Well, after sweating in pitch darkness or about an hour (you start to lose your mind at about the half hour mark) I finally managed get a 9.5 inch by 6 cm strip onto a 120 spool. Anxious to see what kind of results this strange new film would give me, I took four photos of my good friend. After some sloppy development I pulled out the negatives from the tank and I was astonished that they turned out. I immediately made a "contact sheet" of the four photos.
It has the look of Ilford SFX with the extended red sensitivity. I like it a lot. From what I've read around, some people rate this at a very low ISO because they've had issues with thin negatives at the box speed. I shot this at 125 ISO, developed in 1:50 rodinal for 13 minutes and it looks great.
Now I just need to find a way to cut these into full length 120 spools. Any ideas? I don't have a cutter that big...
I once got an email from a guy up in Alaska, who made his own 120-rollfilm film slitter. It was made from a long, very smooth, wooden board, with long wooden "rails", attached left and right sides. A long, wooden "block" went into the "trough", to hold the film down squarely.. He used a very sharp boxcutter knife to slit the film.
I guess slitting film (35mm) is common for the Minox community, and there are many web sites on the subject. Here's one from one of those sites on slitting 120 http://www.kcbx.net/~mhd/2photo/slitter/120.htm
I hope it helps
I have 2402, so no need to let me know...sounds like you 'violated' the seal anyway :O) .
Yeah, slitting, everyone's headache.
The 2402 is I think 0.004". The 39xx? you originally listed is 0.0025", even worse in a sheet fim holder.
The 2402 data sheet says it has an antihalation dye. I put a piece undeveloped in the sink & ran water on it (I don't know why), and it ran pink/magenta.
Someone suggested that different vintages may not have had the anti-halation layer, but I would think then that it would have to be 1) MUCH older or b) have different enough behavior that it couldn't be considered the same film.
So I tend to not believe the stories about existence of alleged no-halation 2402.
If you look at the data sheet, speed is listed as ISO A. A is for aerial. It's based on different spectral properties of light and camera angle at high altitude. The published film speeds are also based on the higher temperature development in a different soup than we terrestrial photographers use.
I talked to Kodak once on this, and I swear the guy told me to double the aerial ISO to get a 'normal' one, as an approximation. He said there is no simple conversion because the factors are complex and variable.
I think he meant to say HALVE.
I've heard EI as low as 80 (for 2402), but it's like pinning a tail on the donkey with a blindfold (or darkcloth) because the development for most people will be different than spec.
One guy told me it's really grainy...I would wish it was like Plus-X with extended red sensitivity...maybe his experience with grain is due to his random success with development choice.
I found working with it in the dark pretty traumatic too. That was my first darkroom effort in 28-ish years. I sat the spool (5" rollx 1000', not as teetery as yours) in the lid on a clean floor to 'dereel' some. I pulled too hard & it leaped out of the cannister lid and began rolling across the darkroom, with me taking up film in my hands as fast as I could. I intended to send several feet to someone and he got alot more than I intended.
I was also disturbed by sparks (triboelectric?) from removing the tape from the film end (I had never experienced that before with puny tapeless 35mm or 120 film).
For the next effort I built a spool holder with a bolt for an 'axle' that worked fine in daylight, but with the weight of the spool on it, I couldn't get the bolt thru the supports easily.
All very frustrating. I was tempted to go visit a local lab that has night vision goggles, but I don't want to gamble with how far down in the mud the IR response is.
I think a 29 filter would work fine. It's tempting to try some with an 87 and much longer exposure to see what's 'below the graph'.
Photo Engineer said the response cutoff is very drastic but I suppose after wrangling a big spool like that one's earned the right to stubbornly try it anyway. I don't know if that would be considered push or pull or wishful.
When I have a dark place at home it won't be such a rushed and stressful thing to work with. I had to drive across town to a place that let me use their darkroom and I was on a tight schedule.
What did you use for EI and chenistry/time, OPT?
Will you be able to share images?
That sounds interesting! Would you still happen to have that e-mail by chance?
Originally Posted by Nokton48
Thanks a lot for that link bdial! This will get me started. Time for a trip to a hardware store!
Originally Posted by bdial
The EI was kind of all over the place. That first and second shot below is at 125 ISO and the one below it is around 60 (I had no clue as to how they'd turn out). I developed the 9.5 inch strip in rodinal at a 1:50 dilution for 13 minutes as per the instructions that were in the box. It turns out that's the same time for normal Plus-X with that dilution of rodinal. Obviously, this isn't the best scan (or the best images... my friend is strange in front of the camera) but it's as close to the print results as I could get. The highlights aren't so blown on the contact strip either. Click here for a bigger version. What do you think?
Originally Posted by Murray@uptowngallery
Last edited by OPTheory; 08-16-2007 at 12:15 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: just trying to figure out how to post an image properly...
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I'm glad you weren't dissuaded from the old school try- looks good and thanks.
If you're still game I hope you'll try slitting.
I've done the dark madness with 10 inch film loading to homemade Cirkut spools but I haven't regained my strength sufficiently to tackle slitting.
For 15 ft or so lengths I think I gotta apply the blade between the main film roll and a takeup spool and cut-while-winding. No one has reported trying that method [that I know about, so I gather it's a trade secret or a failed idea, sigh.
xkaes on ebay or google for filmslitter has cheap filmslitter of any size. or he can make them.
Originally Posted by OPTheory
Last edited by europanorama; 10-27-2012 at 12:10 AM. Click to view previous post history.
I would not waste that roll on cutting to 120. You can get 18x24cm holders that fit into ordinary international 8x10 back easily, at least in the Europe. With some basic wooden 8x10 field camera and 12inch lens you are off to absolutely another territory
Kodak Aerocon / Plus-X Aerographic & How to Cut?
Gar! This app just lost all that I typed... To sum it up...
Originally Posted by Nokton48
Hey can I snag a roll of that 70mm? I'm obsessed with it and shoot it more than 120.
Also, I agree, don't cut it, go see the large format photography forum and get a giant 18x24 LF camera setup and make prints that are ridiculously huge and sharp as a 5x7 from 35mm...
If you MUST cut it, and want to go the super cheap rout, get a ruler, some clamps, and go to Joanne Fabrics (or other craft store) buy a self healing cutting board and one of those circular cutting blades (looks like a pizza cutter).
Or just sell it and buy the film you DO want to use and save the hassle.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller