127 film too wide for a Paterson Reel?

[Brownie_Holiday]

Obsolete, largely unsupported formats naturally take more effort to shoot.

Maybe you should grab a 120 Brownie; it's a lot easier to use!

I've got a Duaflex, a Brownie Hawkeye, and an Argoflex E.

 

[Brownie_Holiday]

What you're seeing here is Rera being lazy.

Originally, 127 film was cut to 46mm, but the backing was 47 mm to make it a tight fit in the spool and prevent fogging after the exposed roll was sealed, before processing. Tolerances being what they are, most 127 film reels will fit 46mm film with a little slop.

Rerapan, apparently, is cut with the film the same width as the backing -- simpler processing, possibly, and a strong indicator they're cutting their own from larger rolls rather than buying 46mm wide rolls from a film manufacturer and loading that -- but that puts the film outside the tolerance of the reel. if you want to continue using Rerapan (and Rerachrome), you'll probably want to do the modification to the Paterson reel mentioned above, to let the plates sit a millimeter further apart (it won't prevent processing in-spec film, just make it possible to process the too-wide Rera stock). Otherwise, I'd recommend switching over to recutting 120 as soon as you have half a dozen 127 spools (and you can buy those without film on them, though I don't recall exactly where).

There are commercial 3D printed devices available to cut 127 width from 120 (I have one in front of me right now). If you cut so the 46mm strip is on the edge with the 6x4.5 framing track, and then spool the film backward, you'll get the 6x4.5 track where a 4x4 camera expects it, and the 6x6 track where a 4x6.5 full frame 127 needs it. You'll probably need to mask the frame a little in a full frame camera (or live with a few millimeters of overlap) and you surely will have to if you have a half-frame 4x3 size camera, but this means you don't have to recycle 127 backing paper until it's too tattered to use, you can just use the backing that gets cut along with the film from 120.

In the past, however, I've cut 120 to 127 by hand -- I've read about it being done on a bandsaw, and seen video of it done with a guillotine style cigar cutter; I've done it with a utility knife, while spinning the film on my 7x12 mini-lathe. In daylight. In my experience, the fogging at the cut is much narrower than the rebate on the film, even if you accidentally cut all the way through the spool core.

As a bonus, you get a leftover strip that will make two minimum reloads for a Minolta 16 or similar 16mm camera that doesn't depend on perforations in the film.

I see you found this. I was going to point you to it from the other thread.

I've sent an email off to B&H asking them for a resolution. As for splitting/respooling, I've seen many of those videos including the cigar cutter one. That part looks easy, but respooling is a different story. It strikes me that if the mottling on the negatives was indeed caused by too much heat and humidity in the changing bag, then any film that I respool in the bag would suffer the same fate. I don't have a dark area in the house I can use. The house was built in 1873 and has a lot of very large windows, even in the bathrooms, which of course weren't bathrooms in 1873!

 

[Donald Qualls]

One of my Duaflexes (don't recall offhand which, I've got all four generations, two with the focusing lens) and one of my two Brownie Hawkeyes will accept a trimmed 120 supply spool. The Argoflex, if that's the camera I think it is, can be easily modified to feed from unmodified 120, though all of these require a 620 spool to take up on.

I've got a number of 127 cameras, too, a couple of them pretty good (the Baby Ikonta, for instance, adjustable shutter, scale focus, and a triplet Novar Anastigmat, and folds up smaller than a 35mm folder). I was cutting my own film for them before Rerapan started up. As long as i can buy 120, I can feed my 127s and my Bantam RF (828).

 

[Brownie_Holiday]

One of my Duaflexes (don't recall offhand which, I've got all four generations, two with the focusing lens) and one of my two Brownie Hawkeyes will accept a trimmed 120 supply spool. The Argoflex, if that's the camera I think it is, can be easily modified to feed from unmodified 120, though all of these require a 620 spool to take up on.

I've got a number of 127 cameras, too, a couple of them pretty good (the Baby Ikonta, for instance, adjustable shutter, scale focus, and a triplet Novar Anastigmat, and folds up smaller than a 35mm folder). I was cutting my own film for them before Rerapan started up. As long as i can buy 120, I can feed my 127s and my Bantam RF (828).

