serial numbers of the afflicted backs?

Oliver Bryk


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 
From: David Meiland david@meiland.com
Subject: Re: [HUG] Back issue

>Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 
>From: Peter Rosenthal petroffski@mac.com
>Subject: Re: [HUG] Back issue
>
>>> The first shot I take using either of my two A12 backs (on a 503CW)
>>> is often lost. I've noticed that both on NC400 & Tri-X film. I align the
>>>
>>> arrow on the film properly with the triangular index. Any clues ?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Charles
>
>Charles-
>What do you mean by lost?  Just not there at all? Overlapping? Off the end
>of the film? The word "often" in your post is a clue. Forgive this
>suggestion (Hassy 101), but make sure the body is cocked when you install
>the back or magazine.  The previous post about adding 1/4 - 1/3 rotation
>past the arrow is always a good idea with certain vintage backs and/or
>certain films. If it's overlapping you should get it serviced as the
>counter/1st frame stop is out of sync. If it's off the end of the film you
>might try a priest as some sort of exorcism may work.  Watch out for the pea
>soup. It'll cause problems of it's own.
>Peter

I assume your are winding the film to the '1' position on the counter
before shooting the first shot... once in a while I forget to do this and
always lose the first shot! Seriously, I've taken to stopping the film just
BEFORE the arrow on all of the films I use, and it has improved spacing on
all of my backs, and I never lose the last frame, which used to happen
occasionally. As others have mentioned this can be due to using Ilford
films, which apparently have slightly larger spool diameters.



From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: Re: [HUG] Back issue

Charles MTgnin wrote:
>The first shot I take using either of my two A12 backs (on a 503CW)
>is often lost. I've noticed that both on NC400 & Tri-X film. I align the
>
>arrow on the film properly with the triangular index. Any clues ?
>Thanks,
>Charles

To fix it just align the film arrow a half inch past the little arrow on
the magazine.

I do this all the time so I have more blank film at the beginning instead
of all of it at the end.

In your case, you need to do it to get the first frame on the film.

Jim



Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: 220 backs & 620 spools

 David.Clark@Walsworth.com at David.Clark@Walsworth.com wrote:
> Thanks for the help guys.  Bob Shell - - what are the differences in the
> inserts?  They look pretty much the same to me.

They do look the same.  The dimension of the cut out rectangle is longer in
newer ones, if I am remembering right, and the plastic is thicker as well.

But the point someone else made about being sure the darkslide is completely
opened is good, too.  That can cause difficulty in getting inserts to seat.

You know, Rollei came up with these inserts back in the 70s, and I am still
astonished when using other cameras which always make you move a spool when
loading film!! Even the new Rollei 645 magazine has inserts which go in
either way.  You'd think in thirty years someone else would have caught on
that this is the right way to do it.

Bob


From: "Graphic" graphic99@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kiev models - Film Flatness (improved with Fuji spools)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002


A cheap, easy fix for inadequate pressure caused by "slack" in the film gate
is to use Fuji 120-spools as the take-up spool when using any brand of film.

The Fuji spool has a "T" shaped bit of plastic in the slot which graps the
film and pulls it more tightly across the film plane.  This can be
demonstrated by the fact that Kiev's (all????) have a spacing problem.
Comparing the spacing with the Fuji vs non-Fuji take-up spool shows that
spacing between frames increases with the use of the Fuji spools. The extra
spacing would appear to directly relate to greater film tension at the film
gate with an expected better film flatness.

Wayne Catalano
...


From: flexaret2@aol.com (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 13 Feb 2002 
Subject: Re: Kiev models - Film Flatness (improved with Fuji spools)


All Kievs (120) have a spacing problem?

Sheer Nonsense!!

I have - Kiev 60, Kiev 6C, Kiev 88, Salyut-C, Kiev 88CM and
NONE of these has a spacing problem.

As for the Fuji spools - they are good and have the advantage of a
place to catch the hole in Fuji film leaders - which is an improvement over the
film leader sometimes pulling out of the spool slot when loading.

As for film flatness - that is an issue based on camera design and
film type and which image is where on a roll of film. Fuji spools
will do little or nothing to change these film flatness problems.

- Sam Sherman



From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] thin vs. thick films

Just a though...there is an "issue" with Ilford films...the spools are
slightly larger than "other" film makers spools, and can cause a film
spacing problem.  Obviously, it is an issue with the take-up spool, not the
spool the film comes on.  The Ilford spools have holes in them, along the
slit that you put the film leader in.


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 
From: Gerry Young gerry.young@ntu.ac.uk
Subject: RE: Medium format folders.


Frame spacing problems with old roll film cameras which have semi auto
advance (such as the Super Ikonta I once owned) are usually due to
modern film being thinner than the old stuff.  The trick with the Super
Ikonta was to put a couple of thicknesses of old backing paper on the
take up reel before attaching the film leader, this thickened out the
take up spool and allowed the gearing to give enough spacing to separate
each frame, you will probably have to experiment.
Some Rolleis have a different system, the film is passed through two
rollers which meter the film length as its advanced, but you have to
keep the rollers clean or they scratch tghe emulsion.

Gerry Young


From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 
From: Mike Kirwan mkirwan@pacbell.net
Subject: RE: [HUG] A12 frame spacing mystery

You are right. I have had problems using Ilford spools with exactly your
problem. I have run a test with Ilford films from 1988 and 2002 and the old
spool does not cause spacing problems whereas the new ones do.

I posed this question on the IlfoPro board and a number of folks also
confirmed the same problem. Ilford did not respond. But I only get this
problem on my A12 backs, no problem at all with using Ilford spools on my
Mamiya, Bronica or Horseman backs. Must be the precision engineering of
Hasselblad :)

I now save my Kodak and Fuji spools and throw throw the Ilford ones away.

Mike


From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 
From: Jesse Hellman hellman@comcast.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] A12 frame spacing mystery

From what you described I doubt that such a large error in placement of
each frame was due simply to the very slight increased diameter of the
Ilford spool. Note that the correction mark placed by Hasselblad on new
spools for use of Ilford take-up spools requires that the arrow stop
only a small distance before the normal mark.

Rather, the error likely comes from the fact that film wound on the
Ilford spools can do so in such a way that the first turn of film does
not sit tightly against the spool. This in effect leads to a much larger
take-up spool core, with the result that a lot of extra film is wound on
each exposure.

Just make sure the first turn is tight, and stop the arrows at the
corner of the stainless holder right before the marked triangle.

Jesse


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [HUG] A12 frame spacing mystery


> > Stop using Ilford take-up spools is
> > the simplest, or if doing so, set the
> > start arrow ahead as suggested.

> Difficult to do unless I keep a stash of Kodak or Fuji take-up
> spools handy.

I do it with no problem, as I develop my own film...so having a few hundred
of them lying around isn't really a problem.  Also, easy solution is to
simply stop the arrows about 1cm before the standard film indicator, when
using Ilford spools as TAKE-UP spools.

That is one of the issues I have with how this hole thing has been handled
by Hasselblad and Ilford.  It has nothing to do with the film spool, but
ONLY the take-up spool.  From what I have discussed with Hasselblad and
Ilford on this issue, they have NOT made that specifically clear when they
discuss it.  Perhaps they have figured out how to word this "issue" better
now.

> The film it messed up on was the film _after_ the Ilford roll, not the
> Ilford roll itself...

Correct.  You wound the Ilford roll onto a NON-Ilford spool, so all was
fine.  Then, you moved the Ilford spool to the take-up side, and therefore
the NEXT roll, no matter WHAT make it was, would have the spacing problem
(if you lined the starting arrow up at the standard spot).  As I said, the
issue is with the take-up spool, not the film spool.

> > There is nothing wrong with Ilford film.
>
> I'm sure that's true, but Ilford doesn't provide anything that I can't get
> from Kodak, as far as I know (whereas the converse is not true).

Er, Delta 3200...shoot at 1600  and be very happy ;-)

Austin



From Hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 
From: "Kirt E. Carter" kec@prodigy.net
Subject: [HUG] Ilford's Reply to Frame Spacing Mystery

As a more recent subscriber, I appreciated getting the information regarding
uneven spacing (A12) using Ilford film. It was timely in that I just
experienced the same phenomenon a week earlier (with a virtually new A12
back) and was thinking I would have to send it in for CLA. After reading the
original post and responses, I wrote Ilford's tech support and they
confirmed the problem. I have never had this problem with my standard films
(APX100 and Velvia). It initially occured on the second roll of Ilford
FP4Plus (such that the take-up spool was from the first roll). When I
switched back to an Agfapan take-up spool, the problem disappeared. When I
went back to the Ilford take-up spool, it returned. Here is Ilford's
response to my inquiry:

Dear Mr. Carter,
Thank you for your note. ILFORD is aware of the problem, and we
have been investigating it for several months. The problem seems to vary
from back to back, as well as with conditions such as humidity, making the
problem very difficult to fully resolve. We believe that it is indeed related
to the spool, as the problem does not occur when other manufactures
spools are used. We are working on remedying the situation, and appreciate
your patience.

