[Ed. note: can anyone share some good oldie models with JFH and us? Thanks!]
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999
From: JF Harrison colulus@hotmail.com
To: rmonagha@post.smu.edu

Hi,

I have long admired your web pages on cameras. It's taken a while to get through the lot of them! I was looking at your pages on unsupported film formats and was wondering whether there were any particularly good cameras made in the 116, 616 and 126 formats. They caught my eye because of your comments about using aerial films for them. A week ago I'd looked at aerial film descriptions in the Kodak site and was wondering how to put them to use.

I suppose if there were any folders made that had OK lenses and no RFs, they could fill the same role as similar cameras in 120 format - very cheap to buy, light and compact to carry, and with easy, great results for f/8 shots focused at infinity.

If you could recommend a camera or two in these formats to look out for on ebay, I'd appreciate it.

Regards,
JF Harrison

Date: Sat, 01 May 1999
From: jamiehy jamiehy@globaldialog.com
Reply to: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: film spool dimemsions/ film source

>Thanks, jamiehy.  I don't have access to a lathe, but I thought 120 spool
>ends fastened to a dowel might work.  Instead of a slot for the roll of  film,
>it could be held on with tape.  Did you try anything like that? -- Marty  Magid

Tape works fine. I found it easier to take 2 120 spools, cut the ends off each one, bring them to a hardware store that has hobbyist brass tube stock, find the right size brass tube for the 120 spool to fit it, and cut it to size. use a piece of wood as a jig to fit between the two ends of the spools, so the spool ends are all the same distance apart. Mine have slots cut in them so the tube fit in it. I put the wood in place and clamp and glue for each spool. Use epoxy, as the spool material is polystyrene, and doesn't stick well or disolves with various other glues. Jamie

Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 08:22:06 -0400

From: Richard_Campbell@mccann.com

Subject: Re: Film spool dimensions

To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au

What size film did the 5D use? (I have several older cameras with spools

and would let you borrow one to use as a guide -- but I'm only familiar

with the Panorams.)

Rich Campbell

MMagid3005@aol.com on 04/29/99 11:35:18 PM

Please respond to panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au

To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au

cc: (bcc: Richard Campbell/NewYork/ME-NA)

Subject: Film spool dimensions

Since it is just about impossible to beg or buy them, I'm considering

making

spools for my Al-Vista Style 5D and my Kodak No.1 Panoram. Can anyone

provide the dimensions of the original spools? I've used 120 film in the

Kodak, but it's a little sloppy. Thanks for your help. -- Marty Magid

Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999
From: MMagid3005@aol.com
Subject: film spool dimemsions
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au

Rich Campbell: Thanks for your offer to lend a spool to me. The Al-VistaStyle 5D is a swing-lens panoramic camera that used roll film and produced a negative 5" X 16". I don't know how many pictures were on a roll.

I had a roll of 5" rollfilm in its original box a few years ago but I sold it to a camera store which is using it as a display item. Then I got the camera. I'll call and see if I can get the number of the film.

-- Marty Magid

Date: Sat, 01 May 1999
From: jamiehy jamiehy@globaldialog.com
Subject: film spool dimemsions/ film source
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au

>Rich Campbell: Thanks for your offer to lend a spool to me. The
>Al-VistaStyle 5D is a swing-lens panoramic camera that used roll film and
>produced a negative 5" X 16". I don't know how many pictures were on a roll.
> I had a roll of 5" rollfilm in its original box a few years ago but I sold
>it to a camera store which is using it as a display item. Then I got the
>camera. I'll call and see if I can get the number of the film. -- Marty Magid

According to a 1903 al-vista catalog, the 5-d took four exposures on a roll. This would have been film from multiscope though. Don't know how much on a kodak roll. I have a 5-b al-vista and a #5 cirkut, and I make my 5" spools two ways, from 120 spools ends fitted into a brass tube, and from cut down cirkut spools. I then turn the cirkut spool ends down to the right diameter on a wood lathe.

By the way Lotus camera usa has a fresh 5" roll by 100' of 200 iso B&W; pan film for sale in stock for anyone thats interested

Date: Sat, 01 May 1999
From: MMagid3005@aol.com
Subject: Re: film spool dimemsions/ film source
To: simonwide@earthlink.net, panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au

Jamie, thanks for a clear easy to follow plan. Sounds like the crucial part is making the jig. I checked with the store I sold the 4 X 5 roll of film to a few years ago. It was designated as 208 film, called Vulcan, made by Defender Film Supply Co., a division of Eastman Kodak. He was not interested in selling it back to me.

-- Marty Magid

Date: Sat, 01 May 1999
From: MMagid3005@aol.com
Subject: Re: $25 panoramic cameras.. Re: film spool dimemsions/ film source
To: sgshiya@redshift.com, panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au

Sorry, Steve, but my adapters permitted 120 to be used with larger format cameras like 116, 122, 118, 101, 130, etc. I did nothing with 35mm. But I ran across something the other day which could be helpful to you. look at

http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/text-lubitel.html

where Andrew Davidhazy writes about a method for using 35mm in a Lubitel 2 1/4 TLR. He did it to make panorama photos. I thought this would be neat in a camera that took an even larger negative, like 122. That's where my adapters could be used. -- Marty Magid

From: MMagid3005@aol.com
Date: Sun, 2 May 1999
Subject: address correction
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu

I went to your website and saw the discussion of my film size adapters. I moved in 1991 and don't believe I got your letters. If you would like to correct the address:

702 Satterlee Road,
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304.

If there is enough demand, I'll make them again, so I welcome inquiries. -- Marty

Date: Sun, 02 May 1999
From: Glenn Barry bonza1@ozemail.com.au
Subject: Re: $25 panoramic cameras.. Re: film spool dimemsions/ film source
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au

You can cut and file 120 spools to fit into the ends of 35mm cassettes, so if larger film formats can accept the 120 spool ends you could hypothetically do the same.

I have used them in an older style Mamiya RB back which still gives frame counting. You need one for the take-up as well and the film needs to be detached from the supply spool so that it can wind off.

MMagid3005@aol.com wrote:

 
> Sorry, Steve, but my adapters permitted 120 to be used with larger format
> cameras like 116, 122, 118, 101, 130, etc.  I did nothing with 35mm.   But I
> ran across something the other day which could be helpful to you.  look at
> 
> http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/text-lubitel.html
> 
> where Andrew Davidhazy writes about a method for using 35mm in a  Lubitel 2
> 1/4 TLR.  He did it to make panorama photos.  I thought this would be  neat in
> a camera that took an even larger negative, like 122.  That's where my
> adapters could be used. -- Marty Magid

--
Glenn Barry Photography

Date: Sun, 02 May 1999
From: jamiehy jamiehy@globaldialog.com
Subject: Re: film spool dimemsions/ film source

>Jamie, thanks for a clear easy to follow plan.  Sounds like the crucial part
>is making the jig.

It helps. Jim Johnson showed me his method for cutting down larger sizes of film, and it included the jig, which is just a 2x4 cut to the right length, with a slot cut in it for the brass tube or spool tube to sit in. jamie

From: Marv Soloff msoloff@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: old cameras
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999

Richie Williams wrote:

> i was wondering what the difference between 116 or
> 620 film and 120 (i.e. if there is a way to make 120 film go into some
> ancient cameras i have lying around).
>
> thanks

Richie:

The only really practical way to make a 120 film go into a 620 camera is to have the camera modified by a competent technician to accept the larger 120 spool. This is generally expensive. As for respooling, yes - it can be done and done well - but it is a PITA and you will run out of film and/or empty spools at a critical shoot.

Some cameras can be readily modified (take accurate measurements in the film bays before getting out the trusty Dremel); most folders have sheet metal bays that support and position the film and are a nightmare to remove, reshape and reinstall.

A better option (and most times cheaper) is to get a sheet or pack film folder and modify it slightly to accept a roll film back. The Suydam and Rada backs spring to mind. You can pick up a superb camera with excellent lenses in the $40 - $60 range, add another $30 or so for the back and you are in business with modern 120 roll film.

Regards,

Marv

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999
From: claudia smith cbs@ns.net
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: using 120 in Kodak Six=16

Hi

I use a 616 spool for take=up and then pop 120 film in the loader with a nickel on each side for spacers. Can get 5 exposures by advancing to 3 for the first exposure and going to 6, 9 etc. Nickels are a lot easier than trying to make extenders. Your site is very helpful, thanks.

cioa!
Claudia

From: perkowitz@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: cheap 6x17 (or similar) camera?
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999

ive been really enjoying the huge negatives i get from my $10 kodak cartridge premo camera. sure it can be a pain to use, but what do you want for $10? anyway, i've been wanting to get into panoramic and havent the money for an XPAN or something.. are there any old 6x17 (or so; anything wider than 6x9) cameras out there that i might be able to find for $20-50? (using 120 or, in a pinch, 620 film)

thanks
mike

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: uablyfl@uab.ericsson.se (Lyndon Fletcher)
[1] Re: 116 Roll Film Availability?
Date: Wed Oct 27 12:02:41 CDT 1999

....

116 film is essentially 70mm film. I have a 616 camera , a number of spools and some 70mm film. I'm going to see about rolling my own once I have access to a darkroom again. I'll post how I get on.

Lyndon

Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000
From: "Robert J. Lang or Hope Conley Lang" bobhope@worldnet.att.net
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: Kodak 8" CIRKUT FILM

Andy,

I split number 10 film for my # 5 Cirkut camera. I wind the film a little tighter than it comes from Kodak and then saw it in half, including the spool, using a miter box and back saw. I made a little U-shaped channel to let the film rest on with the spool flanges hanging over the edge. You lose the kerf of the blade and expose maybe an eigth of an inch of the edge of the film. Give it a try. I learned this method from other guys in the IAPP, maybe Ron Klein or Bob Erickson or Dick Fowler.

Bob

Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000
From: Ron Klein panorama@gci.net
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: Kodak 8" CIRKUT FILM

> I split number 10 film for my # 5 Cirkut camera.  I wind the film a little
> tighter than it comes from Kodak and then saw it in half, including the
> spool, using a miter box and back saw.  I made a little U-shaped channel to
> let the film rest on with the spool flanges hanging over the edge.  You
> lose the kerf of the blade and expose maybe an eigth of an inch of the edge
> of the film.  Give it a try.  I learned this method from other guys in the
> IAPP, maybe Ron Klein or Bob Erickson or Dick Fowler.

Actually, I think I suggested using a tubing cutter. I personally split my film on my metal lathe with an exacto knife chucked up. I can even do it in the light without fogging the film. The tubing cutter should be new with sharp a sharp wheel. Adjust the cutter very lightly and keep turning. It should work. A guy could try it on a spool of just paper first.

Ron Klein

From Panoramic Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000
From: Ron Klein panorama@gci.net
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: Smaller films in bigger cameras

Marty:

Your method of loading film in the Al-Vista seems too awkward. If you are planning to shoot much film I suggest making and adapter to narrow the back. Better yet, shoot five inch film and you will have a much better image. Five inch film is available. In the past I have split rolls of #10 cirkut film, but there are aero films made in five widths as well.

The biggest problem with the film will be making backing paper and a leader. If you decide to use 120 film, you will need to add length to the leader as 120 leaders are too short and film will be fogged before you have wound it to the first frame. If you use five inch film, as far as I know there is no source for backing paper. I have used old cirkut film leaders and trailers and scotch taped them together. It is a slow way to get what you want, but it works. At least you can play around with your camera.

Ron Klein

Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000
From: MMagid3005@aol.com
To: panorama@gci.net, panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: Smaller films in bigger cameras

Ron -- You're right, in this case, with 120, it was awkward, but I wanted to use color transparency film so I could play with it in my scanner, and maybe use it in my Photoshop class which begins next week. I have a supply of 9.5" Aero film, and Eric, on this list, gave me some 5" film and I still have some. However, all that is available of that type is B & W as far as I know.

I have used it quite successfully.

I considered making an adapter, as you suggest, but it would take too much time considering that I don't intend to use the camera all that much, maybe 2-3 times a year. I have thought about cutting down 8 X 10 color transparency film (one sheet would yield a perfect 5" X 16" piece of film), but that would be costly, too, unless I run into some outdated stock.

I have several cameras, and the Al-Vista is by far the funnest. I had great fun (I'm something of a math freak) figuring out the effective shutter speeds with each of the five fans and with no fan attached, and from the results with transparency film, I'm within less than a 1/2-stop.

Thanks for the suggestions. -- Marty

From panoramic mailing list;
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000
From: MMagid3005@aol.com
Reply to: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
To: indepth@kuentos.guam.net, panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: Smaller films in bigger cameras

Lots of times I've used film smaller than the camera was made for, but my favorite time was when I used 120 in my swing lens AlVista 5D, made about 100 years ago for roll film 5" wide, three 16" exposures on a roll. I used double-sticky carpet tape to attach a 16" piece of 120 Fujichrome (positive transparency) to a 5" X 16" piece of enlarging paper, and loaded it in the camera in the darkroom. Then I took it about 30 miles away to a lake with gently rolling hills and beautiful color in the trees (this was last October). There weren't too many people around in the middle of the week, but there was a fellow about to set out on the kind of little sailboat that one stands up on and adjusts the sails.

Having taken my one picture with the AlVista, I took it home and unloaded it and re-rolled the 16" of film back on the spool, and took it to a professional processor. The next morning I retrieved it and put it on the dealers light table and was blown away! The exposure was perfect, and the scene was great.

I used my scanner to make five enlargements of 3" sections, and glued them together. It looks pretty good, but it would look a lot better if they were one continuous print. I start a Photoshop class next week, so in a few weeks I hope I can do the stitching and make a continuous print on my Epson printer which can make banners.

The out-of-pocket expense was very little, but the time commitment was enormous for this one picture. If someone can figure out a practical way to load up a half-dozen or so 2-1/4" X 16" unexposed films for the AlVista and use them all without going to a darkroom in between exposures, I'd be much obliged. I do have a good-size changing bag, but this is a big camera, and loading the 5" X 16" paper could be unwieldy, although I admit I haven't tried it.

Thanks -- Marty

Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999
From: edromney romney@edromney.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.medium-format
Subject: 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 cut film availability

It is easily made out of 120 rollfilm. Cut it on your trimming board by using thumbtacks or a cardboard as a guide. Cut a tiny bit off the top right corner off each film with the emulsion facing you so it wont get it loaded emulsion backwards. Your notch substitutes for the maker's notches in actual cut film. Small Linhofs, Speed Graphics, Busch, the Galvin view and many other fine cameras use cut film of this format. Some holders for German plate cameras are 2/14 x 3 1/4. Most of them are for 6.5x9cm or 2 1/2 x 3 1/2 cut film. If you worry that the roll film is thinner than cut film , you can put tape in the back of your holders. The Graflok conversion and 120 rollback for a 23 camera will usually cost more than the camera itself. So this is what you can do. You can also buy 23 cut film from Porters, Bx H, Freestyle and other sources. And it can be cut down from 4x5 or 5x7 cut film

I'll sell you some nice 23 holders suitable for Speed Graphic and similar cameras for $7 ea. Best wishes and Merry CHRISTmas...

Ed Romney

http://www.edromney.com

Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999
From: "N. George" ngeorge@localaccess.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Kodak 1A Autographic Junior

It was Film For Classics; Up till 6 or so months ago they sold wider than 120 (they had like 10 real old hard to find sizes)---then their backing paper provider stopped making it wider than 120---Personalyl I don't see why you couldn't easily make your own backing paper (if you used a real thick paper and coated it evenly with thick black spray paint and then cut into strips--and then entered the numbers at the right points into a computer and then had it print out (an Inkjet & Word (or Photoshop) onto the thick paper strips)... anyway, that's why they don't make it anymore--their backing paper supplier shit out. (I've read this in many paces btw) --Nat

Jethro Beauhunc wrote:

> OOOOPS!
>
> I thought that Films For Classics used to sell the larger "wide rolls", but
> I guess I confused it with another company.
>
> The company I was thinking of spooled their own 116, 118, 122, 130, etc.
> rolls made from Kodak wide rolls, possibly aerial film. I no longer have
> that company's URL. Sorry.

[Ed.note: need to simulate glass plates?...]
From 3D Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000
From: Oliver Dean 3d-image@concentric.net
Subject: Re: 6x13 glass plate cameras

Robert Thorpe wrote:

> >From time to time, at shows or on Ebay, you can find old
> 6x13 glass plate cameras for sale. I'm sure there is no
> ready-made source for 6x13 glass plates these days, but
> is anyone cutting their own plates? 6x13cm works out to
> about 2 3/8 x 5 1/8 inches. Close enough that you could
> probably cut a 4x5 glass plate and make it work. I think
> you can still get 4x5 glass plates can't you?
>
> If anyone is doing something like this, I would like to
> hear about your experiences.

Bob, about 15 years ago I bought Heidoscop with the plate magazine for 6x13 glass plates. To check it out, I had a friend with a band saw cut some thin circuit board -- the kind without holes and a copper coating on one or both sides -- into 6 x 13 pieces that would act as stiffeners, simulating the stiffness of glass plates. I made sure that the edges were filed so as not to be sharp. I put these circuit board strips into the spring-loaded plate holders in the magazine.

Then I got ordinary cut film (B&W;, in this case, but color should work as well or better), and cut it into 6 x 13 strips using a cutter with alignment strips that I could feel in the dark. These film strips could be slid into the magazine in the dark, each one sliding over the surface of a 6 x 13 circuit board, so that film plus circuit board together simulated an emulsion coated glass plate.

It worked very well, and, although the weather at the Queen Mary was terrible and my exposures were off, I did get one nice shot of collector George Kirkman and a friend seated at a table in a lounge on the Queen Mary. Developing the film in an adjustable sheet film tank and transposing the B&W; onto a positive stock was a hassle. But the result was worth it, and it could be viewed in a classic 6x13 viewer, although I put it into a mount that enables it to be viewed easily in a Saturn Slide viewer, where it is spectacular.

Sorry, I don't remember the kinds of film I used, nor the developers. They were fairly standard, as I recall, although for some reason I think the film I used to make the positives had to be a high contrast emulsion to make up for the low contrast I got on the scene.

I think handling the sheet film, even with the above problems, would be a lot easier (and probably a lot less expensive) than trying to find glass plates, which would have to be reprinted to achieve transposition anyway.

Cordially,
Oliver Dean

[Ed. note: some interesting points re: film use past "use-by" dates! ;-)]
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000
From: KB3BWS@aol.com
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: old film sizes

i had tried film for classics film once, my sister bought a roll in a store in london. the images were somewhat thin, my camera wasnt capable of a longer exposure time.

i have been buying old outdated film, i have had film that expired in the 1940's give printable images, ansco plenachrome is the only type i have had success with. usually the contact prints are good enough to have fun with, unfortunately the numbers get transfered to the emulsion, common with most films before 1970. if i plan to use the backing of an expired roll i always use the original film to see what i get, if its already been used i will develop it to see what i get. then respool it with cut down film, i still have enough film that i shouldnt have to start cutting my 2 rolls of 12" x 200' panatomic x, exp 1986 for a few more years. if kept cool the 1986 film should last well into the 2030's, i have some 35mm bulk panatomic x with a date code of 1944 good as new, oval sproket holes. also 100' exp 1959.

just bought 100' of non perf 70mm super xx exp 1955, i will use for 116 / 616. i am hoping it will be good, but anything from the 50's other then panatomic x seems to be foggy. but still good for fun snapshots, often gives a vintage look. for anything important i use my 35mm vito ii, 127 starmite or brownie holiday flash, or a 120 box camera. i have a 120 twin lens reflex but haven't been able to find it.

just got 20 rolls of vp122 exp 1969, will try them this summer, was told they were kept refridgerated since new, even if they wasnt its still in my low risk range for kodak still being good. i usually wont buy kodak before the mid 60's unless its non roll film, 35mm etc, or too good of a deal to pass up. ansco plenachrome i will buy any year at the right price.

i just started with 16mm movie, using plus x stock from 1969, have 1940's super x but haven't been able to reversal process it without the image washing off. the next roll i will negative process.

am always looking for old b&w; 16mm double perf if its cheap. save the paper backing from 126 to renumber for 828, 35mm is the same width, 126 is pre exposed for the square image so its too difficult to frame right.

be careful opening the 126 cartridge if you do it perfect save it to reload 35mm to use as 126, tape film to paper backing, it works ok but 35mm has too many sproket holes, count by frame numbers always stop at the "same" one, i try for the first or second. non perf 35mm would be best, just notch the same distance as the negatives for 126, perfect for 828.

scott kb3bws
kb3bws@aol.com

[Ed. note: thanks again to scott for this followup note on #3A autographic film possibilities...]
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000
From: KB3BWS@aol.com
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Re: old film sizes

i was thinking about autographic film, it may be possible to make a film backing, maby using carbon paper or a heavy coat of crayon on the film backing in the proper spot, i had remembered rubbing heavy coats of crayon on a sheet of paper as a kid in art class, turn it over and use as "psychodelic" carbon paper. i would recommend black only for the film. i havnt seen an actual roll of autographic film yet, but cant really think of any other method that would have worked with a stylus,

scott kb3bws

From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 26 Sep 2000
Subject: Re: 116 film

Hi

You must use the complete paper backing. I reuse the 30+ year old backing that came with the reel.

Larry

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000
From: bigler@ens2m.fr
Subject: Re: [Rollei] [Fwd: using 61/2x9cm sheet film and back

> ...does the 6.5 x 9 cm film need cutting or will it fit in
> the backs?

The 6.5x9 cm sheet film is an obsolete standard (or soon to be) and the Rolleiflex cut film back was exactly designed for this size of film. No cutting is necessary if you can actually get this size of sheet film which is broader than 120 rollfilm. The choice of films is very reduced now in 6.5x9cm, cutting from a 4x5" or from a 120 rollfilm may be possible but a bit cumbersome.

More precisely R-TLR film holders were designed to take 6.5x9cm glass plates, probably a widely used standard in the past ; sheet film is held with and intermediate metal plate about ~1mm thick supplied with the kit : when buying a used R-TLR cut film back kit check that these metal plates are actually there ! otherwise you won't be able to use sheet film. Same 6.5x9cm film holders could be used with the Rolleiflex SL66 SLR but with a special SL66 back different of course from the TLR back.

--
Emmanuel BIGLER
bigler@ens2m.fr

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000
From: John Milne John.Milne@btinternet.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] [Fwd: using 61/2x9cm sheet film and back

6 X 9 sheet film is available in efke 100 asa from www.fotoimpex.de. Of course, that's not 6.5 x 9 but it's only 14 dm for 50 sheets, so it may be worth a try.

...

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000
From: mark blackman mark.blackman@email.sainsburys.co.uk
Subject: Re: [Rollei] [Fwd: using 61/2x9cm sheet film and back

Ta. Ilford make 6.5 x 9 cm film in the UK but won't/don't sell it here -why I have no idea! The women I spoke to on Customer Support used to work in the sheet film section and remembers, it but she told me that it was always for export only.

....

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] film-pressure plate for film/plate back.

you wrote:

>ross bleasdale wrote:
>>
>> Mark, if you contact me off list I might be able to help with your search
>> for a film sheath.
>>
>> Ross
>> mailto:ross@rolleye.freeserve.co.uk
>>
>Thanks what the heck is a film sheath?!!
>Are people having safe film?
>mark rabiner
>

An adaptor to use sheet film in holders for glass plates. One reason sheet film in larger sizes is smaller than the "nominal" size is so that it could fit into adaptors. The glass plates are the full size. i.e., 4x5 film is actually about 3-7/8" x 4-7/8" but a 4x5 glass plate is actually 4x5 inches.

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From Zeiss IG Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000
From: "Dixon Miller" retromec@hotmail.com
Subject: The source of obsolete film

Ron,

Yes, as you noted, that old photomall.com link is quite defunct (and should be deleted). For the record, the correct current website for Dick Haviland's Film for Classics is http://www.filmforclassics.com/ One look at their site today under the "Roll Film" section reveals only 127, 620 (respooled 120) and 828 as true vintage spooled-film formats being offered.

Spurred by Bill Luries's own persistence in obtaining 116 film, however, I followed his lead and contacted Film for Classics once again myself via their posted e-mail contact, asking about the availability/possibility of 116 or 122 film. Bill had discovered that they were again spooling 116.

Joan Haviland, apparently Dick's wife, responded to me, indicating the following: They offer both 116 and 122, at $20.00 per roll, in ISO 200 Plus-X (b&w;). They also offer processing--apparently film development and one contact print from each large negative--for $20.00 per roll. There is, at least for the 122 film, a $2.00 credit for each returned spool. She closed by saying, "We probably won't put this on our web site. We have a limited supply."

So there you have it, at least for the time being. In short, if you are interested in -any- old large roll-film size, the best thing to do is just e-write them from their website, stating your needs. Joan was polite and fairly prompt in replying.

Dixon Miller

...

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000
From: jerryleh@pacbell.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] actual 6x9cm sheet film!

Ed and Huff

Actually, it does not matter about the width, as the film is only retained at the top and bottom, so length is important. 9cm.

I have used 2 1/4x 3 1/4, by turning the film so that opposite corners are retained diagonally. It works!

Speaking of the plate back, does anyone know of the availability of the ROLL FILM adapter for the plate back. Is it rare? Is it desireable? Has anyone ever had one? I'd like to try one.

Jerry Lehrer

Edward Meyers wrote:

> I may be wrong but I thought the sheetfilm back for the Rollei
> accepted a slightly different size film. Maybe 6.5 x 9 cm? Or
> something like this. Ed

...

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000
From: mark blackman mark.blackman@email.sainsburys.co.uk
Subject: Re: [Rollei] actual 6x9cm sheet film!

Dave Huffman wrote:

> After all my searching for actual 6x9cm sheet film I can buy, a Minolta
> list correspondent in Sweden sent me two boxes outdated 1980 -- but it's
> the first actual 6x9cm sheet film I've been able to obtain.

David,

Afga still make 6.5 x 9 cm 100 asa b&w; film, I bought some last week. Contact Agfa customer suport for your nearest stockist.

[Ed. note: thanks to Tom for sharing this tip on #0 film adaptations...]
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000
From: Northwest Interagency Coordination Center ornwc@dms.nwcg.gov
To: rmonagha@mail.smu.edu
Subject: Graphic No. "o"

I found that the "No. O" film was the same size as 127 film, but rolled onto a spool that had the same dimentions as a 120 spool, except that the "o" spool was about 5/8" shorter. I cut down some 120 spools and respooled 127 film onto them, and then found out that the frame numbers didn't match up. I carefully advanced a filmless backing paper and numbered it, and got the whole thing to work.

thomas evans

tom_evans@or.blm.gov

[Ed. note: thanks to Monte Collard for sharing this nifty tip!!!]
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001
From: Monte Collard monte68@atlantic.net
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: 120 to 116 film modification

An easy fix for using 120 film in 116 rollfilm kodak is to get 4 fifty cent pieces. Glue 2 of them together and then the other 2. Glue one set of the fifty cent pieces into the top and the other set onto the bottom where the 116 film spool will go. This allows the 120 film spool to be loaded with the correct spacing where the 116 spool would be loaded. Load the 120 film onto a 116 spool and load the film spool and take up spool into the camera back. After the film is expose you will need to roll the film back onto a 120 spool. Then develop.

Monte Collard
MPCPhotography

Date: 25 Sep 2000
From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 116 film

Hi

I respool my 116 and 616 film which is the same difference as 120 and 620. The secret is 116/616 sizes are really 70mm. Just need to buy 15 ft of it for about $20 and find a unused roll of 116 or 616 film. Unspool the 30 year old film and respool new NC160.

I have several rolls already spooled 116/616 with fresh VPS dated 2001. I usually sell them for about $15 to $20 on Ebay.

Larry

[Ed. note: while the applefile didn't read in MS-Word (wonder why? ;-) the ad is available in Shutterbug October 1999...]
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999
From: MMagid3005@aol.com
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au, cameramakers@ilist.net,
Subject: Film size adapters & f/stops for Kodak No. 1 Panoram

Page 251 of the October Shutterbug has my ad for adapters which permit the use of 120 film in cameras made for 116, 616, 118, 122 and 130. The next issue of Camera Shopper should have a similar ad, which will also mention that I make push-in f/stops (f/16, 22, 25 and 32) for the Kodak No. 1 Panoram, which has a fixed f/13 lens. See the Attachment to this posting for details, or contact me directly. -- Marty Magid

From ROllei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rolleiflex original and 620 film?

you wrote:

>Hi there.
>
>I just got an Original Rolleiflex (#444**) with a 4.5 Tessar. It's  probably
>a very early model since it even doesn't have a distance scale. Some  parts
>of the WLF is missing and the mirror is bad but both shutter and focus  still
>operate perfectly. I also have the orignal case that came with it and  it's
>really cute. I would like to try it out once or twice to see how it feels  to
>be a Pro in the late twenties. But the camera is supposed to use 117 film
>and I already tried to put a 120 roll in but it simply doesn't fit. The  120
>spool is too big. On the otherhand, the 620 spool I took from my Duaflex
>seems to fit in perfectly.
>So my questions are:
>
>What's the difference between 117 and 620?
>Can I re-roll a 120 film to a 620 spool and use it in my "new" Rollei?
>
>TIA,
>
>Siu Fai

From memory 117 is half the length of 120, that is there were only six 2-1/4" x 2-1/4" exposures per roll.