I have a roll of 120 in the Hawkeye right now. Every model of the Argoflex E with the exception of the very last ones built, the EF and EM, will take 120 with no mods, just a 620 spool on the take-up side. The Duaflex may or may not, unsure at this point. So far every roll film camera I've purchased has had a metal 620 spool in it.

I found a trick on the Darkrooms website for the 120 spools. I suspect most of you already know this, and it's probably what you refer to in your post, but just in case: They use fingernail clippers to trim of the little ridge on the plastic spools. That makes them smaller in diameter and just a bit shorter. I am going to try an empty one in the Duaflex as a first step.

 

[Donald Qualls]

As for splitting/respooling, I've seen many of those videos including the cigar cutter one. That part looks easy, but respooling is a different story. It strikes me that if the mottling on the negatives was indeed caused by too much heat and humidity in the changing bag, then any film that I respool in the bag would suffer the same fate.

I've respooled in changing bags with good results, from 120 to 620, as well as recut 120 to 127 and 828. I've also fought with 120 in a changing bag for a half hour or more on several occasions, without seeing mottling like your example. In my experience, the mottling you got is more likely due to humidity before exposure. Water moves the sensitizers around in the emulsion, transfers them to the backing, or transfers chemicals from the backing into the emulsion. This happens with 120 film that's out of its sealed inner wrapper for a few months to several years, even if it's in a "sealed" 120 film can (and other film, stored in the same box for the same time frame but still in its foil/plastic inner envelope, was fine). I haven't handled Rerapan, but I suspect from your results that it doesn't have than inner wrap, but perhaps come wrapped in foil like the respooled 620 that B&H sells (which is fine when they sell it, but I wouldn't keep it for a year before using).

Even if your bag becomes a sweatbox while respooling, you'll be fine as long as you use the respooled film promptly -- a few days or so seems fine. Further, the more times you do it, the easier and quicker it'll be -- and there isn't likely to be any operation involved in cutting and respooling film that will fight you as ferociously as trying to get too-wide film onto a reel. The very first time I respooled (120 to 620) it took me about five minutes. And since you can do the cutting steps in daylight, respooling in the bag to 127 (or 828) is no worse than respooling to 620 (you can trim the paper head and tail in the light, too, one end before you start to respool, the other after you're done). Obviously, it's not a bad idea to sacrifice a roll (of .EDU Ultra, if you don't have an old junk roll around, because it's the cheapest you'll find) to practice the operations in the light -- but it's seriously easier than what you went through with that Rerapan.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I suspect most of you already know this, and it's probably what you refer to in your post, but just in case: They use fingernail clippers to trim of the little ridge on the plastic spools. That makes them smaller in diameter and just a bit shorter. I am going to try an empty one in the Duaflex as a first step.

I've been doing that to feed my Reflex II since 2003. If you've got an especially tight camera, you can also sand down the thickness of the flanges to shorten the spool -- and in some cameras, once you've done that, the modified spool will also work for takeup.

 

[Rick A]

Is this normal? I'm new to developing, and this is my first roll of 127. It took me over a half hour to get the film on the reel because of this. I could feel it buckling and it kept popping out. I figured it was just me being new, and that may still be the case. After the fact I started to use the film for practice and discovered this. So again, is this normal?

127 Top by telecast, on Flickr

127 side by telecast, on Flickr

You can see how much wider it is here. As soon as I can find a ruler that measures mm, I'll check the filmand reel.
127 lap by telecast, on Flickr

Judging from the photos, the ratchet balls are stuck causing the film to bind up.

 

[Brownie_Holiday]

Judging from the photos, the ratchet balls are stuck causing the film to bind up.

That wasn't the issue, and in fact I checked all of that before I put everything in the bag.