Regards,
David Carper
ILFORD Technical Service

Thanks to the posters-I really appreciate what I have learned from HUG in my
short tenure here

Kirt E. Carter


From Hasselblad mailing list:

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 
From: Mike Kirwan mkirwan@pacbell.net
Subject: RE: [HUG] Ilford's Reply to Frame Spacing Mystery

There are probbaly patent issues, take a look at Fuji Film, they tout a
special spool. But with the case of Ilford I doubt that there are any patent
or trademark issues as the old spools work just fine. I tested a bunch of
120 Pan-F, FP4 and HP5 all which expired in 1988 and have been kept fozen.
They all went through my A12 without a hitch.

Mike


From Hasselblad Mailing list:
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [HUG] Ilford spools

> Anthony wrote:
> "I don't understand why Ilford doesn't just use spools that look like
> everyone else's spools.  Wouldn't that be easier than investigating why
> their own bizarre spool doesn't work?  Is there a patent issue here, or
> what?"
>
> We used to call that "the NIH syndrome" (NIH = not invented here).

My understanding is the spools ARE within the tolerances allowed for the 120o
reel spec, just different than other manufacturers use (and different than
Ilford used to use).  I have only heard of this causing a problem with
Hasselblad backs, not any other 120 camera.

Austin


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 
From: Mike Kirwan mkirwan@pacbell.net
Subject: RE: [HUG] Ilford spools

Austin:

I only have this problem with A12 backs. I have 120 cameras Mamiya & Bronica
and no problem at all. In addition I have Horseman 6x7 & 6x9 roll film
backs, again no problem.

Mike


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: RE: [HUG] Ilford spools

 Austin Franklin wrote:
>My understanding is the spools ARE within the tolerances allowed for the 120
>reel spec, just different than other manufacturers use (and different than
>Ilford used to use).  I have only heard of this causing a problem with
>Hasselblad backs, not any other 120 camera.
>
>Austin


I mix Kodak, Fuji, and Efke films in my backs. The Efke spools are really
different from the others. But cause no spacing or other problems when
mixed in with other films. It doesn't seem to make any difference which
spool is where.

Jim


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 
From: David Seifert dseifert@absolute.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Help Getting Loaded

Jerry,

The way I do it is to push the angle cut leader into the center slot on the
takeup spool as far as possible so that about 1/8 inch of paper is
extending out the other side of the spool.  I then bend that extended edge
over so that the paper creases.  I then sort of roll the leader onto the
takeup carefully until the takeup spool has a chance to wrap over the
initial bit.  This technique seems to work ok with Kodak films.  I have had
other problems with Fuji spools, some of which have little nipples on the
inside of the slot to engage holes in the Fuji paper leaders.

David


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Help Getting Loaded

David Seifert at dseifert@absolute.net wrote:
> I have had
> other problems with Fuji spools, some of which have little nipples on the
> inside of the slot to engage holes in the Fuji paper leaders.


Fuji spools are great.  Really slick system which makes film loading almost
automatic.  But as you noticed they only work properly with Fuji film.   Now
if other film makers would just adopt the system, along with Fuji's bar code
which some cameras read, life would be easier.  Fuji has offered it to other
film companies, but so far no takers.

Bob


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 
From: rurmonas@senet.com.au
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Help Getting Loaded

>I usually load my 120 cameras using older metal take-up spools. Always
>works fine.  Today I was loading a Tele-Rollei, to test it before
>buying.
>It had a Kodak plastic take up spool.   I could not get the roll of Plus
>X
>started!  Until I trimmed the paper backing to make a longer tongue,
>using a Swiss Army knife with scissors, I was stymied.
>
>What do you modern types do to load 120 film using plastic take-up
>spools.

The trick is to start with the paper backing slack until the takeup
spool has done 3/4 of a turn or so to catch the paper.  I generally
find that the slack left after fiddling with the leader is sufficient
for this.

