Bulk Loading 120 film?

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

Alan Smithee wrote:
: Bulk loading 120/220 film. Was this ever common? Why not?

It sounds like a pain to me.

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

On Friday 22 April 2005 07:00, Alan Smithee wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group

On Friday 22 April 2005 07:00, Alan Smithee wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group

Stefan Patric wrote:
On Friday 22 April 2005 07:00, Alan Smithee wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alan Smithee wrote:


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


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

Nick

Alan Smithee wrote:


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


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

Nick

On Saturday 23 April 2005 05:57, Alan Smithee wrote:

Stefan Patric wrote:
On Friday 22 April 2005 07:00, Alan Smithee wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group

In article gDrae.1115438$6l.594165@pd7tw2no,
says...

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

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

--
is Joshua Putnam
http://www.phred.org/~josh/
Updated Infrared Photography Books List:
http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/irbooks.html

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 09:30:02 -0400, Nick Zentena
wrote:

Alan Smithee wrote:


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


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

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

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

THOM

Nick