 

[Tel]

In case you're not familiar with them, there are other sources for 127 film (and not Rerapan). One is the Frugal Photographer, a guy in Canada who slits and loads Portra and rolls up HP5 onto 127 spools. And recently Freestyle has been carrying Film for Classics loads of Ilford stocks in 127. Both are a bit pricier than Rera. Obviously, rolling your own is the most affordable option. I live in a 100-year-old house too: I bought some rubberized ripstop nylon (not terribly expensive) and made blackout curtains for my bathroom window that attach with hook-and-loop tape to the edges of the window casing and totally obstruct the light. If you can set yourself up to load your own, the Ilford "ULF" sale is a great resource.

 

[dynachrome]

A few suggestions - There are 127 size stainless steel reels. The length of a 127 roll is not very long so the wire used in making these reels is fairly thick. There might be enough leeway for the slightly wider film to fit. Ilford, in its annual ULF (Ultra Large Format) offerings sold long rolls of 46mm wide HP5+. You will need to re-use old 127 spools and backing paper. If your camera does not use a ruby window then you can also cut down 120 backing paper. My last suggestion is a rather simple one. Buy a Kodacraft film developing tank with the metal weight and find a Kodak 127 film apron. These appear from time to time on the auction tank. You can't invert the tank but you can agitate sufficiently to get good results. With a little care, an apron can last a long time. Freestyle sold its own brand of tank with a film apron. I don't remember whether there was a 127 apron.

 

[AgX]

What you're seeing here is Rera being lazy.
...
Rerapan, apparently, is cut with the film the same width as the backing -- simpler processing, possibly, and a strong indicator they're cutting their own from larger rolls rather than buying 46mm wide rolls from a film manufacturer and loading that -- but that puts the film outside the tolerance of the reel.

Do you think that film and backing paper had been cut together?

 

[Brownie_Holiday]

A few suggestions - There are 127 size stainless steel reels. The length of a 127 roll is not very long so the wire used in making these reels is fairly thick. There might be enough leeway for the slightly wider film to fit. Ilford, in its annual ULF (Ultra Large Format) offerings sold long rolls of 46mm wide HP5+. You will need to re-use old 127 spools and backing paper. If your camera does not use a ruby window then you can also cut down 120 backing paper. My last suggestion is a rather simple one. Buy a Kodacraft film developing tank with the metal weight and find a Kodak 127 film apron. These appear from time to time on the auction tank. You can't invert the tank but you can agitate sufficiently to get good results. With a little care, an apron can last a long time. Freestyle sold its own brand of tank with a film apron. I don't remember whether there was a 127 apron.

I may have said it above or in the other thread but I have begun the search for a stainless 127, but it appears we're talking hen's teeth. I will check into the Kodak stuff, thanks.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Do you think that film and backing paper had been cut together?

If they're exactly the same width, that's a possibility -- but given the film is 127 length (12 exposures 4x4) and has 127 framing numbers (as far as I know) it's much more likely they (or their film supplier) cut the film to the backing width instead of a millimeter under as it should be.

 

[Tel]

I sacrificed a roll of Rerachrome (I was never going to shoot it anyway) and took some measurements. The backing paper measured 47mm and the film maybe a quarter mm over 46. I tried loading this film in a stainless reel and in a Paterson reel, with similar (aggravating) results. In both cases the film resisted loading and repeatedly buckled, because it had a ferocious tendency to curl. It wouldn't engage the ball bearings in the Paterson reel because of this--I had to force-feed the leading edge through the gate. When I did get it to feed, it buckled and jumped out of the track. On the stainless reel it kept buckling (for the same reason), though I did finally get it to wind on properly. I'm not at all certain that getting a stainless steel reel will solve the problem--I think it's probably the film.

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

I shot a roll of Rerachrome last winter, and was immensely disappointed with the results. HOWEVER... I used an arista spool to develop and had no issues loading whatsoever.

However, I recently had what sounds like a similar issue trying to load a 116 film. I spent who knows how many hours trying to load it, and it kept jamming up. I almost had it twice, but then the reel would come apart. However, when I moved from my darkbag to my completely dark bathroom, I was able to get it on the first attempt.

either way, don't buy rera pan or rera chrome. they're both garbage. get some crossbird 127 while it's still available, and hopefully ferrania has their 127 production ready soon.