Richard
---
Richard Urmonas
rurmonas@senet.com.au



From rollei mailing list:
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 
From: Cmlillja55@aol.com
Subject: [Rollei] Re: Help Getting Loaded

I almost always use a bit of tape on the leader to secure it to the take-up
spool. Gives me a nice secure feeling. Especially if you alternate between
Kodak and Fuji films with their different take up spools. It's very helpful
for the Kiev 60 or Pentacon 6 - these cameras need all the help they can get
to space frames properly.

I keep one of those little tape strip dispensers in my photo bag anyway -
comes in handy for other emergencies...

Good luck getting loaded!

Chris L.


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 
From: David Seifert dseifert@absolute.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Help Getting Loaded

Jerry,

No, I don't do it before placing the spool in the camera.  Like Richard
Urmonas I usually just make sure there is enough slack in the paper to
allow the initial winding to be done with very little resistance from the
supply side.  The paper will usually grab fine if you do this.  I find that
even doing this I don't unfurl as much paper as one would if you were
aligning arrows with index marks so there is no increased risk of fogging film.

David


From: "dr bob" rsmith@dmv.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Inexpensive Seagull Twin Lens Reflex
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 


"Patrick Martin" pmartin@erols.com wrote 
...
> The
> problem is a light along the whole edge on both sides of the film.  She's
> still getting used to the filming loading technique and is not sure if its a
> loading technique problem or a known Seagull defect.
>
> Anyone have a similar experience and knows how to fix it?
>
> Patrick

1st:  I have _no_ experience with Sea Gulls.  I do have a Mamiya
C330f which loads in a similar manner.  I have had some light leaks on the
edges as you have described when the reel is removed improperly.  The
procedure (on the Mamiya) is to release the take-up reel and allow it to
fall into your hand - not to grab it between the thumb and forefinger.  The
film is never quite as tightly rolled onto the reel as one might like and
pinching it can (did) reveal the edge to light.  After the reel is removed,
I grasp it axially at the ends and give the "follower" (opposite of a
"leader"?) a tug to remove any slack, then secure it.

          If you find the take-up reel to be extremely loose, you may have
some adjustment problems.  See an expert.

Truly, dr bob.


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [HUG] Favorte B&W; films for Hasselblad and MF work

> I think you'll find that Fuji, Kodak, and Ilford have the same
> size spools.

Hi Jim,

Ilford has changed their spool size, though within the limits of the
specification for 120 spools, it is larger than Fuji and Kodak and others.
This is what the frame spacing issue with Ilford take up spools is about.
I've measured the spools, it's a fact.  I received an official reply from
Hasselblad acknowledging the issue, and the new backs have been modified to
have two starting points marked, and they advise on older backs to simply
start the film earlier.

If you want the details, I believe it should all be in the archives.

Austin




Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: RE: [HUG] Favorte B&W; films for Hasselblad and MF work

Godfrey,

It is not the FILM that is the problem, it is the take-up spool.  If you use
Ilford film with a Kodak take-up spool, there will be no problem.

Austin

>
> I shoot a bit of Ilford film. I've never had anything like this happen.
>
> Godfrey


from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [HUG] Favorte B&W; films for Hasselblad and MF work

Hi Jim,

> >Godfrey,
> >
> >It is not the FILM that is the problem, it is the take-up spool.
>  If you use
> >Ilford film with a Kodak take-up spool, there will be no problem.
> >
> >Austin
>
>
> Yes, but for one roll. The next roll will have the Ilford spool as the
> take-up spool.

That's up to you though.  I just take the Ilford spool and throw it in the
trash.  I have hundreds of Kodak spools, as I'm sure you do too...

> I was unaware the the Ilford spools are different in size. Sounds pretty
> stupid to me.

Exactly!  I seem to remember posting a lot of info on this on the photo.net
web site.  I believe I posted the measurements etc.

> At a wedding I mixed Delta 3200 and Kodak Portra
> B&W; so some
> of the Portra was wound on Ilford spools with no noticeable effect???

Me too...I've had some be very sensitive to it, and some not...  When I
first heard about this (as you'll see by the photo.net responses I posted, I
simply did not believe it...but then I started to actually SEE it happen...

> Thanks for the info. Guess I won't be using much Ilford film in my
> Hasselblad. But heck... other than those two rolls of 3200, I've
> never used
> Ilford film in my 'blad. Since Agfa, Efke, Fuji, and Kodak all
> make really
> great films, I probably will ignore Ilford.

I shoot almost all B&W; in MF and I LOVE the Delta 3200, and the Delta 100.
It's worth the effort to me.

> Why would Ilford be out of step on something so simple as the spool?

Sigh (not at you, but the issue).  Yes, I know...and have received no
reasonable explanation for this.  And...they changed it over the years!
Now, it's not a problem, as I said, I just toss the Ilford spool in the
trash, and use a Kodak one.

Here was the response I received from Hasselblad:

"However, the rumour is probably based on the fact that Ilford changed spool
size. This means that all Iford black&white; films have to have their own
loading index and this has meant that we have had to add an index. In
practice all it means is that you align the arrow on Ilford films a
centimetre or so before the regular index. Failure to do so can cause the
partial loss of a frame."

And:

"To assure best tolerances for all film types during lab processing (you
risk to cut a part of the last frame for Ilford films) we slightly modified
the magazine adjustment. We have introduced a special Ilford index (Ilford
happens to have a spool diameter different from other manufacturers but also
within the ISO tolerance)."

Regards,

Austin


From russian camera mailing list:

From: "Per Backman" 
To: "russiancamera-user" 
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 23:08:56 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [Russiancamera] 120 spool diameters
Reply-To: russiancamera-user@beststuff.com

I have measured the diameter of different 120 spools from different ages, from
the 1930's until today. The measure is mm with 0,5 mm exactness. As you can see
there is
very little variation, I do not think it can influence framespacing much, film
and backingpaper thickness is probably more important.

Per

Unk=Unknown M=Metal P=Plastic W=Wood

Unk             W       11
Unk             W       12
Unk             M       12
Unk             M       12
Unk             M       12
Foton           P       11,5
Kodak           M       11,5
Kodak, England  P       12
Gevaert,old G20 M       11,5
Gevaert         M       11,5
Unk             M       12
Foma            P       12
Adox            P       11,5
Unk             M       12
Agfa            W       12
Agfa            W       11,5
Agfa, older     P       11
Agfa, newer     P       11
Kodak "Brownie" M       12
Seagull         P       11
Forte           P       11,5
Orwo            P       11,5
Svema           P       12
Efke            P       11,5
Efke            P       11,5
Efke            P       11
Forte           P       11
Shanghai        P       11
Unk             P       12
Ilford          P       11,5

The PHOTO page;
Images (nude), B/W Formulae (lots of them);
http://hem.fyristorg.com/pbackman/



Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 
To: Russiancamera-user russiancamera-user@mail.beststuff.com
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] 120 spool diameters
From: Doug doug@nomathjobs.com

Hi Per!

That's a great data set.  If the maximum difference is 0.5mm then the
maximum difference in frame spacing *for the first spool revolution* would
be 0.5mm*pi = 1.57mm

As the film is wound through, the frame spacing difference is:

k*pi*d
where k=film/paper combo thickness*2

Anybody know how thick "typical" 120 film/paper backing material is?



From: "Per Backman" perbackman@swipnet.se
To: "russiancamera-user@beststuff.com" russiancamera-user@beststuff.com
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] 120 spool diameters

Doug wrote:

>Hi Per!
>
>That's a great data set.  If the maximum difference is 0.5mm then the
>maximum difference in frame spacing *for the first spool revolution* would
>be 0.5mm*pi = 1.57mm
>
>As the film is wound through, the frame spacing difference is:
>
>k*pi*d
>where k=film/paper combo thickness*2

It also shows that the thickness has been varying +-1mm since the 30's, so the
the frame spacing problems in Flexarets, Super Ikontas (at least III), Perkeo II etc., do
probably not depend on the diameter of the spool used, they would not have
worked properly when they were new in that case.

>Anybody know how thick "typical" 120 film/paper backing material is?

No, but I see a clear difference when using Efke films (R50) and Forte films
(Fortepan 400) in the same Kiev60. Fortepan is much thicker, or at least it feels that way, I
have not the equipment to measure it, and the backing paper feels thicker too.
The spools are absolutely identical.

Film transport problems can depend on worn friction wheels and other things
worn or oily that should not be.

My 1995 Kiev60 (export model, got it from Brenners) was not possible to adjust
as much as I wanted, my 1992 Kiev 60 (domestic model, second hand in Riga) was easy. I
have a Kiev6S too, it transports OK, a bit tight between frames, but it does
not block the transport when the film is wound on. I do not worry about it,
maybe I will try to fix it when I run out of broken cameras.