620 film is nearly the same as 120 but the center of the spool and rims are smaller in radius so that thinner folding cameras could be made. I think ther are slight differences in the dimensions of the paper backing.

Unfortunately Kodak used 620 for some rather good cameras like the Medalist.

You can try respooling 120 onto a 620 spool to see if it fits the camera. If the spool itself fits it should still do so with the film on it.

It would be neat to get this old timer working. The mirror can be replaced or resilvered. If the lenses have become hazy inside they can be opened with a friction tool and cleaned and old Compur shutters usually respond to a cleaning.

Slower Tessars tend to be better than faster ones so likely the lens in this guy is good and sharp.

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001
From: J Patric Dahl,n jenspatricdahlen@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Rolleiflex original and 620 film?

>From: Siu Fai
>
>-----Original Message-----
> >At the moment I'm using my original Rolleiflex from 1931 with the 3,8
> >Tessar. Mine is for the 117-film, but I have converted a couple of
> >120-spools to 117-spools by grinding the spool ends down a bit.
> >
> >/Patric
>
>Thanks Patrick, this will be the second alternative I can try. Your
>suggestion seems to be easier since there is no darkroom involved. But on
>the other hand, it may get a bit messy with all the grinding.

Yes, it's better to do the grinding on empty spools so you don't get dust on the film. Then you will have to respool the films in the darkroom, but it's a fast job if you know what to do.

Because the diameter of the spool flanges will be shorter, it's best to load and unload the camera in darkness.

117-film had only a film length for six exposures.

/Patric

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001
From: bigler@ens2m.fr
Subject: [Rollei] Re: OT: Cutting 6.5 x 9 sheet film

Richard.

To cut larger sheet film size down to 6.5x9cm you might build something like the sheet film cutter provided by Hasselblad in the good old days where they provided a 6.5x6.5 cut film back for their cameras. The device was available until the early '80s. The very first model provided by Hasselblad in the '50s was like a small office paper cutter with a "box" guide attached. The second "scissor" design was probably safier: basically it is a good pair of regular scissors. To the lower blade a thin flat "box" slightly broader and thicker than a sheet of film is attached on one side, just at the level of the blade, with a depth adjusted to the size you want to cut. You enter the film from the other side in the slot and push it inside the box until it stops and then you cut. The device was designed actually to cut 6.5x9cm sheet film down to a square in a single operation; but it could easily be extrapolated to a bigger pair of scissors to split 4"x5" film. Probably you might even get two 6...x9cm sheets suitable for the R-TLR film holder from one 4"x5". But you'll probably need two devices: one to trim to the exact length (88.5mm, the most important for the R-TLR holder) and another to split in the middle (about 6+cm, less important).

Strangely enough your question arises just when I receive a letter from the French distributor of the German Gigabit high resolution B&W; film in France. He does provide this film in 4"x5" sheets (suitable for the Rollei after re-cutting) however the minimum order is a kit of 50 sheets with 12 bottles of special chemistry, price is 120 euro ~US$100 definitely too much for me just for experimentation. He confirms that Gigabit film in rollfilm is under consideration but not available yet.

--
Emmanuel BIGLER
bigler@ens2m.fr

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001
From: "Cousineau , Bernard" bcousineau@tmisolutions.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] OT: 35mm film

Bob,

Here is a link to a history of film gauges:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/filmsize.html

I can't vouch for the specifics of what is on this page, but the broad strokes match what I learned in university: the format was picked by Edison (the company, not necessarily the man) and was imposed by distributors who wanted to make sure that their films would be saleable throughout the world.

Bernard

> From: Bob Shell
> Does anyone here know how it came about that 35mm film became the  standard
> for motion picture photography and later for still photography?  I think  I
> remember reading that 35mm (and 70mm) could be slit down from master  rolls
> without waste, and I'm sure that may be part of the answer, but there  must
> be more.  Why 35mm?
>
> Bob

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001
From: richard evans richard@katsika.clara.co.uk
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Cutting 6.5 x 9 sheet film

I have used a mini-sized guillotine (arm type) inside a changing bag, when I was experimenting with a 616 film Kodak Autographic (excellent results on Cibachrome at 1 sec. F/22 in bright sun!). Works reasonably if you put some 'stops' on the bed of the guillotine, but it's really tedious and you can only do a couple at a time.

HTH richard

Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 
From: Gerald Lehrer <jerryleh@pacbell.net>
Reply to: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: 122 film adapters Re: [Rollei] OT: 616 Film substitute

Bob

Right after the war I used cut up aero
film with 122 paper backing, but I had
no tanks to develop the film. It was a
pain to do it in a tray, so I sidelined the
9x9 and used my Medalist.

Jerry 

From: jenspatricdahlen@hotmail.com>
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Heidoscope
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 

>From: Bob Shell

>Hmmmmm.  Six exposure rolls of 120 were available in
>Japan. My Fuji GW 670 II has a switch to set it for those
>short rolls.  Last ones I saw were a brief attempt by
>Konica to sell some of their neg films in six exposure
>rolls a few years ago.  I wonder if these Japanese
>half-length 120 rolls are the same as the defunct 117?


Don't think so. 117 had a different spool. The same thickness as the=20
120-film but the spool flanges are like them on 620. But the size and lenght
of these japanese films should be just like the old 117-film.

/Patric



From: jenspatricdahlen@hotmail.com>
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 117 and 120 film (was Heidoscope)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 

>From: Dan Kalish
> > They originally were set up to use 117 film,
> > which is a half roll of 120.  During the war,
> > (WW2) it was easier to get 117 than 120,
> > so my father and I used 117 in Ikontas and
> > Rolleis.  No problem.  Even used it in my
> > Kodak Medalist.
>
>I beg to differ.  117 and 120 use different size spools.


Yes, but a 117-spool fits in a camera made for 120-film. 120-film can be
used in a camera for 117-film IF the film chamber is large enough. The
flanges of a 117-spool have the same diameter as a 620-spool.

/Patric


Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: "R. Peters" torx@nwrain.net>
Subject: [Rollei] 2-1/4 X 3-1/4, 3-1/4 X 4-1/4 cut film source

Got this message via email.  For anyone interested in 2x3, or even harder
to find 3x4 cut film, this info might be worth saving.
-------------------------------------------

From: Matthias Ehrle m.ehrle@web.de>
Subject:  B&W; Fompan 400,  400 ASA Sheetfilm 


Hello,=20
I sell 2,25 x 3,25 inch Sheetfilm, 25 Sheet Pack for 8,50Eur.
Ask for 3,25"x4,25", because it's a possibility too.
Best Regards.

Mit freundlichen Gr'Fen
Matthias Ehrle

www.vintageprint.de
www.cuba2000.de



Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Best budget 70mm system: Bronica,Hartblei, or?
From: "John Stewart see REAL email address in message." 
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 


 >  My question is why is 70mm only of appeal to high volume users over
 > rollfilm. 70mm backs have been available and they sell very few.

My problem is processing the darn stuff. It's tough to find a 70mm tank and
reel.  I use some old tanks that accept 116, but they will not hold a 50
exposure roll.

John

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Box camera front on LF/MF camera
From: "John Stewart see REAL email address in message." 
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 

He's something to try if you are bored with your current lens and have a
removable lens camera with bellows.

Bought a 116 film box camera with the intent of loading up some 70mm in it.
Then I found that the entire back of the Kodak was nailed to the
lens/shutter assembly with four small nails.  A quick tug separated them.

This gave be a thin wooden box (leather covered) that contained a simple
lens, simple shutter and three f/stops.

Placed it on the front of my 4x5 and found it was roughly like a 90mm lens
and appears to cover the full 4x5 frame.

Should also work on an RB67 or whatever.

With a Speed Graphic, you can use the back shutter or the one from the box
camera.  View cameras will of course have to use the box shutter.

Don't know if ALL 116 box cameras come apart this easy.

John

From: "Dan Kalish" kaliushkin@worldnet.att.net>
To: rollei-digest@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>, rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Users list digest V10 #132
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 
From: jenspatricdahlen@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 117 and 120 film (was Heidoscope)

>From: Dan Kalish
> > They originally were set up to use 117 film,
> > which is a half roll of 120.  During the war,
> > (WW2) it was easier to get 117 than 120,
> > so my father and I used 117 in Ikontas and
> > Rolleis.  No problem.  Even used it in my
> > Kodak Medalist.
>
>I beg to differ.  117 and 120 use different size spools.


Yes, but a 117-spool fits in a camera made for 120-film. 120-film can be
used in a camera for 117-film IF the film chamber is large enough. The
flanges of a 117-spool have the same diameter as a 620-spool.

/Patric

Hi, Patric!

It appears to me, upon examination of the 117 and 120 film holder adapters
for my Voigtlander Avus, that the width of 117 film is greater than the
width of 120 film.  The length of the spool is definitely greater.  So it
would seem that the 117 spool does NOT fit in a camera made for 120 film.
120 film could be used in a 117 film holder with the extensions for the
film-holder and substitute take-up spool.  Unless I'm missing something or
unless it isn't a 117 film holder at all.  ???

Dan Kalish kaliushkin@att.net>
Flushing, NYC, USA


From: jcpere@aol.com (JCPERE)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 30 Nov 2001 
Subject: Re: is 6x9 sheet film history?

>"robert" babbage@speakeasy.org 

>ive been wanting a view camera and started looking at speed graphics in 6x9
>because my enlarger can do 6x9, but no bigger. anyway, as a matter of
>prudence i went looking for film, and of all the places ive looked, only
>been able to find ilford HP5 at about $13 for 25 sheets, and tri-x for
>$31.95 for 25 sheets.
>
>is this really all there is?
>

Actually I believe that Tri-X is offically no longer available.  Maybe you can
buy this film that someone cutting it to size.  I've recently purchased HP5
from Freestyle and Calumet.  I'm lucky because it's the film I normally use. 
Make sure that you get a camera with Graflok back so that it can use roll film
backs.  Gives you some film choices although there is a sharpness controversy
in sheet vs. roll.  Also this is 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 sheet film which is different
from 6x9 cm.

Chuck

From: "Dan Kalish" kaliushkin@worldnet.att.net>
To: rollei-digest@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>, rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Subject: [Rollei] 117 and 120 film 
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 

Hi, again Patric!

I'd love to reconcile this as I had just invested $100 in a 120 film holder
for the Voigtlander Avus.  We know the spool on 120 film is 6.5cm long.  
The spool on the other film holder is a little over 7. cm long.  The image size
is about 7 x 11, not 6 x 9 as I get on the 120 film holder.

Does this sound like 116?  Any other film?  This adapter was made by Wilmar
Electronics of NYC in about 1955 or earlier.  Whatever film it took was
discontinued by 1970.

Thanks,

Dan


Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 
From: jenspatricdahlen@hotma=il.com>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 117 and 120 film (was Heidoscope)

>From: Dan Kalish
> > They originally were set up to use 117 film,
> > which is a half roll of 120.  During the war,
> > (WW2) it was easier to get 117 than 120,
> > so my father and I used 117 in Ikontas and
> > Rolleis.  No problem.  Even used it in my
> > Kodak Medalist.
>
>I beg to differ.  117 and 120 use different size spools.


Yes, but a 117-spool fits in a camera made for 120-film. 120-film can be
used in a camera for 117-film IF the film chamber is large enough. The
flanges of a 117-spool have the same diameter as a 620-spool.

/Patric

Hi, Patric!


Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 
From: jenspatricdahlen@hotma=il.com>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Users list digest V10 #132

>From: Dan Kalish
>It appears to me, upon examination of the 117 and 120 film holder adapters
>for my Voigtlander Avus, that the width of 117 film is greater than the
>width of 120 film.  The length of the spool is definitely greater.  So it
>would seem that the 117 spool does NOT fit in a camera made for 120 film.
>120 film could be used in a 117 film holder with the extensions for the
>film-holder and substitute take-up spool.  Unless I'm missing something or
>unless it isn't a 117 film holder at all.  ???


Nah, I believe you have a 116-film holder! Aren't they for 8x11cm?  A 117
spool fits in a 120 camera.


/Patric

Dan Kalish kaliushkin@att.net>
Flushing, NYC, USA




From: "Jim Wrobleski" Jim.Wrobleski@Chartermi.net>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: Re: [HUG] OT 127 film processing
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 

Or try these guys. They handle "antique" films. Not cheap!

http://www.rockymountainfilm.com/



----- Original Message -----
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 
Subject: Re: [HUG] OT 127 film processing



KARM40@aol.com wrote:
>I was checking out a box of old cameras that I have and found a shot roll of
>127 film in it.  I know the odds of there being anything on the film are low,
>but I would like to at least make the attempt.  Any ideas as to where I could
>get this processed would be appreciated.

In your own darkroom, of course.  I recommend XTOL as the developer-of-choice.

Marc

msmall@roanoke.infi.net 



From: sanking@hubcap.clemson.edu (Sandy King)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: sources for big film?
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 

Priscilla pforthman@hotmail.com wrote:

> I find myself in the middle of a move to 11x14, thanks to a friend who
> has a lot of equipment, and wants to share. I'd like to know where I can
> locate 11x14 and larger film sizes. Is it possible to get Tri-X that
> big? Is there someone who is special ordering the stuff, and then
> reselling to people like me? Where are you all getting your banquet size
> film? Are you getting super big stuff and cutting it down?
>
> I hope it is not a big secret!
>
> Please email me, if you like. I'd appreciate it. And I hope this is not
> an inappropriate question for this group.
> Priscilla

Two good sources for ultra large format film are,

The View Camera Store, 480-767-7105, www.viewcamerastore.com

Have Ilford FP4+, HP5+, and Bergger BPF and

Photo Warehouse, 800-922-5484, phware5484@aol.com

Have what is widely thought to be FP4+ and HP5+ that they will cut for you
to virtually any size.

Sandy King





Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 
From: metcalf@attglobal.net
To: "medium-format@yahoogroups.com" medium-format@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [medium-format] 616 & 70mm film

If you have paper backings from either 616 or 116 film and a supply of
616 spools you can make a jig to use in your darkroom.  Use masking
tape, roll out the proper amount of 70mm film, cut and tape, roll it up
and you've got yourself a homemade roll of 616 (or 116 if you have a 116
camera).

    It's been a long time since I read up on Combat Graphics.  I'm not
sure if they use the standard 70mm reloadable cassettes or not.  If they
do, I think that you can still buy preloaded film from Kodak.  Also,
there are 70mm bulk loaders on the market.

The last time I checked (on behalf of a wedding photographer who was
planning to use a 70mm back on his Bronica) the bulk loader would soon
pay for itself vs. the cost of preloaded 70mm cassettes.

