Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,294   Posts: 1,535,496   Online: 1019
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34
  1. #21
    AgX
    AgX is online now

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Simon R Galley View Post
    ... [tubbed films] also obviously form the strength in the boxed surround, and they stack on shelves...hence why they are boxed.

    But... the classic "shelves" in a photo shop at least over here formed boxes arranged diogonally, so no problem in stacking cylindrical objects. (Well, a protruding rim of a lid could have formed a problem.)

    http://www.photoscala.de/grafik/2012...oladen2011.jpg

    http://www.abendblatt.de/img/hamburg...Fotografie.jpg
    Last edited by AgX; 02-13-2013 at 06:47 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #22
    Nicholas Lindan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,372
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Simon R Galley View Post
    costs significantly more to produce ... being eco friendly is not always cheap....but it is the correct thing to do.
    I'll grant it is the correct thing to do.

    But I will also posit that the lowest cost solution is often also the least polluting. Pathological exceptions abound, of course. If something now takes more labor you have to factor in all the pollution that the labor creates - not the direct pollution, which is trivial - but the indirect pollution. One man-year of labor produces, as a side effect, one family-year's worth of pollution: one years worth of gasoline, electricity, garbage, household waste, sewage, tires, scrapped automobiles ...

    Making pollution costs money: It doesn't grow on trees, you know.

    Now just to figure out what to do with all the UPU's - "Unemployed Polluting Units."

    On Topic: When Kodak packaged 35mm in foil they first inserted the cassette in a cardboard tube. I used to think it was for crush resistance but it may have allowed them to use automated bagging machinery as it kept the film tongue from getting caught in the machinery. Crush resistance wouldn't have made sense: the tube was far more crush-able than the cassette.
    DARKROOM AUTOMATION
    f-Stop Timers - Enlarging Meters
    http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,246
    Images
    4
    I still have some of the old aluminum containers.

    So, at the risk of hijacking the thread, what's the oddest use you've found for those canisters? In my case, storing my kids baby teeth after the tooth fairy was done with them.
    "Far more critical than what we know or do not know is what we do not want to know." - Eric Hoffer

  4. #24
    Newt_on_Swings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,813
    I have used HP5+ from a foil packet before, you can find them when you get 8x10 paper with a few rolls as a bonus.

    When I travel with a fair amount of film, its actually easier to take off the paper box, and the plastic canister, and toss the film into thick ziplocks. It saves so much more space.

    But I am very thankful of the plastic canisters, esp the ilford ones where the cap is streamlined to the edge of the container since they bag neatly when I reroll and freeze them. The kodak type though a bit easier to remove the cap, have a protruding flange that takes up a bit of space which doesnt make neat packages in ziplock bags.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sarasota, FL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    921

    Once Upon a Time.....

    .....they did not.

    I have late 1930's Kodachrome 35mm containers that were aluminum.

    Frankly, I can not imagine why this is a matter of concern.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Ringerike, Norway
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    140

  7. #27
    AgX
    AgX is online now

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,531
    Type 120 was offered without a tubing from the begin and stayed so with few recent exceptions.
    Letting any adverse affects of the backing paper aside, the film is rigidly wound and by this protected.

    Type 135 was offered in a metall box from the beginning and this kind of tight boxing stayed up today.
    Within the cartridge the film is rather loose and more more succeptible to environtmental affects.

    Very early in different parts of Europe different kinds of (rigidly wound) refills were offered, obviously to save on the cassette.
    Where the tight box around the cassette was substituted by foil, this was seemingly done to save on material.

  8. #28
    AgX
    AgX is online now

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Verizzo View Post
    they did not...

    I have late 1930's Kodachrome 35mm containers that were aluminum.
    This shows just a part of the various rigid boxes used for type 135 used (I'm not sure about the one at thefar right.)

    http://idrh.smugmug.com/Photography/...0/L/Pots-L.jpg

  9. #29
    mfohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westerville, Ohio
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    382
    Images
    54
    [QUOTE=Frankly, I can not imagine why this is a matter of concern.[/QUOTE]

    Just historical interest. It's sometimes interesting to see how things progressed to the way they are now.

    And along those lines, here is another seemingly worthless historical issue. There was a raging debate about 25 years ago about Kodak's plastic 35mm film canisters: they were black. Lots of folks were lobbying for clear or at least translucent containers so folks could see with just a glance what kind of film was inside. Kodak's response was that if a roll of film became damaged to the extent that light could get to the film, putting the film in the black container )using a changing bag or something) could keep the film light tight until such time as the photographer could get the container to a darkroom. Apparently Kodak capitulated and started using the translucent containers. I still have some of the black containers, with film inside, in the fridge.

    -- Mark

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Downers Grove Illinois
    Posts
    1,051
    In the past, they tried to sell in foil wraps and no boxes. They did not sell. Amazing, same film, cheaper packaging and price. So now you pay for stuff you throw away.

    My film comes in 100 foot rolls and I really don`t get involved with this.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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