Per
The PHOTO page;
Images (nude), B/W Formulae (lots of them);
http://hem.fyristorg.com/pbackman/



Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 16:37:54 +0100
Organization: http://freemail.web.de/
From: Roman Rohleder 
To: russiancamera-user@beststuff.com
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] 120 spool diameters
Reply-To: russiancamera-user@beststuff.com

Hallo Doug,

> Anybody know how thick "typical" 120 film/paper backing material is?

No, not in numbers.

But for a comparison: I recently developed my first rolls of Efke R50 (and IÝm
going to get more of this stuff when IÝm in Berlin next month..). When I
unrolled the film in the dark, I instantly knew what "thickness" mean. The
gelatine layer of that film is really fat, you wonÝt see it, but you feel it.

Anyone with frame space problems should try it, it seems to be well suited..

Beste Gruesse, Alles Gute!

roman rohleder



Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 
From: Marc m.peeters@tijd.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] History Question

I have one wooden, made by Agfa Gevaert.
I found it in a Ihagee Camera  dated +- 1930
If you want I can send you a picture of it -  off list


----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicholas Albano III" nalbano@bellatlantic.net
To: "rstein" rstein@bigpond.net.au
Cc: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] History Question


> Not only metal, but I have seen a few made with a wooden spool with
> metal caps.
>
> Nick Albano
>
> rstein wrote:
>
> > Dear Friends,
> >
> >      Onky donkey years ago someone asked for a bunch of used 120 plastic
> > takeup spools and I sent them along. It never occurred to me then and only
> > has come to my notice now - but 120 spools must have been metal at some
> > stage of the game - right?
> >
> >      What were they constructed of - how were they joined? Were the
> > dimensions the same as now? When did they change?
> >
> >     Uncle Dick



Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 
From: Marc James Small msmall@infi.net
To: rstein rstein@bigpond.net.au
Subject: Re: [HUG] History Question

Dick

120 spools were originally made of metal caps on wooden spindles.  This was
a "labor intensive" system, so Kodak favored its 620 film which came on a
metal, one-piece spindle.  The wooden spools persisted in use into the
1950's and lingered on in some films into the 1960's, when the spools
became all-plastic.  I have never heard of an all-metal 120 spool but that,
of course, hardly means that such didn't exist at some point.

Marc
msmall@infi.net




Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 
From: Marc James Small msmall@infi.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] History Question

 Peter Rosenthal wrote:
>How do you know all this cool stuff about spools? Class at school?
>Spools 101? An old uncle with a 2 ton spool collection? Way to much
>time on your hands?!  Anywhoo... there are 120 metal spools. Lots of
>them. I think I have dozens. I sometimes use them for obscure testing
>purposes. Let me know and I can call your uncle and I'll donate them to
>his collection.

I know from talking to LOTS of people and reading LOTS of books and
magazines.  (Somewhere, I have a US photo magazine issue from the 1930's
with an enraged letter from a fellow who got splinters in his fingers from
a Kodak spool, by way of one instance.)

I have also done my own processing for more than 40 years.  Again, that I
have never SEEN a metal spool or have any evidence for the existence of
such stands for little -- but, still, I've never seen one.  Lots of metal
caps/wooden spool ones (I have a dozen or more of these in my collection,
along with the old colored-cap Kodak metal cans) and lots of plastic ones,
but nary a metal one.  (I also have processed a LOT of 620 and 127 film,
both of which DO have metal spindles.)  I routinely have used Ilford,
Kodak, EFKE, and ORWO films, along with minimal quantities of Fuji and
Konica (EVERYONE tells me that these films are great and I keep trying
them, but I STILL find them worthless) and Perutz, SMENA, and the like.

I suspect your "120" metal spools are actually 620, but, again, what do I
know?

Marc
msmall@infi.net



Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 
From: Peter Rosenthal petroffski@mac.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] History Question

> I suspect your "120" metal spools are actually 620, but, again, what
> do I
> know?
>
> Marc


You obviously know a lot but, and not to get into any sort of off-topic
pissing contest but I'm telling you, they're 120 spools. Honest! Work
well and fit well into all 120 equipment. I don't have more than one
620 spool because they are worthless to me. I've had to modify older
620 cameras to take 120 because many peeps don't want to part with some
of these old, very cool cameras which would otherwise be shelf-sitters.
Say that 5 times really fast. The keyway on the 620 is relatively very
small and no more than a keyway-shaped hole. The spool ends are also
very flat as opposed to the 120 metal spools which are stamped and
formed with all sorts of compound curves to load and take-up film
easily. Much more "sophisticated". Tell you what... send me your
address off-line and I'll send you one of these spools so you can add
it to your extensive and impressive mental database. No better yet I'll
send YOU a photo of the thing, installed into a Hassy magazine.
Tomorrow.