    By the way, there are some Kodak Medallists out there which have
been modified to take 120 film.  I understand that the film chambers
have to be milled out, and of course, the lugs replaced.
Norm Metcalf, Boulder CO



From panoramic mailing list:
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 
From: "George S. Pearl" alps007@mindspring.com
Subject: how to spool film? No Prob.

Hi Andy,
   I think I would simply make a way to measure off the amount of film each
core gets and then pull the film out across a long table in the dark to
match. I have stuck a couple of nails in the counter top to feel where to
pull the film out to and stop. The 100 foot reel can be just sitting in
place with the film rolling out from it. Pull your film out some and stick
your paper leader onto it by placing the edge of the film and leader against
a straight edge to line them up perfectly and then tape on the paper. I
presume that you will have premeasured the paper leader and the ends in the
light first? Roll film out onto the spool and at the taped edge you simply
pull it on out with the film until your hand bumps into those nails (ouch!)
which will stop you from pulling. If the distance is too long for you to
pull all of the film out at once, perhaps you may need to pull out half way
and then wind the reel up back to the supply core and pull it out again.
Bump up against your nails (ouch!) and stop. Go back to the feed end, cut
your film, and attach the other piece of paper and you just wind up the core
. Ta-Tah!
   I am not totally sure how the configuration of your camera's film / paper
goes together, but the above will work to get some going for you. If you are
doing lots of rolls, you might want to look into getting some film winders
or something to make it easier. Rolling by hand sort of gets old after 20 or
30 of them!
Good luck,
George S. Pearl, QPP
ALPS - WIDEPAN Cameras


From panoramic mailing list:
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 
From: James Young jamiehy@globaldialog.com
Subject: Re: how to spool film?

....

Andy  I have a large board with a wood lip on the back to act as a
straight edge.

  I have a piece of tape on the spool paper already. The spool paper
is in position against the backing board with a weight on it or tape
to keep it from moving.I made a hinged channel that swings into place
that I cut the film with.

  I run a rotary cutter down the hinged channel to keep the cut
traight at 90 degrees on the film end. I spool film from 5" to 16"
with this an make a estimate on how long the film is when I cut.
Since you will be doing mostly  just 5" film, you would be wise to
make a 5" wide channel (Just two wood strips on a board 5" apart)
that the film and spooling paper  would fit into and keep everything
straight with each other. A little time spent on making  templates
and guides is well worth the time saved later.

I have two shows going up in the next two weeks , but after that I'll
send a few photos

  Jamie Young in Madison ,WI



From: largformat@aol.com (Largformat)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 10 Mar 2002 
Subject: Re: Kodak Screws Us Again


Who is accurately predicting that sheet film is becoming as thing of the past.
Look at the list of films in the Nov/Dec 01 issue of View Camera. What is not
available that you would like? Plus, Kodak has just revived many of their 5x7
films.

I just do not understand these predictions that sheet film is going away.

steve simmons





Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 
From: speedgraphic2000 speedgraphic2000@yahoo.com
To: medium-format@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [medium-format] Re: 120 vs 620 film

--- In medium-format@y..., metcalf@a... wrote:
> Thanks for tracking down a website for the Honeoye Falls NY firm whose ad I
> couldn't find in Shutterbug.  I long ago got rid of my 130 and 122 cameras or
> I might be tempted to try them out.
>     Norm Metcalf, Boulder CO
>
> loslosbaby wrote:
>
> > --- In medium-format@y..., metcalf@a... wrote:
> > > There were some folders made that had spring-loaded segmented lugs
> > so
> >
> > http://www.filmforclassics.com
> >
> > Looks like they have all the goodies, and even weirder ones.
> >
> > G.

Here's another one for you: Central Camera Company in Chicago. There
e-mail address is  and they have every
conceivable extinct format. I have not used their service, but it
looks good.

Good luck.
Thom



Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 
From: Clayton Tume tume@world-net.co.nz
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: how to spool film - 1 more ?

Andy

I grip it with my bare hands and wind it up until the slack has gone,
doesn't damage the film one bit. After that I tape the end to stop it
unspooling. Once I've spooled all my film I open my darkroom door just
enough so I can number the spools (write on the tape) then load them into a
light proof plastic bag. I also load the camera if I'm going to use it
straight away.


When I'm out in the field I only change film in a dimly lit area and under a
dark cloth, these big films seem to be worse than 120 for edge light leaks.

It's surprising that if you've never attempted to spool your own roll film
lots of questions turn up when you try it. A little bit of help can go a
long way.

Clayton

> How do you make sure it's tight on the spool with no
> tension on the feed? Grip it while wearing gauze
> gloves (possibly leaving lint on the film)? 120 always
> has to be tight to prevent flare, so the big stuff
> must to...
>
> Thanks,
> Andy



Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Kodachrom in Germany

 you wrote:
>Yes, Kodachrom without the "e". Here's from an add in Photofreund Jahrbuch
>1938 (printed in 1937):
>
>...und nun auch farbig. KODACHROM, der h"chstempfindlische Farbenfilm f_r
>Tages- und Kunstlichtaufnahmen ("Kodachrome" Type A). Immer zu belichten wie
>ein Panchromatischer Film 13/10 DIN. Ohne Filter, ohne Raster, ohne Korn!
>
>(and now even color. KODACHROM, the high sensitive color film for Day- and
>Lamp light ("Kodachrom" Type A). Always exposed as a Pan-chromatic film
>13/10 DIN. Without filter, witout raster, without grain!
>
>(Didn't know how to translate "raster" to english.
>
>I don't know if a film of 13 Din, 16 Asa, is high sensitive with todays
>standards though. :-)
>
>/Patric

 The first Kodachrome would be around 8 or 10 ISO, tungsten film was a
little faster, maybe 12 ISO.

  However, compared to the other processes around at the time this was not
so slow. One shot cameras were slower, depending on the type of film they
were balanced for. The fastest one-shot cameras reached about ISO-12 in the
late 1940's.

  I wonder if Kodak had set up a European processing plant for Kodachrome
somewhere.

  Kodachrome became available as 16mm motion picture film late in 1935 in
the US. The original developing process was enormously complex and depended
on the controlled penetration of a bleach into the emulsion layers. After a
couple of years the process was changed to one relying on differential
re-exposure. Also complex but much easier to control than the original
process. In no longer remember the date of the change, but it was only a
year or two after the commercial introduction of the film. 35mm slide film
and roll and sheet sizes followed. At one time Kodachrome was available in
sheet sizes up to and including 16 x 20 inches.

 Agfa announced Agfacolor at about the same time as Kodachrome. However, it
was not widely sold and I am not sure it was available in the US. There was
a previous Agfa color film, I think also called Agfacolor, which was an
additive type film using a reseau of dyed starch. Not to be confused with
the later film which was an incorporated coupler multilayer chromogenic film.

  I think Kodak may have known of the research being done on color at Agfa.
One of George Eastman's wishes was for Kodak to devise an easy to use color
film. They really didn't beat Agfa to it. It took Kodak some years to find
an alternative method of anchoring the color couplers in their respective
emulsions. Agfa's method was to attach the couplers to very long chain
polymers. Kodak's method was to incapsulate them in resins which allowed
the penetration of developer reaction prducts but did not allow the escape
of the coupler or the dye it produced. I am not sure which system is in use
now but think its the Agfa system. Most developers for the Kodak system
required the use of alcohol to help penetrate the resin. These films and
papers also looked hazy or greasy until thoroughly dry.

  Kodak's first incorporated coupler film was Kodacolor, commercialized
about 1942. I think both Agfa/Ansco and Kodak made color aerial film using
both systems, since the Agfa patents were seized, along with all other
Agfa-GAF property, at the outbreak of WW-2.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com




Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 
From: jenspatricdahlen@hotmail.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Rollei] Efke 25 as SHEET FILM!!!!

Yes, it's true! It's sold by http://banse-grohmann.de/wephota/sortimix.htm
under the name Wephota NP 15. This film can not be bought from Efke, and is
only made for Wephota. There's not much information at their homepage at
this moment though. I have emailed them and asked what sizes are available.

I LOVE Efke films, and their 25 and 50 Asa films are my favorites when I
want really fine grain, so I'm really happy to see Efke 25 in sheets. :-)

Wephota was the new name for the old german Mimosa company after the war.
They made many films and photo papers. However, I guess all their current
products are made by other companies.

/Patric



Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 
From: metcalf@attglobal.net
To: "medium-format@yahoogroups.com" medium-format@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [medium-format] Kodak roll film sizes

Thanks to Per Backman I found a website listing Kodak roll film sizes.
The URL is

http://members.aol.com/Chuck02178/film.htm

The list is three pages long, lists the sizes in order of introduction,
years on market, life span in years, original image size in inches and
the first camera to use the size.

    Norm Metcalf, Boulder CO


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 
From: Dan Kalish kaliushkin@worldnet.att.net
Subject: [Rollei] OT: 6x9 or 6x45

This posting relates to my Voigtlander Avus camera, made in 1919-1934.  It
is a folding bellows camera with a 13.5cm lens on a Compur shutter.   It has
a 9x12 groundglass viewing screen and, when I acquired it in the late 50's,
9x12 single sheet holders and a film adapter for 116 film.

116 film was soon discontinued and the camera sat, unused, for a few
decades.


I recently acquired a 120 film adapter and was quite excited.

Now the problem has become processing.  The adapter uses a 6x9 mask and I
haven't found any lab that will print this for less than an exorbitant
amount.  The best price I got was $8 per print, even for 4"x6".  I don't
have access to a darkroom.

So, my first question is: does anyone know of a lab that would do it for
less?

Another alternative is to use a 6x4.5 mask.  I'm not thrilled with that
idea: its 1/4 of the groundglass screen.  It also makes the lens grossly
telephoto: 1.8 x the image diameter.  My second question is, if I went this
route, how would I get 16 images per roll?  I know the lower left screen is
numbering for 6x9 and the middle screen is numbering for 6x6.  How do I get
numbering for 6x4.5?

Thanks,

Dan
Dan Kalish kaliushkin@att.net


from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 
From: Michael Sabatelle mds721@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] platinum sources 70mm too wide for 120 reels

RE: 70mm film too wide for 120 reels.

70mm film is the same size as old Kodak 616 / 116 film, at one time I
reloaded 70mm film on the 116 / 616 paper backing and used it in the old
Kodaks. I developed it on a stainless steel 116 reel at the time.
If one can locate a 116/616 developing stainless steel reel it will fit
in a standard double reel developing tank, I don't remember the length
the reel holds.

Michael


[Ed. note: thanks to James for passing on these updates on a rare film spool type!]
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 
From: James Schenken jds@ifx.net
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: 129 Film size

http://medfmt.8k.com/bronfilms.html

Robert,

On the above page, you have listed a size 129 film and some measurements.

I've finally got my hands on an actual 129 film spool (at least I believe
it to be one) after a 30 year quest. But that is another story.

Here is what you have and I have measured.

Film #Image Size  Spool Length  Spool Diameter  Core Diameter
1291 7/8 x 32     .0590         .7800          .468            Posted
1291 13/32 x 32   .1250         .8130          .223            Measured

The spool length I measured is from outside flange to outside flange.
The core extends an additional 1/8 inch (approx) past the flange.
All measurements are in inches.

The camera which uses this film spool is a Zeiss-Ikon Cocarette.  I believe
it to be a model 514/14.

I have two of these cameras, one of which has been modified to accept 127
film.  The image size in both is identical.

Cheers,

James Schenken



From Rollei Mailing list:
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 
From: Jens Dahlen jenspatricdahlen@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Efke film: Du Pont?

You mean Efke R100 and not 200? It's sold as a 200 Asa film under other
brand names though. Expose it at 100 Asa, and develop it in D-76 20C for 9
minutes.

The demands for Efke's low speed films are increasing, so I don't think the
will stop making their 25 and 50 Asa films.

Efke have problems with getting enough 127-spools, so they use used spools
nowadays, and roll the film on them by hand...


Efke 25 is available in sheet film these days! But sold by Wephota under the
name NP 15. They have the most common sizes in stock, but can also cut the
film into whatever size you want! Good if you want film for an odd size
Heidoscope for example.

/Patric

>Hi all.
>I have just got some rolls of EFKE R200 B/N film, in 127 size, to feed my
>Kodak Vest Pocket Autographic and a Baby Rollei I am eager for :-)
>I think it's a good film and - well - the only 127 film I have been able to
>find... :-/
>
>Some questions:
>- has anyone used it? EI/developer/times recommended?
>- on the cardboard box it says "Made in Croatia under licence - Du Pont de
>Nemours Deutschland gmbh". Eh!? Du Pont? is Du Pont into film making?
>- the Italian importer says it will pass some time before some more fresh
>film will be available, as Fotokemika Zagreb (i.e. the Efke maker) is
>undergoing a serious restructuration. I hope they will not drop "strange"
>films, such 127 format or 20 ISO. Does anyone know what's going on?
>
>Ciao
>Guido


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 
From: Jens jenspatricdahlen@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Original Rolleiflex

>From: "Jerry Waid
>I will be receiving an Original Rolleiflex 6X6 in the next couple of weeks.
>I takes 117 film.
>Can some tell me how to modify this camera to use 120 film. Parker in his
>book, states that many owner converted these camera to use 120 and 620
>film.


You can't modify the camera to take 120-film. The 117-spool is a sibling to
the 120 and 620. You can convert a 120-spool to 117 by grinding the flanges
to match the diameter of the 117.

I have film in my Original Rolleiflex at the moment. I rerolled the film on
a 620-spool and use a 117 takeup spool.

It's best to unload the camera in the darkroom or in a black sack, since the
smaller diameter of the spool flanges makes the roll more sensitive to
light. But however, all of the 120-film fits the 117 spool.

You can modify the camera to take 620 film by making a new winding knob and
spool holding knob. But then you have to reroll all films anyway.

/Patric



From: tduffy8486@aol.com (TDuffy8486)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 5x7 Color Film
Date: 20 May 2002 

>I posted this message earlier to the rec.photo.darkroom group, but think
>it may be more appropriate here.
>
>I have not used any color film for 5X7 in several years. Can anyone tell
>me what is still available for this format in either color negative or
>transparency material and a source for buying.
>
>Comments on the characteristics of the film would also be appreciated.
>
>In the past I used E-6 Ektachrome and Verichrome in this size.
>
>Sandy King

Sandy,

Badger Graphic stocks Fuji Velvia and Provia 100 F in transparency and Kodak
Portra 160 NC color negative in 5x7.

Their website is badgergraphic.com.

They are the only US source for 5x7 color that I know of.

I've been shooting the Portra 160 lately and find I like it a lot. Not as
saturated as Fuji NPS but good grain, very accurate color and excellent
reciprocity characteristics, no exposure compensation up to 10 seconds.

Take care,
Tom Duffy



From: John john@darkroompro.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 5x7 Color Film
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002


        From E.K.