 

[Brownie_Holiday]

I sacrificed a roll of Rerachrome (I was never going to shoot it anyway) and took some measurements. The backing paper measured 47mm and the film maybe a quarter mm over 46. I tried loading this film in a stainless reel and in a Paterson reel, with similar (aggravating) results. In both cases the film resisted loading and repeatedly buckled, because it had a ferocious tendency to curl. It wouldn't engage the ball bearings in the Paterson reel because of this--I had to force-feed the leading edge through the gate. When I did get it to feed, it buckled and jumped out of the track. On the stainless reel it kept buckling (for the same reason), though I did finally get it to wind on properly. I'm not at all certain that getting a stainless steel reel will solve the problem--I think it's probably the film.

Interesting. So in addition to dealing with too-wide a film it has other issues. Clearly some QA/QC problems. In that third photo I posted you can see how it's snug to the inside of one side of the reel and overlaps the other, so they're not even cutting it consistently. I hope B&H does something for me, even a single replacement roll of better film would be nice at this point.

Thanks for the added research, it is very helpful.

 

[Tel]

I don't know how committed you might be to shooting 127. But I shoot it regularly: I like the fact that it gives more image area than 35--and that it's square--but the cameras are often as small as 35mm. My go-to street cameras are my Rollei Baby and Primo Jr. If you're going down that road, I'd strongly urge you to plan to roll your own. In the meantime, check out Frugal Photographer--I just looked at his website and I see he's sold out of HP5 but he always seems to have Portra (he calls it "Murano") and I also notice that his prices are lower than Rera's.

 

[randyB]

Do you have an older paterson reel? I find that the older ones are not as "tight", there is more slop in the play. That might give you enough room to get the film loaded. I prefer to load my 120 film on the older reels because they don't bind on the edges.

 

[nosmok]

The first film I ever tried developing myself was 127 in a Paterson tank/reel combination. The first roll went fine. Every other one was so aggravating I gave up on Paterson anything entirely. Granted, they were old and vintage. Once I went to (old and vintage) Nikor reels and tanks, everything was much easier (35mm is still hit and miss on Nikors, but that's why God made Hewes and Kinderman reels).

 

[Brownie_Holiday]

Heard from B&H, they are refunding the full amount for the film.

Now then, I am debating whether to shoot the second roll or trash it. Since I am new to this and need all the practice I can get, I think I'll shoot it. I'm picking up a Brownie 127 today from a guy on CL who wants to give it away. I'll clean it up and shoot the roll to see what happens. I'd love to find out this new roll was cut correctly and I'm not near as fumble fingered as I seem!

 

[Tel]

Congrats on the refund, and don't give up on 127!

 

[Kino]

Heard from B&H, they are refunding the full amount for the film.

Now then, I am debating whether to shoot the second roll or trash it. Since I am new to this and need all the practice I can get, I think I'll shoot it. I'm picking up a Brownie 127 today from a guy on CL who wants to give it away. I'll clean it up and shoot the roll to see what happens. I'd love to find out this new roll was cut correctly and I'm not near as fumble fingered as I seem!

Chances are it's the same width; unlikely it will be narrower. You might try the center notch modification suggestion in post #15 this time...

 

[AgX]

That notch modification only makes sense if
-) one wants to use more of such too wide film
or
-) if it does not give the reel too much play for spooling hasslefree type 127 films of correct width.

 

[Donald Qualls]

That notch modification only makes sense if
-) one wants to use more of such too wide film
or
-) if it does not give the reel too much play for spooling hasslefree type 127 films of correct width.

If you can make the reel 1 mm wider, the standard film will still load correctly; there's much more than 1mm depth of the grooves on the plates. And 1mm is just about what's needed for this over-width film.

 

[Brownie_Holiday]

That notch modification only makes sense if
-) one wants to use more of such too wide film
or
-) if it does not give the reel too much play for spooling hasslefree type 127 films of correct width.

Nah. It's one roll, it's now free, and I'll never buy this stuff again. I will shoot the roll, fudge with it and see what happens. If it works, great. If not, no loss. And like I said, I need the practice.