Take care-

Peter
PR Camera Repair
111 E. Aspen #1
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
928 779 5263


From: Austin Franklin [darkroom@ix.netcom.com] 
Sent: Sun 4/6/2003 
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net 
Subject: RE: [HUG] a12 frame spacing


Marc,

> Thank you for your reply Austin.

You're welcome.

> it all makes a lot of sense now. frustrating problem though.

Yes, it can be.

> have any of you told ilford about this?

Ilford knows, as does Hasselblad very very well. According to a contact at
Hasselblad I have, they now make the backs with a second mark on it for use
with Ilford take-up spools.

> does this not happen with non-hasselblads?

Not in my experience.

> can you recommend a good starting point if you do use ilford spools?

Well, if you're running off the end, then start about 3/8 BEFORE the mark.

BTW, I have personally experienced this problem. I really don't believe it
has to do with proper servicing or not, as mine are perfectly serviced.
Once I figured out what the problem was, I paid more careful attention to
where I started the film when using Hasselblad take-up spools. Hasselblad
acknowledges this problem, and they wouldn't do something about it if it
were simply a back servicing issue I do not believe.

Regards,

Austin



From: Joseph Codispoti [joecodi@clearsightusa.com] 
Sent: Sun 4/6/2003 
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net 
Subject: Re: [HUG] a12 frame spacing


> Marc McQuade wrote:

> > i would like to have my back checked to be certain.
> > does anybody in europe know where i can get my back serviced...
> > preferably in switzerland.


I did not follow this thread from the beginning but would like to offer a
hint that seems to work in most cases.

A very simple test can help determine if film or camera and/or back is the
culprit:

Use the paper backing from a spent roll of film or a new/ruined roll.
Load it and remove the lens.

Take the film to No 1.

With a pen or pencil mark the outline of the frame from inside the camera
while pressing the shutter button.

Wind and repeat until the end of the film (If overlapping occurs, ic can be
seen upon advancing the film. That is, if part of the marked frame is
visible after winding).

Remove the film and note which or how many of the frames are overlapped or
irregularly spaced.

Repeat with other types of film, including suspected larger spool types.
If the results show consistent overlapping, the advance mechanism is at
fault.

To determine whether the camera or the back is at fault, try the above
procedure with different backs.

Joe


From: Q.G. de Bakker [qnu@tiscali.nl] 
Sent: Tue 4/29/2003  
To: tourtelot1@attbi.com; hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Ilford spool problem

Douglas Tourtelot wrote:

> This all still begs the question; why in hundreds of rolls of all stocks,
> although few of the Kodak ilk, have I NEVER had this problem. Using only
> C12 backs? Or is it really a "Kodak" problem and not an "Ilford" problem?

Ilford admitting that it is an Ilford problem would answer your last
question. ;-)

They blamed their spools, saying that "some of which were out of spec",
suggesting the limited extent of the problem.


From: Philippe Tempel [ptempel2000@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Tue 4/29/2003 
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net 
Subject: Re: [HUG] Ilford spool problem


I can verify the new spools. They do look just like
Kodak as far as I can tell. None of the recently
bought Pan F+, FP4+ and HP5+ I have use the old spool
with the bigger center opening. The only film I use
that still has it is Bergger BRF 200. Maybe Fomapan
200 as well? With this film I just give an extra
quarter turn past the red arrows and the images seem
to align on the film ok so far. Before I did that, I
would get the 12th frame cut off at the end...

--- Anthony Atkielski anthony@atkielski.com wrote:
> > As a result, newer HB A12 backs have special
> > "Ilford marks" for aligning the start mark.
>
> So has anyone tried the "new and improved" Ilford
> spools? Do they work?
> And if so, does the "Ilford mark" still have to be
> used?
>
> From what they supposedly said, it sounds like their
> new spools will look
> just like those of Fuji and Kodak.
>
> I'm still a bit wary, though, as it is no fun to see
> the following roll
> ruined because of a spool problem.