        Black & White

                Catalog number: 143-0271
                100 sheets 5x7
                Kodak TRI-X PAN Professional Film 4164

                Catalog number: 143-0214
                25 sheets 5x7
                Kodak TRI-X PAN Professional Film 4164

                Catalog number: 144-3118
                100 sheets 5x7
                Kodak Plus-X Pan Professional Film 4147

                Catalog number: 822-6334
                50 sheets 5x7
               Kodak T-Max 100 Film

        Color Slide (daylight)

                Catalog number: 122-5325
                10 sheets 5x7
                Kodak Ektachrome 64 Professional Film (EPR)

        Color Print (daylight)

                Catalog number: 135-5825
                50 sheets 5x7
                Kodak Portra 160 NC
....



[Ed. note: a handy tip for those wanting to homebrew their own glass plates...]
From camera makers mailing list:
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 
From: mmagid3005@aol.com
Subject: Making glass negatives

I can't remember which list it was on, but a few days ago someone was asking
about making their own glass plate negatives.  The Arno Press "Encyclopedia
of Photography," published in 1911 and reprinted by Arno in 1974 has several
relevant entries, especially at "coating," "dry plates" and "emulsion."

Marty


[Ed. note: want to roll your own glass plates?...]
From camera makers mailing list:
From: John john@darkroompro.net
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Re: [PhotoHistory] Making glass negatives
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002

you wrote:

>Can anyone help?

        I think this is the pertinent section. Hopefully. I typed it into
Notepad and of course I will be posting it to my site.

Regards,

John S. Douglas - Photographer, Webmaster & Computer Tech
        Website --- http://www.darkroompro.net


Encyclopedia of photography
A New York Times Company
Arno Press, 1974

Entry: Emulsions for Development, Negative Emulsions, Pgs. 216-217

The manufacture of negative emulsions is by no means such an easy matter 
as positive emulsion making, but with care slow emulsions of very 
satisfactory quality can be produced. The beginner is not advised to 
attempt very rapid emulsions, as they are extremely difficult. There are 
two principal methods for negative emulsion making - the acid or boiling 
process and the ammonia method. The former will give, as a rule, the 
cleaner plate, but it is not possible to obtain so high a speed. With 
care equally clean plates may be obtained by the ammonia method and 
greater speed. The acid process wil be treated first.

        Slow emulsion

Pot. Bromide            75g
Pot. Iodide             2.75g
Nelson's #1 Gelatin     33g
Hydrochloric acid       1cc
Distilled water         550cc

Heat to 120F (nearly 49C) and add slowly with constant stirring -

Silver nitrate          100g
Distilled water         550cc

also heated to 120F. Digest in the waterbath at boiling point for half an
 hour and then add -

Hard gelatine           125g

which should have been well washed in water, soaked for a half an hour 
and drained for half an hour. Cool the emulsion, and set. This should 
give an emulsion of about 25 H&D.;

An emulsion of about double the rappidity and giving somewhat greater 
contrast can be obtained by cooling the above emulsion to 95F (35C) and 
adding -

Liquor ammoniae         7.5cc
Distilled water         50cc

and stirring well for about 15 minutes, the setting and allow to stand 
for 24 hours.

        Rapid Emulsion

Pot. Bromide            125g
Pot. Iodide             2.5g
Hard gelatine           50g
Distilled water         500cc

Heat to 140F (60C) and add in a fine stream with constant stirring -

Silver nitrate          100g
Distilled water         350cc

also heated to 140F. Digest in a water bath at boiling point for 45 min. 
and then add -

Hard gelatine           50g
Distilled water         400cc

The gelatine should be well washed in two or three changes of water, 
drained, and then dissolved in distilled water at 110F (43.3C). This 
should give plate of from 150 to 180 H&D;, which are rather soft working 
but clean. Greater contrast can be obtained by adding ammonia as 
suggested for the slow emulsions.

        Slow Ammonia Emulsion

Amm bromide             85g
Pot. Iodide             3g
Hard gelatine           145g
Distilled water         1L

Heat to 110F (43.3C) and add with constant stirring -

Silver nitrate          100g
Liquor ammoniae(*880)   q.s. (*note*, Latin, quantum sufficit)
Distilled water         300cc

at a temperature of about 70F (21C). The silver should be thoroughly 
dissolved and enough ammonia added to redissolve the precipitate first 
formed. The exact quantity will, of course, depend upon the strenght of 
the ammonia, but 65-70cc can be added at first, and then further 
additions made very cautiously, stirring well, till quite a clear 
solution is formed. the termperature rises to about 90F so that it is 
advisable to cool this silver solution down by standing the vessel in 
cold water for a short time. As soon as the emulsion is mixed, the vessel
 should be placed in cold water, running water for preference, and the 
emulsion well stirred till quite thick and then put away in cold water to
 set. If allowed to stand for about sixteen hours before washing, this 
should give a clean working plate of about 30 to 50 H&D.;, which will give
 great contrasts and wide latitude of exposure.

        Medium Rapidity

Amm. bromide            90g
Pot. iodide             2.5g
Soft gelatine           50g
Hard gelatine           50g
Distilled water         1L

Heat to 120F (nearly 49C) and add with constant stirring-

Silver nitrate          100g
Liquor ammoniae         q.s.
Distilled water         300cc

at a temperature of 80F (nearly 27C). This solution should be made as 
before described When mixed, the emulsion should be digested in a water 
bath at a temperature of 120F for half an hour, and then  -

Hard gelatine           50g

which has been wel washed but not soaked, added. Cool down gradually and 
allow to stand for 16 hours before washing. This should give plates of 
from 100 to 120 H&D.;

        Rapid Ammonium Emulsion

Amm. bromide            120g
Pot. Iodide             2.5g
Soft gelatin            50g
Hard gelatin            25g
Alcohol                 100cc
Distilled water         900cc

Heat to 130F (54.4C), and add -

Silver nitrate          100g
Distilled water         300cc
Liquor ammoniae         q.s.


at a temperature of 75F (nearly 24C). Digest in water bath at 120F 
(nearly 49C) for 1 hour and then add-

Hard gelatine (well washed ONLY!) 75g

Cool the emulsion and pour out into flat dishes;allow t stand for 20 
hours. This should give plates of from 200-225 H&D.;

There are many little dodges which can be learned only by experience and 
experiment, but the following hints may not be useless.

in making acid emulsions it is advisable to always run the silver into 
the bromised gelatin in a fine stream with continuous stirring. In the 
case of ammonia emulsions, it is not so important to add the silver in a 
 fine stream, but vigorous stirring should be continued all of the time.


If regularity of results is required it is important that the water bath 
should always be kept at a constant temperature, and further that the 
emulsion should be stirred about every 5 minutes, otherwise the silver 
bromide may settle to the bottom of the vessel and give coarsley grain, 
thin working plates that are absolutely useless period. It will be noted 
that distilled water is advised in all the formula given in this article,
 this is important as to often ordinary tap water is contaminated with 
iron and other impurities which lead to fog or loss of sensitiveness. It 
is advisable to even use distilled wate for even washing your gelatine.

Greater rapidity can always be obtained by reducing the quantitiy of 
gelatine during the mixing but there is great danger of the formation of 
coase grain and fog. If the gelatine is much reduced it is always 
advisable to add about 10% of the total bulk of alcohol, which not only 
prevents this but also obviates the occurance of dichroic fog with the 
ammonia method.

Directions have always been given for setting and washing emulsions. When
 the emulsion has been washed enough it should be removed from the water 
and left to drain for about an hour, so as to free it from the adherent 
water as much as possible. In fact, it is as well to use a clean dry 
linen cloth and after the emulsion has drained, place it in this and, 
collecting the whole into the form of a bag, squeeze throughly. The 
emulsion is then ready for melting and coating.


A test plate should always be coated first. Melt the emulsion ina  water 
bath at 120F (nearly 49C), then take out a little and cool down to 95F 
(35C), coat a plate and put away to dry. The bulk of the emulsion can be 
rapidly cooled down again, and when set, alcohol containing 0.1% of 
carbolic acid poured over the top to a depth of about 1/2 inch, the 
emulsion then being put away in a dark cool place. If it is to be used 
soon the alcohol may be omitted but this will keep a stock of emulsion in
 good condition for a week or so.



From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002
From: "Jay Y Javier" nikitakat@edsamail.com.ph
Subject: Re: Making glass negatives

I found this recipe from an old photography manual:

Gelatin, reagent grade.
Potassium Bromide (KBr).
Potassium Iodide (KI).
Silver Nitrate (AgNO3).
Window Glass, about 2mm thick.

[1]Dissolve 10 grams gelatin in 360 ml warm water.  Use a plastic or wooden
stirring utensil.
[2] Add 32 grams Potassium Bromide and 0.8 grams Potassium Iodide and dissolve.
Heat gelatin solution to 55 degrees C. and maintain this temperature.

Next steps require working under darkroom illumination ( red safelight for
paper is OK).

[3] Dissolve 40 g Silver Nitrate in 400 ml water.  Add this to Potassium
Bromide solution at a rate of 20 ml/minute, for 10 minutes.  Constant stirring
required.
[4] Maintain temperature at 55 degrees C for 10 minutes to "ripen" the emulsion
and then let cool gradually.
[5] Add 40 g gelatin to set the emulsion.  Keep the mixture cool until it fully
sets (about 3 hours).
[6] Shred the emulsion by forcing it through a plastic or stainless steel
sieve. Pour 3 litres of cold water into the shredded emulsion and steep for 2
minutes, and then pour out 2 litres, then add 2 litres more.  Repeat 5 times.
This will wash out excess Potassium Bromide, Potassium Iodide, and Potassium
Nitrate which formed during the reaction process.
[7] Heat washed, shredded emulsion for 15 minutes at 55 degrees C for further
ripening. Slowly cool to 40 degrees C.
[8] Put some molten emulsion in a gravy boat and pour about 4 - 5 ml on a
9x12cm glass plate.  Start pouring at the middle of the plate and rock it side
to side to spread the emulsion until coating is even. Cool the plate to set the
emulsion, and set aside until dry.

Exposure is in the order of 1/25 sec at f/8 in bright sunlight, or use an
Exposure Index  (ISO) of 5 to 10.  Develop in an active developer like D-72 or
Dektol. Make sure that the processing temperature is at or below 20 degrees C,
since the gelatin emulsion described here isn't as robust as the ones coated on
modern films.

Jay


Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] New Toy

 you wrote:
>Since I figured that I deserved it, I bought myself an inexpensive fathers
>day present, and now have a new toy to play with.
>
>It's a Rolleiflex Original Standard 621 in nice working condition.  Although
>the cosmetic appearance leaves a bit to be desired, the glass is clean and
>unmarked and the shutter is fully functional.  Good mirror too.
>
>My one Rollei reference, Parker, indicates that the serial number range of
>the 621 should be in the 200,00-567,000 range.  This one, however, is
>119432.  Is it common to find them with numbers that far out of the
>published range?  
>
>The back has two film viewing holes labeled B1 and B2, and also a plugged
>third hole centered just above the bottom of the back.  Would someone be
>kind enough to tell this ignoramus what that third hole is for?  The
>pressure plate is cut away behind that hole, and it appears that something
>was supposed to pass through both the pressure plate and the back.
>
>It appears to be a lovely day to take it out and see if it actually works.
>I think that I will do that very thing.
>  

  B1 and B2 may indicate two film sizes. The original Rollei used B-1 film,
similar to 120 but half the length. B-2 is the Agfa number for 120 film.

  I have an Old Standard with a "normal" vewing hole in the bottom for
setting the first exposure. This has a sliding cover on it. It also has a
hole in the center of the back with a hole in the center of the pressure
plate. I believe the very first Rolleis had a film number viewing hole
there. I think this is original on the back but don't know.

  The camera is one I picked up for something like $30 at some camera show
years ago, along with a hard case. It works but has been worked over many
times. The veiwing shade has been modified to have a peep hole in the back
for the sports finder, the original magnifier and eye mirror (for the
sports finder) are gone. I'd love to find an original top for it but its
not worth spending much on. Both lenses are in good condition and its takes
nice sharp pictures.

  The focusing mechanism on these old cameras is interesting. It took me a
while to get it set up right but it seems to work fine. I don't think there
is a scrap of chrome left on this thing.
----                                    
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com 


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 
From: jenspatricdahlen@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Glass Plates

>From this firm in Germany you can sometimes buy russian made glass plates:

http://banse-grohmann.de/wephota/sortimix.htm

They also sell sheet film in all sizes. You can even have some cut by them
to fit the Heidoscop or other odd size cameras. I guess you need an adaptor
of some sort to be able to use sheet film in a Heidoscop?

/Patric


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 
From: David Seifert dseifert@absolute.net
Subject: RE: [Rollei] OT: Camera of the 1950s

Oh my, how quickly we forget!  2 1/4 x 3 1/4 sheet film was available in
many emulsions well into the 70's.  When I was a kid my father bought me a
baby Speed Graphic with the wonderful Ektar lens in the equally wonderful
Flash Supermatic shutter along with a Grafmatic sheet film back.  One of
the first things I had to learn was how to load the damned thing. Total
darkness, of course. A wonderfully eccentric device and a quick way to
shoot six exposures once you got the hang of it. It was a wonderful camera
to learn photographic basics on.  After about two years I was allowed to
trade it in on a nearly new Rolleiflex T!  That was really living.  Funny
thing was that I always pined for the Yashicamat 124G.  So glad I didn't
get it.  As I recall the used Rollei T was significantly less expensive at
the time than a new 124G.  Go figure!


Thanks for the opportunity to reminisce!

David

you wrote:
>Yes, it looks like individual negative each the same cut same size.
>I thought it may be 120 film since the negs are 2 1/4 wide. Did they make
>sheet film to accommodate 6x9cm or was it cut down?
>There are no edge markings on the film at all and a smaller space on the
>outer edges of the negative where you would normally find the edge markings.
>
>Peter K
...



From rollei mailing list:
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Camera of the 1950s

you wrote:
>Gents,
>
>Another possibility is film pack film.  Sheet film would have film type
>notches but I don't think pack film did.
>
>Just a possibility.

  It didn't and was on thin support like roll film. I used little film pack
although I had a Pony Premo that used it. Its been so long since I've even
seen one I didn't think of it.

  Lots of folding plate cameras had film pack adaptors. The individual
negatives suggests it, especially if all the short edges are exactly square
and smooth.

  Many of the same films available as roll films were also available in
film packs.

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] OT: Camera of the 1950s

 you wrote:
>Mr Knoppow
>
>You seem to know a great deal about film sizes.  Can you tell me how big
>1/2 plate, 1/4 plate etc was?
>
>Stuart Phillips

  Half-Plate is 6-1/2 x 4-3/4 inches. However, its not half of a full plate
which was 8-1/2 x 6-1/2. Half of this was known as a "double quarter
plate".  A quarter plate is 3-1/4 x 4-1/4.

