2 rolls per reel

Do most if not all developing reels accept 2 rolls of 120 film, even if they aren't advertised as doing so? I know Patterson reels do, but I'm not interested in a Patterson.

W. Eugene Smith used to process his 35mm Tri-X film using metal reels and loading the reels with two films back to back. In my lifetime I have most certainly loaded over 10,000 metal reels with film. Tried to load two rolls back to back and quickly discovered that it was a lot more challenging than loading one roll per reel.

Wayne said:

Do most if not all developing reels accept 2 rolls of 120 film, even if they aren't advertised as doing so? I know Patterson reels do, but I'm not interested in a Patterson.

Click to expand...

The AP/Samigon/Arista reels designed to be compatible with Paterson tanks do as well.
Some JOBO reels actually have a movable stop for that purpose.

Are you asking if, for example, a steel 120 reel is long enough for 2 rolls of 120 film end to end? The answer is generally no. There are steel reels for 220 film, which are less common. If you have them side by side, the difference is clear.

Paterson and similar plastic reels are adjustable for width, and so they have to have a long enough spiral to hold 35mm x 36, which makes them capable of taking 220, or theoretically 2 x 120 if you can load it without buckling or overlap.

As far as I know only the Jobo 1500 and 2500 reels are made to process two 120 rolls.

I do this regularly with the Arista reels.
You need to avoid continuous rotational agitation during the development stage, because the film is slippery at that time, and it moves.
In all other stages, it is fine.

Any reel that can accept 135-36 and adjusts to 120 width will accept either a single 220, or two 120 films one after the other. This is most plastic reels. They aren't "made" to take 2x120, but they are made to take 220, which is the same amount of film of the same width.

The trick is to keep the films from overlapping. I've been doing this for years (processing up to four 120 films in a Paterson "three reel" size tank in a liter of solution). Originally, I had some tape that would stay stuck in the processing, and used that to stick the second roll to the first (load first roll normally, run the tail about halfway around past the balls, start the second roll and when it catches up to the tail of the first, apply a short strip of tape where they join, then continue loading normally). Last year, I found that blue painter's tape will not stay on in the tank; last weekend, I found that swizzle stick agitation (which I use in C-41 to protect the Flexicolor color developer from excessive oxidation) with film loaded end to end without some restraint is asking for trouble.

I do have some regular masking tape, so next time I load two rolls they'll get taped together again. I've never had the film move during processing with common inversion, however, so unless you're replenishing Flexicolor and trying to do all you can to help the developer last, it should be as simple as loading the first film, pushing it all the way to the core of the reel, then loading the second film normally.

Do be aware that this means you need to be careful of high dilution developers, like running Xtol 1+2 (recommended minimum 100 ml stock solution per roll, and you'll only have 333 ml in a liter of working solution at that dilution). If, like me, you use replenished stock solution, you won't have that problem, at least.

Donald, at the suggestion of an APUG thread, I quit using tape a year or so ago and started winding the first roll all the way to the axis, then I just wind the 2nd right behind it until the tail end has just pass the entrance to the groove. Works great.

arent most reels long enough for 135-36 and therefore 220 and therefore 2x120? What kind of cheesy-ass reels can only accommodate 135-24? I think even my chincy cheap free-to-me Yankee tank can hold 135-36. Now I'm going to have to go try and stuff 2 rolls of 120 into it (since I have no 35mm)

Has anyone tried stapling the two ends of 120 together? In total darkness. Keeping them aligned. Maybe you would need to make a wooden jig to keep them aligned, with a channel in the side for the stapler.
With such an alignment-jig, you could Superglue them together. Now that's asking for trouble...

pbromaghin said:

Donald, at the suggestion of an APUG thread, I quit using tape a year or so ago and started winding the first roll all the way to the axis, then I just wind the 2nd right behind it until the tail end has just pass the entrance to the groove. Works great.

Click to expand...

I'm about to resume taping. I need to test that the tape I have now will stay on in the developer (Flexicolor as well as Xtol), but plain masking tape worked before.

albada said:

Has anyone tried stapling the two ends of 120 together? In total darkness. Keeping them aligned. Maybe you would need to make a wooden jig to keep them aligned, with a channel in the side for the stapler.
With such an alignment-jig, you could Superglue them together. Now that's asking for trouble...

Click to expand...

I would even think about stapling, that sounds horribly difficult

I always develop two 120 films on one Paterson/AP reel and use the first rolls tape to connect the two films. I have discovered a technique using only hands that aligns the film straight and connects just the ends quite well. It is matter of practice I think

Donald Qualls said:

I'm about to resume taping. I need to test that the tape I have now will stay on in the developer (Flexicolor as well as Xtol), but plain masking tape worked before.

Click to expand...

Is there something wrong with the tape already at the end of the film?

reddesert said:

Are you asking if, for example, a steel 120 reel is long enough for 2 rolls of 120 film end to end? The answer is generally no. .

Click to expand...

That's pretty much what I was asking, except only regarding plastic. I've been scared off of stainless steel and am thinking of replacing my cheap and skanky yankee tanky. And I want to be sure I can develop 2 rolls with minimal solution, and I don't want a Patterson. I considered the Jobo unitank and would take one if offered as a gift but if I can do the same thing on any old Ansco/GAF tank for 1/3 the price that will probably be my choice.

Ever cheaply,

Wayne

Wayne said:

if I can do the same thing on any old Ansco/GAF tank for 1/3 the price that will probably be my choice.

Click to expand...

I would be amazed if the old Ansco/GAF tanks would work.
It is much more challenging to do this if you can't use inversion agitation.

Wayne said:

Is there something wrong with the tape already at the end of the film?

Click to expand...

Well, other than the fact that I generally tear that exactly at the film end, and almost never can I peel it off the backing intact? The film head tape has incredibly strong adhesive, and about half the 120 I process is leftovers from the last time I had a darkroom, access to which ended in 2008 -- meaning the tape has been on the film and backing for roundly a dozen years, maybe as much as fifteen, in some cases (I'm getting my old stock used up, I should have nothing but fresh film by this time net year, but this is how it is at present).

In the past, I've used plain buff masking tape with good results, and I have a roll of that in my darkroom now.

MattKing said:

I would be amazed if the old Ansco/GAF tanks would work.
It is much more challenging to do this if you can't use inversion agitation.

Click to expand...

I know people have complained that they get overlap when using the twizzle stick, but I never use it. I just agitate the tank by hand. Not sure if that would make a difference but it might?

Buy a current Paterson Super System 4 tank. They are relatively cheap and work well.
My 2x120 reel or 3x135 reel tanks permit me to develop 4 120 films at a time.

MattKing said:

Buy a current Paterson Super System 4 tank.

Click to expand...

Wayne said:

I'm not interested in a Patterson.

Click to expand...

I've just heard too many complaints over the years about Patterson, if its not the tank then its the reels. I know many people use them and like them too but I'm already prejudiced.

I use AP/Arista Premium/Samigon reels (wide flanges which make them better for 120, and they work well for 35mm and 127) with the current (as of 30+ years) Super System Paterson tanks, and they work great. I use a Beseler Rotary agitator for rotary agitation for everything other than the development, and that works well too.
I don't know about those sketchy "Patterson" tanks and reels - they might be worth avoiding. .
You may find that at least some of your prejudices relate to the slow filling/draining Paterson System 4 tanks. They were replaced in the 1980s, but they are/were so damn durable that there still are a bunch of them around. They actually still work pretty well,
If I could load 120 on steel reels, I would use them, because I love using them for 135. Sadly, my 1.5 dextrous hands are defeated by the inner clips on 120 steel reels.

I think the slow draining lids were replaced by the leaking lids.

Wayne said:

I think the slow draining lids were replaced by the leaking lids.

Click to expand...

They don't leak if you burp them.

The stigma of Paterson is still alive

I have always used Paterson tanks and I love them. I used AP tank for a moment and didn't like it because uses more liquid, the threaded lid is cumbersome to screw on.

I use my Paterson Super System 4 (single, 2-reel, and 3-reel) tanks for everything that comes in rolls or cassettes other than 16mm (and about one more attempt at using my Yankee Clipper 2 might cause me to shell out for a 3D printed 16mm Paterson compatible reel, or cut and glue one of my spares to fit 16mm). It's easier to load, faster filling and draining, and leaks less than my stainless tanks. Not to mention supporting double loading in 120.

Wayne said:

I know people have complained that they get overlap when using the twizzle stick, but I never use it. I just agitate the tank by hand. Not sure if that would make a difference but it might?

Click to expand...

It does make a big difference. The rotary motion of the swizzle stick affected the outer roll more than the inner, and once they start to overlap, they appear to give a sort of ratcheting action -- pull on the outer roll, and it tightens, but push and it loosens, with the result that over the course of processing the outer roll can overlap the inner (in this most recent case of mine, by about 30%). Inversion has effectively no tendency to push or pull the film along the spiral groove, by contrast.

MattKing said:

They don't leak if you burp them.

Click to expand...

And the reels are easy to load in the dark if you're not one of those who find them difficult.

vedostuu said:

The stigma of Paterson is still alive

Click to expand...

Alas, its true, it seems that my mind has been poisoned...

Wayne said:

And the reels are easy to load in the dark if you're not one of those who find them difficult.

Click to expand...

For 120 film, the AP reels, with the wider flanges, are easier to load than any other system I've used (other than Kodak developing aprons).
And I really only have one dexterous hand.