From: Nelson L. Mark, SC001 [phair1@jklsoftware.com] 
Sent: Tue 4/29/2003 
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net 
Subject: [HUG] RE: Ilford Spools


The old ilford spools are quite recognizable...the new ones look like Kodak
spools (hmmm....) The old ones have a single horizontal slit. The new ones
have the cross like Kodak's got for everything. I've never had a problem
with spacing on the A12 or A24 backs (and I've got a dozen or so...from
1980 to 2002). I was always told to spool them to 45 degrees CCW from the
top triangular mark (assuming you are looking at the end of the insert with
the takeup spool on the right). But, spooling to the triangular mark hasn't
ever gave me any negs that weren't off center.

Another thing told to me was to grab the end of the paper on the spool and
give a tug before inserting it into the back. I guess they are well known
to not be wound tightly from Ilford. Again, I've never had to.

I saw the new spools first appear in Mid-January (here in Indiana). Haven't
seen any of the old ones around yet (except for in my bucket o' used spools)



From: Tom Christiansen [tomchr@softhome.net] 
Sent: Mon 4/28/2003  
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net 
Subject: RE: [HUG] Ilford spool problem

you wrote:
>Can someone explain the ILFORD MARKS? What or how are they different?
>Starting with what Serial Number?

I have one back with "Ilford marks". It's from 2002. My other backs (from
96-97) don't have the marks.

>Basically, how can you tell the difference between an old and a Ilford
>friendly marked back?

The Ilford friendly have two start marks. If you look at the metal flaps
holding the spools and place the regular start mark at 12 o'clock then the
ilford mark will be around 1030 - 1/8th of a turn from the top.

Tom


From: Austin Franklin [darkroom@ix.netcom.com] 
Sent: Sun 4/27/2003
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net 
Subject: RE: [HUG] Ilford spool problem


Q.G.,

> "ILFORD is aware of the problem in Hasselblad backs. It comes down to the
> spools, some of which were out of spec, causing inconsistent advance.

Interesting. I spoke directly with Ilford and Hasselblad on this issue.
The issue, as I was told by both, was not that the new spools were actually
out of spec, but that the spec has a somewhat large tolerance, and Ilford
chose to change their spool size from the "standard" one that they, and all
the other manufacturers apparently have been using, to a larger size that
though was still within the "spec", was significantly ;-) larger. I did not
verify the information, as I don't know what the actual "spec" for the 120
spool is, but I did measure quite a few of them, and the results should be
in the archives of this list.

> We have switched suppliers of spools, so this should not be an
> issue in the
> future.

This is very good to know, and thank you for the information. I have not
heard this from them, or from Hasselblad. How recent is this information?

Austin


From hasselblad mailing list:
From: Q.G. de Bakker [qnu@tiscali.nl] 
Sent: Sun 4/27/2003 
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net 
Subject: [HUG] Ilford spool problem

Something i've read in another forum.
Ilford users among us may have seen this already, but for those interested
in the "Ilford - Hasselblad" problem who haven't:

"ILFORD is aware of the problem in Hasselblad backs. It comes down to the
spools, some of which were out of spec, causing inconsistent advance.

We have switched suppliers of spools, so this should not be an issue in the
future. In the meantime, it is the takeup spool that is critical, so if you
can, use a spool that has not caused problems.

The new ILFORD spools will look quite different from the old design. The old
design had a scalloped shape around the slit, the new ones are a straight
line.

David Carper
ILFORD Technical Service"

This text can be found on one of the IlfoPro forums on Ilford's company
website, http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/default.htm



[Ed. note: special thanks to Jason Tay for sharing this nifty tip on folder fixes..]
From: Jason Tay [shutay@tm.net.my] 
Sent: Fri 2/6/2004 
To: Monaghan, Robert 
Subject: Welta Weltur - Fujifilm Problem solved

Hi Bob,

I've finally gotten round to trying Fujifilm in my Welta Weltur folder
again. If you remember, I had spooling problems with Fujifilm on my
Welta - for some reason only Fujifilm 120 rollfilm would not properly
wind onto the take-up spool in the Weltur. I ripped off a short strip of
the paper band seal that holds the 120 rollfilm leader tightly wound
when you unpack it and squeezed it between the rollfilm feed spool and
the spindles. That did the trick. I can now go back to shooting Fujifilm
on my Weltur. :)

Jason





End of Page