  Supposedly, the full plate size was a standard size for window panes.

  There was at one time an enormous variety of sizes for plates.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


from rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Camera of the 1950s

 you wrote:
>   But the film was cut and 2 1/4 x 3 1/4.
>I think your guess on the Graphic is a good one -- was my first guess as
well when I just saw your original posting. My 2x3 Graphic came with
half-a-dozen (wooden!) sheet film holders in that size. Maybe the
photographer cut it down from larger sheets, and hence no markings (?)
Mike
---
You can tell cut film from film pack or roll film by the thickness of the
support. Even small sheet film is on thick support (usually 0.007") while
roll and film pack film is on support of around 0.002"

  Sheet film smaller than 4x5 does not have code notching for the type of
film but does have a generic notch to orient the film.

  The single negatives point toward this being film pack film but, of
course, its not certain. As pointed out this was a very popular size and
there were an enormous number of cameras made for it.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com



From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 
From: Jerry Lehrer jerryleh@postoffice.pacbell.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Camera of the 1950s

Richard

Much as I hate to disagree with you, I have found that film pack
film "stock" is not the same thickness as roll film. It was thinner
to permit the sharp radius bend when advancing the film.

I used a lot of film packs in 2x3 and 4x5, and it was a real SOB
to load in tanks or hangers.

Jerry


from rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] OT: Camera of the 1950s - Glass Plates

 you wrote:
>I have two "glass plates", each exactly 4" x 5" with a light sensitive
>negative coating on what it seems natural to call the rear surface. The
>subjects naturally place them in the last years of the 19th C or the
>early years of the 20th.  Does anyone have idea of the period such
>materials were used? What kinds of cameras would they have been used in?
>4x5 view cameras?  Any names/models?
>
>I know this is OT here but I thought I would start here.
>Thanks in advance.
>
>Stuart Phillips


  Glass plates are still made and used for special purpose photography,
mostly scientific, where mechanical dimentions must be very stable.

  The sensitive coating is on the front surface, however, the rear surface
is often coated with an anti-halation coating. For glass plates this often
comes of in processing as opposed to film where the dye is just converted
to a colorless form by the developer.

  Glass plates predate film, and for that matter, predate gelatin emulsions.

  Glass plates are the exact size of the format. Sheet film for what were
once glass plate sizes are usually slightly smaller. This was to allow
space for adaptor septums to fit glass plate holders. 4x5 film is actually
about 1/8th inch smaller in each direction but plates are exactly 4x5 inches.

  Any camera taking sheet film can also be used with glass plates, the
difference is the holder not the camera.

  Glass plates had something of a resurgence during World War Two because
film base used vital materials and became hard to obtain.

  Plate holders look superficially like sheet film holders but are usually
a little thicker and, of course, are arranged a little differently inside.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


from rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Camera of the 1950s - Glass Plates

 you wrote:
>Stuart
>
>I hate to burst your bubble, but I was using glass plates,(only
>occasionally) in the '50s (1950s).  4x5 size as well as 2x3.
>
>I'm certain that Richard can tell us the last year that glass plates
>were made.
>
>Jerry

 Still made. Kodak offers T-Max 100 on glass along with a bunch of special
purpose plates. I am not sure if Technical Pan is still available on glass,
it was until recently.

  Glass goes back to the days of wet plate, maybe even earlier.

  Flexible support dates from about 1880. I've forgotten the exact year it
began to be used. The first flexible support was made of cellulose nitrate.
Cellulose acetate, so called safty base, was first proposed around 1900 but
was not widely used until the 1930's. Nitrate had a lot of virtues as a
support especially for motion picture film. Its very clear and relatively
strong. However, its almost explosively inflamible and had some other
drawbacks.


  Kodak stopped using nitrate for still film in the early 1930's although
Agfa and DuPont and others continued to use it until all nitrate production
was stopped in 1951 (at least in the US). For those interested in such
things "Sunset Boulevard" was the last U.S. motion picture to be shot on
nitrate negative.

  Glass plates began to be replaced by flexible when it came out in about
1880. It lost popularity for general use steadily although it contined to
be the first choice for scientific, astronomical, electron microscope, and
color separation work for decades. Again, it had a resurgence during WW-2
because both nitrate and acetate base film used materials vital to
explosives manufacture and were in short supply (lots of short movies from
Hollywood for a couple of years). Plates have never completely fallen out
of use.

 Kodak plates are on their web site. There is also a buletin with a
discussion of the glass used for the plates.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From zicg zeiss interest group:
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 
From: "Ronald K. Gratz" rkgratz@mtu.edu
Subject: Re: 9x12 cm sheet film

For those of you who like to use Zeiss-Ikon plate cameras in the 9x12
format, J & C Photo in Kansas is now stocking sheet film in that size. At
this time Agfapan 100, Fomapan 100 and Ektachrome 100S are in stock. Efke
100 is on order. They also stock 13x18cm sheet film. See their WEB site at:

http://www.jandcphoto.com/pages/942034/index.htm?gen_time=1033274840933


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Oh Boy.  New 8x10
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002


"Donn Cave" donn@drizzle.com wrote 
> Quoth dpcwilbur@excite.com (Collin Brendemuehl):
> | Getting my 8x10 Cambo today.  Yes, I'm a hobbyist/artist.
> | Can't afford a lens right away so the lensboard will be a pinhole
> | and negatives will be paper from the darkroom.
> | What's the iso of b&w; papers?
> | Is there a lot of variance between the different companies.
> |
> | Are there and does anyone use positive papers
> | instead of negative papers?
>
> If there were B&W; positives I wouldn't know about it, but
> I can't even think of a use for such a thing.  But you can
> get a couple kinds of positive color papers, Ilfochrome and
> Kodak R3000 process (including Fuji versions.)
>
> Don't know if anyone has tried R3000 papers, but Ilfochrome
> has definitely been done.  I fiddled with it very casually,
> and I'd rate it around 12 with a 81B filter (hope I remember
> that right, it's an orange one.)  Others get a much lower rating.
> I think exposure is for practical purposes just not reciprocal,
> so an EI number isn't enough.  Since the color balance doesn't
> hold up either, you'd need an EI and different filtration for
> various exposure times.  I figured I would try to keep the
> exposure around 10 seconds no matter what, as the color worked
> well there.  (But then I never did another, because for what
> you get - absolutely lovely color but backwards, severely
> motion-blurred and unreproducible - it wasn't worth the trouble.)
>
> Good luck with lenses.  You might search the google archives
> of this group for references to drugstore reading glasses, as
> I believe I have read here that they can be taped to the lensboard
> for a serviceable lens.
>
> Donn

FWIW it is possible to reverse paper just as film. I've not
tried it but the formulas are available and not too exotic.
The first developer is a normal paper developer with the
addition of a halide solvent. Thyocyanate is the one
specified in old Kodak formulas. The amount depends on the
emulsion and must be found by experiment as with film. The
bleach is a conventional potassium dichromate bleach, a
claring bath of sulfite or bisulfite, and redevelopment in
any standard paper developer or in a bath of 10% sodium
sulfide if you want a sepia image. When developed in a
normal paper developer the paper should be fixed. Although
the reversal process should in principle have no undeveloped
silver halide in it, in practice there is always a little so
fixing and washing is necessary to insure permanence.

  Reversal paper was used for many years for document
copying. It can be useful for making images directly in a
camera or for making B&W; prints directly from
transparencies.

  A warning, the bleach uses potassium dichromate which is
hazardous. It can cause burns and is a carcinogen. The
bleach also requires the use of concentrated Sulfuric acid,
which _must_ be handled with great care. The mixed bleach is
not particularly hazardous since its diluted, but should
still be handled with care.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 
From: Gregory Harris gregorygharris@sprynet.com
Subject: RE: not so obsolete films...


In the US, Film for Classics ( http://www.filmforclassics.com/ ) sells
film in 103, 126, 127, 620, 828 formats (plus others, I think).  They
cut and spool several modern films (Kodak Portra VC, Ektachome E100S,
T-Max, Plus-X, Tri-X) into these formats.  They are based near
Rochester, NY, USA (no surprise, home of Kodak!).  They also do
processing and are extremely nice to deal with.

I took some new family snapshots (replicating the millions of
the-family-standing-in-front-of-the-front-door shots that my parents
seemed to take) on Ektachome, with my mother's old "Kodak Holiday Flash"
- it was a fun experience and they came out shockingly good!

Greg.  :^)


Peter Evans wrote:
> > RIP: 126, 127, 620, 828, Disc, 116, 616. . . .
>
> Matsuzakaya in Takanawa (south Tokyo) was selling fresh 828 film when I
> last visited. I was amazed to see this stuff, but didn't look closely as
> alas I've long disposed of the only camera I've had that used 828: my
> first ever camera, a British-market-only (I think) plastic contraption
> called something like "Kodak Bantam Coloursnap", with no metering,
> guess-focusing, and every other obstacle to the spontaneity of which I
> anyway had little, a camera that I stupidly used for Kodachrome but from
> which I managed to coax a tiny number of (extremely unimaginative but)
> very decent slides -- which could be handled by any decent projector of
> that era.
>
> Peter Evans || peter@despammed.com


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 
From: Ron Schwarz rs@clubvb.com
Subject: RE: [RF List] not so obsolete films...


If you have spools and paper, you can roll your own 127 using 46mm bulk
film, and 116/616 using 70mm bulk film.



From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 
From: Mark Kronquist mak@teleport.com
Subject: Re: [RF List] not so obsolete films...


Also Glazers Camera Seattle 206 624 1100 and 127 is readily available at
Blue Moon Camera 503 978 0333

>  Dr. S. B. Friedman said:
>> Where can one obtain 46mm bulk film?
>
> Ebay.
...


From: genar123@aol.com (Genar123)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace
Date: 30 Oct 2002 
Subject: Wet Plate Cameras and Equipment


Star Camera Company offers New Wet Plate and Daguerrean Cameras.  Several types
and formats available, from quarter plate to 11 X 14.  Visit our web page,
www.geocities.com/starcameracompany        

Wet Plate offers total hand control over all aspects of your imagery.


from camera fix mailing list:
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 
From: "James Jones" jjones@THEADVOCATE.COM
Subject: Re: Film slitter

Jannes Slot wrote:

>My father has a lot of Minox camera's and he is using them frequently. The
only problem with these cameras is the price of the 16 mm film cassettes. He
knows there are people who make four of these films out of one 35 mm film with
a so called filmslitter. Some people even build them theirselves!!
>
>Is there someone here who knows how to build a filmslitter and / or where the
can be bought??

Well, Jannes, Minox cameras use 9.2mm film, not 16mm, and yes the
factory loaded film is expensive. With a good film slitter and some
empty cassettes you can "roll your own" and save a lot of money. Not to
mention being able to use any film that's available for 35mm or 16mm.


I've built several film slitters, one to cut a 9.2mm strip from 16mm
film, and another that cuts 2 9.2mm strips from 35mm film. I have some
links on my Minox page that your father might find interesting:

http://members.fortunecity.com/minivanman/minox.html

Here's my 16mm to 9.2mm slitter made from a pair of rotary scissors:

http://members.cox.net/minox/slitter.htm

And here's the 35mm to 9.2mm slitter first designed by Ron Pedelty
which I modified slightly:

http://ronp.freeyellow.com/slitter.htm

Finally, a few more slitter links:

http://www.hektor.worldonline.co.uk/minox1/slitter.html
http://users.conwaycorp.net/lahest/slitter2.html
http://www02.u-page.so-net.ne.jp/ka2/eikit/acc/slitter.html

Hope this helps!

James


From: camartsmag@aol.com (CamArtsMag)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 03 Dec 2002 
Subject: Re: 5X7 film


5x7 and 13x18 film are not quite the same. You would need a 13x18 holder which
are available in Europe. Where are you going to get the fi,m processed?

steve simmons




From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 5X7 film
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 


Isaac Crawford wrote:
>
>     I will put in my two cents here about 13x18 holders... I contacted RTS,
> the distributers of Fidelity and was told that 13x18 holders are no longer
> made. I have had a couple on order from Calumet for about a month now, with
> no word on when they will ship. The auctions I have seen on German ebay have
> all specified that they will sell inside Germany only, but maybe I've missed
> a couple of auctions. In short, I have not been able to come up with any new
> or used 13x18 holders in one months trying so they are certainly not easy
> enough to get. Most dealers I've asked that specialize in large format here
> in the states didn't even know what I was talking about and Robert White
> emailed me to say they haven't had any in a while. So if anyone has a source
> for 13x18 holders (new or used), I'm all ears...

Hi Isaac,

Sorry if my post about 13x18 holders was misleading.  I do see them all
the time on the German eBay site but haven't really paid attention to
the "Versand" line (since I'm not currently in the market for 13x18
holders).  I just did a quick scan of the German Ebay large format
section and there are currently nine different auctions featuring a
total of thirty-one 13x18 film holders.  Considering the relatively low
volume of the German site (compared to the US eBay site), that's quite a
lot of 13x18 film holder to be for sale at one moment in time.  Most
appear to be modern Fidelity or Lisco holders, including some "new in
the box" Fidelities.  As you have noted, all of these auctions state
that they will only ship to Germany (or Europe).  Here's a little secret
that may help you out.  When you see an auction that says "Versand nur
nach Deutschland" send the seller a polite email telling him you are a
US buyer that would like to bid on his auction.  Tell him upfront that
if you are high bidder you would be willing to pay all reasonable
shipping charges to your US address.  If you have a high feedback
rating, it doesn't hurt to mention it.  Likewise, if you have bought
from other German sellers without problems.  If you speak German, it's a
nice touch, but not necessary.  Most Germans speak very good English and
have no problem communicating in email with a US buyer.  I've gotten a
few very good buys on some hard to find items using this technique.  In
fact, I don't recall anyone ever turning me down when I've asked.  Just
be prepared to pay some rather high shipping charges (I've bought a
couple lenses where the shipping charges from Germany were in the $40 -
$50 range), and as with any auction, caveat emptor.

WRT Calumet, they had the 13x18cm holders in stock when I was looking
for some a couple years ago.  When I went to their site last night, they
still had them listed, but I did not bother to check to see if they had
any in stock.  As you know, they do not.

With all these 13x18 holders showing up on the German eBay site, you
should be able to get some eventually.  In addition to my "little
secret", I've noticed a lot more German sellers who state up front that
they ship worldwide (weltweid).  Also, I have occasiopnally seen 13x18
holders on the US Ebay site, but not close to the frequency as on the
German site.

Of course, if you are unable to get some 13x18 holders for your camera,
it should also accept standard 5x7 holders (and those ARE still readily
available in the US).  Since modern cameras accept both size holders,
you should be able to get SOMETHING that fits your camera.  The key then
becomes getting both the holders and film in matching sizes.  When I
shot 5x7, I had mostly 5x7 holders and used 5x7 film when I could.  I
also had a couple 13x18 holders so I could try some of the European
films that were available in 13x18, but not 5x7.  You might consider
this approach as it gives you the best of both worlds in terms of film
selection.

Good luck,
Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann - Large Format Images of Nature
http://www.thalmann.com/

Kerry's Large Format Homepage
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/




From: jimbecia@aol.com (Jimbecia)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 10 Dec 2002 
Subject: Re: 5X7 film


JOe,

I use a rotary trimmer.  First I pull out a sheet of exposed 5X7 Velvia that I
have and set up the trimmer guide to 7 inches.  I then tape the guide in place
so it won't move during my cutting process.  I then cut the 8X10 film down to
7X10.  I'm cutting off 1 inch.  I'll do as much film as I need ) putting the
7X10 film back into a dark box.  Then I reset the guide to the 5 inch side.
What I have found out is that I just can't cut the ten inch side in half
because it will not fit in the holders easily.  I end up cutting the film down
to about 4 and 15/16ths. So when I cut the first piece, I still have to trim
about 1/8th off the second piece.  With my rotary trimmer, this is not a
problem.  I cut my film with the emulsion side up and then when I'm finished
cutting, I take a pair of scissors and "try" to cut off about 1/8th of the top
right corner so I know how it goes into the holder.  So far, this has worked
well for me.  The only "problem" I have had is that I have(on just a few pieces
of film)  taken a bit more than 1/8th off the corner when I'm "notching" my
film.  So far, I have cut up one box of 50 sheet 8X10 E100VS without any
noticeable problem.  The resulting 5X7 transparencies are awfully nice.  I find
5X7 can be an ideal format.  Besides the "more" rectangular look, I can also
get a panoramic image out of it, and it's easy to crop down to 4X5 either
vertically or horizontally.  I took an image and found I could get 4 different
looks (if I wanted) out of one slide.

I hope this helps.  If I'm not clear on something, let me know and I'll try to
explain again.  Jim



Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 
From: Jim Brick jbrick@elesys.net
To:  hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: Single sheet film holders

 Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
>I see. Still offered for sale here in Europe though.
>But yes, that's 6.5 x 9 cm. But isn't that the same film? Isn't 2-1/4" x
>3-1/4" just the image format, not the film format?


Last time I checked, 2-1/4" = 5.7cm. Quite a ways from 6.5cm. Which is
probably why Ilford films were/are made in both 2-1/4 x 3-1/4 and 6.5 x 9.
If they were the same, the package would have dual markings. Or so one
would think.

:-)
Jim


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 
From: Peter Evans peter@despammed.com
Subject: Re: [RF List] not so obsolete films...

> RIP: 126, 127, 620, 828, Disc, 116, 616. . . .

Matsuzakaya in Takanawa (south Tokyo) was selling fresh 828 film when I
last visited. I was amazed to see this stuff, but didn't look closely as
alas I've long disposed of the only camera I've had that used 828: my
first ever camera, a British-market-only (I think) plastic contraption
called something like "Kodak Bantam Coloursnap", with no metering,
guess-focusing, and every other obstacle to the spontaneity of which I
anyway had little, a camera that I stupidly used for Kodachrome but from
which I managed to coax a tiny number of (extremely unimaginative but)
very decent slides -- which could be handled by any decent projector of
that era.

Peter Evans || peter@despammed.com


From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 01 Mar 2003 
Subject: Re: 13x18 update

Subject: 13x18 update
>From: isaac@visi.net (Isaac Crawford)
>Date: 2/23/03 
>
>A while back I was complaining about not being able to get a hold of
>13x18 holders here in the states. Well I finially got them, Calumet to
>the rscue! They were on order for quite a while, but they did indeed
>show up eventually. I have to say that this is just another reason to
>like Calumet, they seem to be one of the few big companies that still
>pays attention to us LF shooters... Anyway, got them and I'm happily
>shooting away.
>
>Isaac

I have been using 13 x 18 film in standard American 5x7 holders for years with
no problem. Ever try it?


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer



From camera makers mailing list:
From: "Uptown Gallery" murray@uptowngallery.org
To: Cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 
Subject: [Cameramakers] Fw: Black and White Films (KMM3450335C0KM)

I inquired of Kodak today about sheet film sizes and got an interesting
reply.

Aside from being 'proprietary' (!), there is a reference for how they come
up with the tolerances for various sizes




> Hello Murray,
>
> Thank you for contacting Kodak Professional.
>
>
>
> The exact sizes of sheet film are proprietary information;
> however, Kodak does conform to the ANSI standards listed below:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> |Nominal Size | Minimum | Aim | Maximum |
> | (Inches) | (Inches) | (Inches) | (Inches) |
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> | 4 x 5 | 3.91 x 4.91 | 3.92 x 4.92 | 3.94 x 4.94 |
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> | 8 x 10 | 7.91 x 9.92 | 7.94 x 9.95 | 7.97 x 9.98 |
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> For sizes not shown in the previous table, use this ANSI standard:
>
>
>
> +--------------------|---------------|---------------+
> | Nominal Size ("N") | Aim | Tolerances |
> | (Centimeters) | (Millimeters) | (Millimeters) |
> +----------------------------------------------------+
> | N < 12 | N - 1.5 | + 0.5 |
> +----------------------------------------------------+
> | 12 < N < 65 | N - 2.0 | + 1.0 |
> +----------------------------------------------------+
> | 65 < N | N - 2.5 | + 1.5 |
> +--------------------+---------------+---------------+
>
> http://www.kodak.com/go/professional
>
> If you should have any questions on Kodak products or services, please
> be sure to revisit our site as we are continually adding information to
> enhance our support. If you need further assistance you may also reach
> us at 1-800-242-2424 ext. 19 (Monday-Friday, 9am-7pm EST)
>
> Regards,
>
> Bruce H.
> KODAK Information and Technical Support
> KODAK Professional
>
>
>
>
>
> Original message follows:
> -------------------------
>
> Question: Hello:
>
> I am looking for standard dimensions for 4x5 and
> 5x7 film to make a fixture to cut down 5" roll
> film to fit 4x5 and 5x7 film holders.
>
> Thank you





From: steven.sawyer@banet.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: welding lens
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003

I repeat, send your film to Film Rescue International. Another outfit that does
old film is Rocky Mountain Memories. I would not trust old film with
sentimental value to a local lab.
...


From: steven.sawyer@banet.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: welding lens
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 

You're going to want to send that film to Film Rescue International. Their
address is P.O. Box 44, Fortuna, North Dakota 58844. E-mail:
filmrescue@sasktel.net. I dealt with them once and found them to be honest and
conscientious.

Belle Long wrote:

> This film is probably old and may not turn out it says it is , Kodak Tri-X
> pan film for black and white 20 exposures TX 135-20 asa 400 . 27 din
> I have never seen this type of film I wonder where I can send it to have
> it devolved
>
> Belle


From: steven.sawyer@banet.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Baby Rollei !! Just Ebayed one Tell me about em!!
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003

Actually the earlier version of 127, 121 film was the same design as a 120 spool
only 1.5cm shorter. That format, using a "220" approach, would have yielded 36
exposures per roll.

Thom wrote:

>  Jim Hemenway Jim@hemenway.com  wrote:
>
> >I have one and shoot Ektachrome with it. Scan em and print them on an
> >Epson 2200.
> >
> >You can get film at Film for Classics:
> >http://www.filmforclassics.com/
> >Jim - http://www.hemenway.com
> >
> >
> >
> >josburke@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >>
> >> Just blew $150 bucks for a stated "mint" condition Baby Rollei. We'll have
> >> to see about that condition but it sure is cute. Yes-I'm aware it takes 127
> >> film but just sooooo cute. Are they worth a darn though!! I'm a Hasselblad
> >> user but as I said the Baby Rollei is so cute I had to have it!!!!!!!
> >> Forgive me,
> >> J Burke
>
> Too bad they never made 227 film for a 24 exposure roll!
>
> THOM


From: "Mike Elek" melek @ fptoday . com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Slowest ASA film ever?
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 

Karen,

I've recently Kodak Technical Pan with a red filter, using an ASA value of
6.

I have an older Focal guide for Zeiss-Ikon Contina/Contessa cameras (1958),
and in it, it lists several popular films. Agfacolor: 12, Ferraniacolor
Reversal: 12, Ilfordcolor Reversal: 10.

Also, I have a 1937 booklet ("The Book of the Miniature Camera," by George
W. Hesse) that lists other films as degrees Scheiner. However, there were
European and American degrees Scheiner. The slowest listed film in the
booklet is DuPont Micropan, 15 degrees Scheiner, which converts to either
ASA 6/2 (American/European).

That's the only information I could find on films available at that time.
--
-Mike Elek
[remove spaces to send e-mail]
http://host.fptoday.com/melek/pages/cameras.html


"Karen Nakamura" karb.e.nakamura@spamgourmet.com wrote
> So... I was playing with some of my vintage lightmeters:
>
> http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/lightmeters.html
>
> today. And I was pondering the ASA dial on the Tower bakelite meter.
> The ASA goes down to a staggering 0.8..... Now, I'm old enough to
> remember ASA 25 Kodachrome, but nothing slower.
>
> Looking at one of Kodak's datasheets, Kodachrome 25 with a 80B
> conversion filter for photolamps, rates at a slow ASA 8.
>
> http://wwwca.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/f507ckic/f507ckic.shtml
>
> Was there really an ASA 0.8 film *ever*? Or was this for wet plate
> emulsions?
>
> Karen
>
> p.s. I'm using the term "ASA" in lieu of ISO for historical correctness.


Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 
From: Frank Earl fbearl@yahoo.com
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: [Cameramakers] Odd size film

Along with company (Lotus) already mentioned, there
are several graphic arts companies that buy bulk large
roll film (sometimes Ilford) and cut it to various
sizes. Or buy bulk sheets and repackage. One company
I know of and have done busines with is Photo
Warehouse in Oxnard CA.

Photo Warehouse carries Cirkut camera film in 7x17(25
sheets for $62) and 12x20(25 sheets for $125). ISO
125. They also mention to call them for custom sizes.
They will sell you an 8" x 50' roll for $94. They
list 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, 10x12 and 11x14 film standard but
only in ISO 125. 25 sheets of 4x5 is less than $10.
You can download their PDF catalog.
Phone 1-800-922-5484 and web site
www.photowarehouse.biz .

I have nothing financially to do with the company but
just wanted to point out that if they are doing this
there are probably other companies around the country
doing the same thing. Unlike Kodak, Ilford seems quite
happy to sell into this secondary brand market. There
seem to be other companies doing the same thing.

Good luck with all those strange film sizes. If you
are contact printing your work, it certainly is nice
to have a large enough negative to get the impact you
want.

Frank


From: Peter Irwin pirwin@ktb.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Slowest ASA film ever?
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 

Victor Bazarov v.Abazarov@attabi.com wrote:
> "Bill Hilton" bhilton665@aol.comedy wrote...
>> >From: Karen Nakamura karb.e.nakamura@spamgourmet.com
>>
>> >I was pondering the ASA dial on the Tower bakelite meter.
>> >The ASA goes down to a staggering 0.8..... Now, I'm old enough to
>> >remember ASA 25 Kodachrome, but nothing slower.
>> >
>> >Was there really an ASA 0.8 film *ever*? Or was this for wet plate
>> >emulsions?
>>
>> I remember reading that the first Kodachrome was ASA 8, or was it 6?
>
>
> Reproduction and lithography emulsions are still made in ASA 2
> or about, IIRC. Of course, you might not want to use your
> meter when using those :-) The exposure is calculated using
> the brightness of the source and some formulae from the film
> manufacturer...

Ilfochrome Micrographic film is rated below ASA 1.
See http://www.microcolour.com/ilfochrome.pdf.

The older panchromatic microfilms were very slow.
Ilford Micro-neg pan in the 1950s was rated at ASA 0.2.
That was the old ASA rating, by modern standards it would
probably have been ASA 0.4.

Peter.
----
pirwin@ktb.net


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Halftone screens
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 

"David Nebenzahl" nobody@but.us.chickens wrote
>  Jean-David Beyer spake thus:
> > David Nebenzahl wrote:
> >> Richard Knoppow spake thus:
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> For half tone plates of the type made up of small dots the
> >>> shape of the dot is important. Originally, this process was
> >>> done by placing a screen of fine, crossed, lines in front of
> >>> the film. The cross-line screen acted as an array of
> >>> pin-holes, each projecting an image of the lens stop on the
> >>> film. This image was slightly out of focus. The brighter the
> >>> part of the image being copied, the larger the fuzzy area of
> >>> the projected image of the aperture. Since the film was very
> >>> high contrast the result were dots varying in size dependant
> >>> on the brightness of the original image. The best shape for
> >>> these dots is square. That way the transition from bright to
> >>> dark is the most linear since, effectively, the dots form a
> >>> chekerboard whith black squares which increase in size until
> >>> its all black. In order to get square dots its necessary to
> >>> have a square aperture. So, process lenses were frequently
> >>> equipped with both an iris diaphragm and a slot for square
> >>> Waterhouse stops. The round diaphragm was used for
> >>> auxilliary exposures.
> >>> Cross-line screens can produce extremely high quality
> >>> printing plates but require a lot of skill to use. Sometime
> >>> about 1940 self screening film came out. This film had a
> >>> screen pattern with tapered density printed on the film. It
> >>> elminated the need for the cross-line screen and the special
> >>> stops and also the careful adjustments of distances, etc,
> >>> necessary to make good plates. It was many years before the
> >>> cross-line screens went out of service but self-screening
> >>> film eventually took over. Now, even that is mostly gone,
> >>> the halftoning being done by computer controlled laser.
> >>
> >> You say "Originally, this process was done" (i.e., using halftone
> >> screens next to ortho film) as if it has disappeared into the depths of
> >> antiquity, but I remember shooting halftones this way well into the '70s
> >> and '80s (20th century) in small print shops.
> >>
> > With sealed glass halftone screens?
> > Where did your screens come from?
> > I have two, around 8x10" from Max Levy and Company of Philadelphia.
>
> No; they were plastic, printed (or photographically produced?) on a rather
> thick base--acetate or something like it. As I remember, they were pretty much
> the standard thing for everyday halftone shots; I imagine quality color shops
> probably used something different. I also remember that the dot pattern on
> these sheets was diffuse, not sharp.
>
> Keep in mind that I worked in small job shops, and while we used offset
> presses, they were technically "duplicators" because of their small size, form
> rollers without bearers, etc; pretty much the standard thing for
> small-to-medium run printing before the xerox machines came in and ruined it all.
>
> --
> What the hell do you need a Leica for? Your pictures suck!
>
> - Gen-X Leica Slacker
> (http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/cassidy/leicaslacker/)

This is a type of screen used to replace the glass screens
Jean-David was asking about. The older type of half tone
screen was made of two sheets of glass, each with lines
scribed into it and filled with black pigment cemented
together with the lines at right angles. The distance from
screen to plate was critical and varied with the focal
length of the lens and degree of magnification. There was a
find balance of screen distance, magnification, f/stop in
order to get good results.
While lithographic films were made the original process
used the same wet plate collodion plates used in civil war
photography. The advantages were than the collodion coating
could be made very thin, the plates were of extremely high
contrast, and the developed image could be easily stripped
off the original glass support, a necessity for much plate
making. This was a process requiring a lot of skill.
Self-screening film and the type of overlay screen you
describe rapidly displaced the original glass screens and
process since it was much easier to get acceptable quality.
The old method was capable of extremely good quality in
skilled hands but most half-toning was mediocre. The screens
were very expensive. Anyone dropping one could walk right
out of the plant and probably the profession.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: Alex MacPhee [alex@alexmacphee.co.uk] 
Sent: Tue 6/10/2003
To: classic35mmcompacts@yahoogroups.com 
Subject: RE: [Classic 35mm Compacts] Hard to find film sizes (was: Future of 35mm film?)



Hugo,

>The URL is: http://www.jandcphotography.com/

Wonderful! I see these films are manufactured in Croatia, and as it happens
I have recently returned from a trip to Zagreb. (Zagreb may not have the
immediate impact of, say, Paris, or Budapest, but it will steal your heart
away, I promise.)

And by coincidence, I've just developed a rollfilm (Ilford, though) an hour
ago, which I took in Zagreb with an old Agfa Billy folder I got for a song
on Ebay. It is decades since I have seen a rollfilm with eight 6x9
negatives, and as you might understand, I'm currently savouring huge waves
of nostalgia, recalling nights spent under the bed dish-developing a film at
the dead of night then contact printing the next day on Kodak Chloride
paper. I hope it's not too off-topic to mention a rollfilm folder in this
group, but one of the enjoyable things about using it in the streets was the
number of wry grins and bemused smiles I got from passers-by. What enormous
fun for so little cost. If the government knew how much fun it was, they'd
tax it.

Alex


From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 09 May 2003 
Subject: Re: Impossible-to-find roll film

>The bigger formats are the problem.

Actually, not as much of a problem as you might think. Size 616 and 116 is
really 70mm. This film is sold fresh for as little as $35 for a 100 ft roll on
ebay.

All you need is several old rolls of 616 or 116 and respool. BTW 116 to 616 is
the same difference as 120 to 620.

Larry


From: Leigh Marrin/KM6JE leigh@coyote.rain.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Impossible-to-find roll film
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 

Bob & Linda Flood linbobflood@lvcm.com wrote:
> If 127 or 620 is what you need, B&H; sells it for a little over half of what
> Central does. And Efke 127 B&W; can be had even cheaper, you just have to
> find a store that carries it.

J and C Photo in Kansas city carries 127 Efke R100 for about $4.00 a roll.
They also stock film for 620 cameras that is made from Efke 120 with the
spool modified to 620 dimensions.

I've bought 9x12cm sheet film from J and C; no problems and reasonable
prices.

Their website is:
http://www.jandcphotography.com


From: "Bob & Linda Flood" linbobflood@lvcm.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Impossible-to-find roll film
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 

If 127 or 620 is what you need, B&H; sells it for a little over half of what
Central does. And Efke 127 B&W; can be had even cheaper, you just have to
find a store that carries it.
...


From: "Roland" roland@rashleigh-berry.fsnet.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Impossible-to-find roll film
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 

Somewhat pricy but you might be able to put one last roll through that old
camera you bought on ebay.

http://www.central-camera.com/film/film_for_older_cameras.htm



From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 09 May 2003 
Subject: Re: Impossible-to-find roll film

>The bigger formats are the problem.

Actually, not as much of a problem as you might think. Size 616 and 116 is
really 70mm. This film is sold fresh for as little as $35 for a 100 ft roll on
ebay.

All you need is several old rolls of 616 or 116 and respool. BTW 116 to 616 is
the same difference as 120 to 620.

Larry


From: wfpnews@shoestringprojects.com (Bill Phillips)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: 120 film, 616 camera
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 

I just acquired a beautiful Kodak Senior Six-16. I intend to try some
120 film in it, having determined that the supply and takeup
compartments will accomodate modern 120 spools.

I know of the "two nickels" trick for the supply spool. Seems like it
should be adequate. However, I don't want to use my only 616 takeup
spool, both because they are scarce and because of light leakage.

Looking closely at (a) my 616 spool, (b) a couple of 620 spools I have
and (c) a modern plastic 120 spool, it occurred to me that it should
be pretty easy to make a pair of takeup adapters by mangling either
(a) (undesirable) or (b) (also not very desirable, but at least I have
two of them). Replacing either (a) or (b) would cost several dollars
apiece on eBay, plus shipping, but I guess one pays for progress.

I reckon that, by cutting just the right amount of 6xx spool from each
end and flattening much of the core in a vise, I should be able to
make a pair of adapters that will extend the 120 spool exactly enough
to work.

I would start by cutting a 620 spool in half and then progressively
shortening each stub until the length is right to fit neatly in the
slotted holes of the 120 spool. At some point along the way I'd
flatten the projecting bit of core to mate with the slot.

It remains to be seen how well I can make this fit, but it all looks
plausible. Then it's just a matter of stuffing the adaptors on the
ends of the takeup spool, dropping a couple of nickels in with the
supply spool -- and figuring out how to advance the film properly
(I've heard that using the even numbers (2-10) will get you five shots
on a roll. Is the red window located correctly for that, in fact?)

Since the film gate on the 616 is as wide as the 120 film, you are
likely to suck the film into the bellows area every time you open the
camera. So I'd either keep it open, or more likely advance the film
after opening and immediately before shooting (contrary to standard
practice).

If I get decent results, I may want to narrow the film gate somehow.
I've yet to come across a good, simple solution to that.

So -- has anyone here tried to make adaptors this way? Did they work?
And - what about the film gate?

TIA,
Bill Phillips



From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 30 Jun 2003 
Subject: Re: 120 film, 616 camera

>I just acquired a beautiful Kodak Senior Six-16. I intend to try some
>120 film in it, having determined that the supply and takeup
>compartments will accomodate modern 120 spools.

Remember 616 as well as 116 is really 70mm. You can get 100 ft rolls of fresh
dated unperfed 70mm film on ebay for about $40 a 100 ft roll.

All you need to do is find several old 616 rolls of film with paper. I have
found at least 10 of them in the last year at antique shops.

Larry



From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 11 May 2003 
Subject: Re: Impossible-to-find roll film

>I'm not sure it's quite that simple. One would also need a paper backing with
>numbering since most old cameras of these sizes rely on the red window for
>frame counting.

When I say "Find several old rolls" I mean rolls with paper and all. I have
found these rolls in old cameras. Even found "never used" rolls at an antique
shop. Needless to say, the film inside is trash but the paper and spool can be
reused.

Nothing like taking a 616 or 116 camera made between 1906 to 1935 and run a
roll of fresh Kodak NPS 160 through it.

The resulting negatives are very close to 4x5 being a little over about 3x5. 

Larry


From: MMagid3005@aol.com
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: [Cameramakers] Re: 616 to 120

Bill Phillips - Steve Suddharth makes spool extensions that are attached to
120 rolls for both 116 and 616. He uses mylar strips from hobby shops to aid
flatness. Phone 305-754-7127, address P.O. Box 531054, Miami, FL 33153.

Marty Magid



From: Brandon Shahan [brandonshahan@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Fri 7/11/2003
To: Monaghan, Robert 
Subject: 120 film in a 116-616 camera

Robert,

I stumbled across your pages covering the use of 120 film in older different
format such as 116. I looked everywhere on this huge page and could not
find a way to add to it. I picked up an old brownie 2a model b at an estate
sale and eventually made some spacers to use 120 film in it. I think this
method is a lot simpler than some I read on the page. Heres a web page I
made to show the method and the spacers. 

http://www.geocities.com/brandonshahan/120spacer.html

I don't know how much you mess with these older cameras but another great
site with lots of links is the brownie camera site. 
http://www.browniecamera.com/

Anyways, thanks for any help,

Brandon


From: Nick Zentena zentena@hophead.dyndns.org
Subject: Re: "620" Film Questions
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 

Vince holvbphoto@cs.comgoodguy wrote:
> I guess Kodak sees things otherwise, the company has marketing experts who know
> which films sell.
>
> Certain films have stayed around many years after they stopped making cameras
> for them. Case in point a friend give me a 616 camera, back around 1975. The
> film was still being made, but only in KODACOLOR (remember that name?) as were
> other old sizes.

J&C; announced 116 film-)) And they show some 620 film.

Nick



From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: When did Sheet Film replace Glass Plates?
Date: 15 Dec 2003 

Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>"sympatico.ca" sympatico@sympatico.ca wrote ...
>> not sure when it replaced it, but Kodak only very recently
>finally stopped
>> making plate film (T-Max) I think
>>
> The current data sheet for T-Max films still lists the
>glass plate. However, I couldn't find the listing of other
>glass plates on the Kodak site. Either they've been
>discontinued or they are well hidden. Kodak customer service
>could give a definitive answer but they will not be
>available until Monday (this is late Friday). There is no
>notice anywere of the discontinuance of any of the glass
>plates.

Do you have the paper Kodak product catalog? If you do,
there should be a note near the listing for Tmax 100 glass
plates stating that Kodak will coat any current-production
emulsion onto plates "subject to minimum order size
constraints". I noticed this while browsing the catalog
many years ago and was quite surprised!
--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com


From: David Nebenzahl nobody@but.us.chickens
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Astronomers and glass plates
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 
Richard Knoppow spake thus:
> "Marv Soloff" msoloff@worldnet.att.net wrote 
>
>> If I am not mistaken, glass plates are still used for spectrographic
>> analysis and astronomical work - where absolute image stability is
>> required. Perhaps they are special order items?
>
> They were. There were perhaps five different plates made,
> T-Max 100 and the othrs special purpose emulsions. Perhaps
> all have been supplanted by digital imaging. Certainly
> astronomical photography is now almost completely done
> electronically.

I asked my astronomer friend about this, and here's what I was told:

> astronomers don't use glass plates anymore.
> i used them as a grad student in the early 80's
> but they were on the way out back then.
>
> it's true that glass plates have
> way more resolution than single CCD's (the original
> palomar sky survey used hundreds of giant
> glass plates, each 24 by 24 inches). so
> astronomers now array up to 100 CCD's.
> each CCD is 2K by 2K, so you get
> 20K by 20K pixels if you make a 10 by 10 CCD array.
> (400 million pixels). our lab is now
> developing a 16 by 16 array of 4K by 4K
> CCD's (4 billion pixels, about the same
> number of resolution elements as the
> largest of the old glass plates, and with
> lots more efficiency (CCD's can
> detect a single photon, and 80% of the
> light is captured by the detector).


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: When did Sheet Film replace Glass Plates?
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003
"sympatico.ca" sympatico@sympatico.ca wrote 
> not sure when it replaced it, but Kodak only very recently finally stopped
> making plate film (T-Max) I think

The current data sheet for T-Max films still lists the
glass plate. However, I couldn't find the listing of other
glass plates on the Kodak site. Either they've been
discontinued or they are well hidden. Kodak customer service
could give a definitive answer but they will not be
available until Monday (this is late Friday). There is no
notice anywere of the discontinuance of any of the glass
plates.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: When did Sheet Film replace Glass Plates?
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 


"Willhelm" bmitch@comcast.net wrote ...
> When did sheet film replace glass plates for large format photography?
> Of course roll film has been around since the late 1880s, but I
> notice that Ansel Adams recounts carrying glass plates up Half Dome in
> 1929 when he made his first pre-visualized image. By the time I
> started, in the early 1950s, most work was done with Film Packs, which
> was essentially sheet film emulsions on roll film backing
> (unfortunately no longer available). Most of my 9x12 cm film holders
> are actually plate holders with sheet film adapters.

Sheet film originated about the same time as roll film
because it uses the same flexible film support. Two reasons
for prefering film over plates are lower weight and freedom
from breakage.

So save having to replace plate holders the film was made
slightly smaller than plates of the same nominal size so
that adaptor sheaths could be used.
According to Reese V. Jenkins in _Images and Enterprise_
sheet film make of celluloid was first introduced as a
commercial product by John Carbutt, of Philadelphia, in
1888. Carbutt used sheets made by shaving them from blocks
of cast cellulose nitrate.

_Images and Enterprise_ Reese V. Jenkins, 1975, Baltimore,
The Johns Hopkins University Press ISBN 0-8018-1588-6
(hardcover)
0-8018-3549-6 (paperback)

I strongly recommend this book to anyone interested in the
development of the photographic industry in the United
States.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: Nick Zentena zentena@hophead.dyndns.org
Subject: Re: European 9x12 same as 4x5?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 

jjs john@mychain.stafford.net wrote:
> I see some LF cameras for sale in Europe specified as "9x12". I know that
> Efke film considers "9x12" a "European" size and is classified separately
> from 4x5.
>
> Are they actually different dimension films, or is this just a cross-over
> description of the very same film size?

If they are modern cameras then they should be able to handle 4x5 holders.
My understanding is some time in the past the outside dimension of the
holders was standardized between 4x5/9x12 and I think between 5x7 and the
metric version. If it's an older camera it'll need 9x12 holders and 9x12
film. The film is different in size.

http://www.geocities.com/thombell/filmsheet.html

Nick


From: "jjs" nospam@please.xxx
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Usability of a 6x9 sheet film folder
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 

"Eric Portis" etportis@art.wustl.edu wrote ..
>
> I raided the basement of my apartment building the other day and
> found, wonder of wonders, a 6x9 Rokuoh-sha "Lily" folder, and it is by far
> the coolest thing I have ever found for free.
> What I am wondering is, can I actually use the thing? It's set up
> for 6x9 sheet film (there are no spools).

Nick Zentena was right on. J & C photo has a great range of european film
sizes.
http://www.jandcphoto.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category;=22

From time to time 120 rollfilm backs which were made exactly to your
purposes show up on ebay, and they are usually pretty cheap. But you really
have to measure the rails upon which the film holders ride to get the right
one.

> It's got a Carl Zeiss f/4.5 lens and a 1/250 Deckel Comupur shutter. Most
> confulsingly, though it's Japanese model using a European film format,

Is the lens clear and clean? If it's fungused up you might want to stop the
project now and avoid profound disappointments.



End of Page