Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,930   Posts: 1,585,431   Online: 1083
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11
    Dean Williams's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Northern Idaho
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    212
    Images
    5
    I have an old Ansco Antar made for 116 film. I modified it a bit to use 120 film. Now it makes kind of semi pano negs, over 4" long and 2 1/4" wide. I have a page up for it, and you may find some ideas for your own camera there.
    Ansco Antar (116 film)
    [COLOR=Sienna][FONT=Arial]Some days are diamonds. Some days a tree crashes through your roof.[/FONT][/COLOR]

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Naestved, DK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,337
    Hey, don't you guys read Black & White photography ?
    In the april issue theres an article about converting those old Kodak folders into 6X12 panoramics. Wery inspiring indeed.
    Regards S°ren

  3. #13
    Donald Qualls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, USA (transplanted from Seattle)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,845
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Zentena
    OTOH a few companies sell 70mm reels intended for medical lab use. The reels are MUCH cheaper then any 70mm reel labeled for photograpic use. The only problem is no daylight tank I know of will handle them. So it's a dark only thing.
    Hmmm. I have one of the large Nikor 4x5 size tanks (without the 4x5 cage, unfortunately, but with a pair of 220 reels that have the heavier wire and wider space between turns common on standard 120 reels); it's tall enough for four long-roll 35 mm reels, and about 50% larger diameter than a standard stainless tank. Are these 70 mm reels too tall (they should fit in most 2x135 tanks), or too large in diameter (if so, they'd probably fit the Nikor and might fit some plastic tanks as well)?
    Photography has always fascinated me -- as a child, simply for the magic of capturing an image onto glossy paper with a little box, but as an adult because of the unique juxtaposition of science and art -- the physics of optics, the mechanics of the camera, the chemistry of film and developer, alongside the art in seeing, composing, exposing, processing and printing.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Italia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,680
    The small ones take 13 feet of film. 220 is I think 5 feet? It's not the height it's the length of film they hold.

  5. #15
    Donald Qualls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, USA (transplanted from Seattle)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,845
    Yes, 220 is five feet, same as 35 mm.

    Hmmm. If those are close spaced, like the 220 stainless reels that fit a standard tank or like a 35 mm reel, they probably would (or at least could) fit thirteen feet in the larger Nikor tank. I've seen Nikor tanks sized for a single reel the size of my wide-space 220 reels, too -- I wonder if those weren't originally made for this 70 mm x 13 foot roll? Of course, I'd be looking at 24 ounces of developer to soup a single roll of 116 at that point; I'd save the junk store price of an old plastic adjustable tank just in developer concentrate in 2-3 rolls (not even considering the price of the 70 mm reels).
    Photography has always fascinated me -- as a child, simply for the magic of capturing an image onto glossy paper with a little box, but as an adult because of the unique juxtaposition of science and art -- the physics of optics, the mechanics of the camera, the chemistry of film and developer, alongside the art in seeing, composing, exposing, processing and printing.

  6. #16
    titrisol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Rotterdam
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,671
    Images
    8
    When I was in college we had to develop some 70mm film, no tank no reels for it.
    We took some corrugated plastic and used it as the old kodak aprons....
    After 1 or 2 experiments it was ka-ching! right on the money!

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Zentena
    116 tanks are usually pretty cheap. I picked up two for $1. I think I over paid considering how hard they are to use in comparison to modern tanks.

    OTOH a few companies sell 70mm reels intended for medical lab use. The reels are MUCH cheaper then any 70mm reel labeled for photograpic use. The only problem is no daylight tank I know of will handle them. So it's a dark only thing.
    Mama took my APX away.....

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Italia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,680
    I think the reels are around 8+".

    At about $8 for the reels I'm not sure I want to deal with aprons-) How do you agiate?

  8. #18
    Donald Qualls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, USA (transplanted from Seattle)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,845
    Hmm. For that price, if the core isn't huge and you need 70 mm, it'd be tempting to cut them down with a Dremel to fit your tanks. A little attention with the grinding wheel, and some sandpaper, will ensure the cut end of the spiral doesn't scratch the film (not a huge issue anyway, since you'd load from center out like any other stainless reel).

    And if you hadn't thought of that, I accept Paypal as long as it's from a checking account or Paypal balance...
    Photography has always fascinated me -- as a child, simply for the magic of capturing an image onto glossy paper with a little box, but as an adult because of the unique juxtaposition of science and art -- the physics of optics, the mechanics of the camera, the chemistry of film and developer, alongside the art in seeing, composing, exposing, processing and printing.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Italia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,680
    Cutting them down would negate one of the big advantages of 70mm. Lots and lots of exposures without changing rolls. Even at 13 feet the reel is too short for a full 70mm can. But it's close enough that I can load 13 feet into the canister instead of 15 and be happy.

  10. #20
    Donald Qualls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, USA (transplanted from Seattle)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,845
    Well, depends on what you're doing with 70 mm. The original thread was about 116, which is 6 exposures (or 8, for the last 30 years it was made), unperforated, about three and a half feet of film in the newer length. Cutting the reel to take what's likely to still be five feet shouldn't be a problem for that application.

    If you're shooting real 70 mm (perforated, from cassettes that look like a 35 mm cassette on steroids), then 13 feet instead of 15 will require giving up some exposures (what, not quite a dozen in 6x7?), but you're still stuck standing in the dark to develop.
    Photography has always fascinated me -- as a child, simply for the magic of capturing an image onto glossy paper with a little box, but as an adult because of the unique juxtaposition of science and art -- the physics of optics, the mechanics of the camera, the chemistry of film and developer, alongside the art in seeing, composing, exposing, processing and printing.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  Ś   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin