2014 ULF and Custom Film Manufacture From ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

[StoneNYC]

shoot delta100 at 25 ISO and soup in solvent developer to keep the ISO the same & process in two batches

you should not have switched to a rotary tank compromises edge effect and grain - some say...

keep shooting panf or buy larger fridge

Huh?

I'm done with experimenting... Didn't I say this? Lol

 

[Xmas]

Huh?

I'm done with experimenting... Didn't I say this? Lol

You have already tried 5222 in your rotary processor?

 

[StoneNYC]

You have already tried 5222 in your rotary processor?

Yea, it didn't look any different at all, it's the only emulsion that consistently scans grainy, I just think it's the way the emulsion functions, I'm sure in print it's fine, just looks grainy in a low quality scan.

But the overall tonal qualities are very consistent and that's why I shoot it.

 

[Robburrito]

JUST so we can get this back on topic . . . . .
I would like to see bulk film for re-rolling in 126 Instamatic cartridges - basically, non-perforated 35mm film

 

[StoneNYC]

JUST so we can get this back on topic . . . . .
I would like to see bulk film for re-rolling in 126 Instamatic cartridges - basically, non-perforated 35mm film

Doesn't that need backing paper like 127 and 110?

Last year ilford cut 127 (46mm) in bulk and it's great, but the backing paper is running out, any chance this year there will be a backing paper run??

 

[Robburrito]

Doesn't that need backing paper like 127 and 110?

Last year ilford cut 127 (46mm) in bulk and it's great, but the backing paper is running out, any chance this year there will be a backing paper run??

Yes it does; but, if you already have the cartridges to re-roll you should have the backing paper for them too.

 

[StoneNYC]

Yes it does; but, if you already have the cartridges to re-roll you should have the backing paper for them too.

If it's like 117 it wares out...

 

[Truzi]

I've just covered the window on a 126 cartridge and counted the exposures. Lining up the indexing holes with the holes or slots on the paper isn't easy in the dark. My next test will be to cut off the bottom of the paper so this isn't an issue. I don't think there will be any light leaks. (My two 126 cameras have sentimental value so I will not remove the indexing pin - plus on these cameras the pin has to function for the camera to work.)

Yes, unperfed 35mm film would be nice for the 126

 

[Hein]

...or even better a 126 perfed roll if that's somehow possible... Unperfed stock is sometimes available from various sources.

 

[StoneNYC]

What about 828, let's get crazy in here!

 

[cmacd123]

not perforated 35mm is the basic ingredient for 126, and 828. Unperforated 16mm would be ideal for 110.

I wonder if the process allows winding rolls while bypassing the perforator.

I am not sure if they sold any of the uncut 120 backing paper last time. Cutting it down may work, but I believe that the edges get treated to make them conform to the spool, so just re-slitting 120 paper may not be sufficient unless the camera is loaded and unloaded in the dark. I understand that if Ilford had any 126 and 110 filling equipment it is long gone. Can't remember ever seeing 126 or 110 Ilford film in the stores here in canada

 

[StoneNYC]

not perforated 35mm is the basic ingredient for 126, and 828. Unperforated 16mm would be ideal for 110.

I wonder if the process allows winding rolls while bypassing the perforator.

I am not sure if they sold any of the uncut 120 backing paper last time. Cutting it down may work, but I believe that the edges get treated to make them conform to the spool, so just re-slitting 120 paper may not be sufficient unless the camera is loaded and unloaded in the dark. I understand that if Ilford had any 126 and 110 filling equipment it is long gone. Can't remember ever seeing 126 or 110 Ilford film in the stores here in canada

Ilford said last year they would not cut 127/126/110 paper backing unfortunately, just the film. The cost of cutting the paper was too high I believe.

You can re-roll cut 120, usually the edges might get slight fog, but it doesn't usually enter the image area, and if it did it would only be the first frame really...

 

[Xmas]

I thought it was the finishing machine as they can't do 220 which uses the same paper size

And if you are ULF there is still

http://www.silverprint.co.uk/ProductByGroup.asp?PrGrp=2234

 

[rdihughes]

Rolling your own 220 film

1). I bought 2 * 100 feet of the 120 backing paper during the ULF 2013 run.
2). I also bought 2 * 50 feet of 70mm unperforated HP5+.
3). I slit 150 cm lengths of the 70mm film down to a width of approximately 60.5mm using a home made slitter.
4). Using the 120 backing paper I made "tops" and "tails" and printed my own "start" mark on the "tops"; each unit of 120 backing paper will furnish two 220 "tops" and two 220 "tails".
5). Thus the process of making 220 roll film from the above is very easy.
6). If bulk lengths of 120 rolls were made available in the ULF 2014 run (these are presumably available in-house during the standard 120 rollfilm production anyway), 3) above could be eliminated; this step is anyway the most finicky and potentially error prone.

Therefore, could 120 bulk lengths be included within or without the annual ULF run?

Best wishes,

Richard Hughes.

 

[Xmas]

HiRichard

I got reams of 120 and 220 backing paper from resently developed film in my paper recycling bag, so I could also make a slitter and get 70mm in the ULF but id prefer 120 film in 100 foot roll if the 120 film backing surface will survive my 220 pressure plates...

Most pro cameras post '65 (?) would accept 220 so a bulk reel of 61mm might even be a commercial option.

Noel

 

[wblynch]

I'd buy a bulk roll of 61mm film

 

[TheToadMen]

I could use a bulk roll of 120/220 film to load my homemade MF panorama pinhole camera. It has 8 pinholes, making one single image of 360 degrees on one whole standerd 120 film roll.

 

[rdihughes]

Rolling your own 220 film

Hello Noel,

I have been down the recycled 120 backing paper road too, but found that the edges of the paper became fraid after three or so cycles of reuse; also the adhesive tape affixing "top" and "tail" to the film emulsion tends to wear the paper thin over the area of contact as each cycle removes a finite layer of paper during the "peeling off" process - but it works as you correctly describe; the 120 backing paper from Ilford is a more elegant albeit expensive option; when I know that I will be developing my 220 film soon after exposure, I sometimes dispense with the "tails" and load the film directly from the camera magazine into the tank (in darkness of course); the elimination of the paper "tails" effectively halves the paper costs; the elimination of the paper "tops" is also possible if you want to load your magazines in darkness but does waste a length of emulsion over the length of the missing paper "top" - and you might end up with a film length that is too long for your developing tank spiral. However each to his own tailor made method.

I have never had a problem with 120 film being scratched by the pressure plate; on well maintained Hasselblad magazines, the film emulsion is always in very light contact with the pressure plate except at the upper and lower extremities of the frame where it is lightly pressed between pressure plate and rollers and during the actual transport cycle when the rollers on the emulsion side should rotate making scratching very unlikely.

Best wishes,

Richard Hughes.

 

[StoneNYC]

Hello Noel,

I have been down the recycled 120 backing paper road too, but found that the edges of the paper became fraid after three or so cycles of reuse; also the adhesive tape affixing "top" and "tail" to the film emulsion tends to wear the paper thin over the area of contact as each cycle removes a finite layer of paper during the "peeling off" process - but it works as you correctly describe; the 120 backing paper from Ilford is a more elegant albeit expensive option; when I know that I will be developing my 220 film soon after exposure, I sometimes dispense with the "tails" and load the film directly from the camera magazine into the tank (in darkness of course); the elimination of the paper "tails" effectively halves the paper costs; the elimination of the paper "tops" is also possible if you want to load your magazines in darkness but does waste a length of emulsion over the length of the missing paper "top" - and you might end up with a film length that is too long for your developing tank spiral. However each to his own tailor made method.

I have never had a problem with 120 film being scratched by the pressure plate; on well maintained Hasselblad magazines, the film emulsion is always in very light contact with the pressure plate except at the upper and lower extremities of the frame where it is lightly pressed between pressure plate and rollers and during the actual transport cycle when the rollers on the emulsion side should rotate making scratching very unlikely.

Best wishes,

Richard Hughes.

I just think it's crazy to spend all that time for 220, and money! I bought two rolls of the 70mm non-perf also and no way would I use it to cut down for 220... For 116 sure, but it's not THAT inconvenient to change rolls at 10 frames.

 

[Xmas]

Hi Stone

The inconvenience rather depends on the camera and style of shooting.

For the RB67 I only have 3 backs and four motor inserts 80 frames with 220 before I need to find shade and reload.

Five minutes shooting more than five minutes reloading.

The RB is not a ULF Double dark slide cam you can use it like a DSLR.

The C330 stops at 20, I don't take hand of the winder.

Noel

 

[StoneNYC]

Hi Stone

The inconvenience rather depends on the camera and style of shooting.

For the RB67 I only have 3 backs and four motor inserts 80 frames with 220 before I need to find shade and reload.

Five minutes shooting more than five minutes reloading.

The RB is not a ULF Double dark slide cam you can use it like a DSLR.

The C330 stops at 20, I don't take hand of the winder.

Noel

I shot with a model yesterday, I shoot a lot more frames with a person than a landscape, I shot more than I should have, and I only went through 7 rolls of 120, in 3 hours... I wasn't using my RZ67, but my Mamiya 7. So I had to change films each time not just backs, and it was still not a problem.

Everyone has a different style and way of working, I just can't imagine spending hours cutting down paper and backing just to save the 1 minute it takes to change a roll.

 

[Xmas]

Hello Noel,

I have been down the recycled 120 backing paper road too, but found that the edges of the paper became fraid after three or so cycles of reuse; also the adhesive tape affixing "top" and "tail" to the film emulsion tends to wear the paper thin over the area of contact as each cycle removes a finite layer of paper during the "peeling off" process - but it works as you correctly describe;

Richard Hughes.

HiRichard

Thanks for kind and useful response.
My plastic bag for 120 backing paper is a large bin bag, it gets topped up regular.
So I'd not need to reuse more than once.
All I need is pressure sensitive tape a sharpie and a jig to assemble lead and trail paper in dark. So

i) would Ilford supply 100 foot of 61mm in polybag and card box

ii) and how many people will order/pay

Ilford may not be happy... how many 100 rolls would we need?

Best
Noel

 

[StoneNYC]

HiRichard

Thanks for kind and useful response.
My plastic bag for 120 backing paper is a large bin bag, it gets topped up regular.
So I'd not need to reuse more than once.
All I need is pressure sensitive tape a sharpie and a jig to assemble lead and trail paper in dark. So

i) would Ilford supply 100 foot of 61mm in polybag and card box

ii) and how many people will order/pay

Ilford may not be happy... how many 100 rolls would we need?

Best
Noel

Ilford cuts their roll film bulk in 50 feet not 100, that probably won't change. So you'll have to double your order

 

[rdihughes]

Hello Noel,

this is a reply I got from my dealer in the UK at the end of 2013; my question was directed to which emulsion could be supplied:
>
>
>Hi Richard
>If I remember right you would like HP5 so that one.
>Also as the most important customer, you should have your say, is it to
>be 15 rolls of 90.5m or 30 rolls of 30m.
>What ever you need and can get others to go along with you is fine with me.
>Remember the other customer from today would I hope still have 8 rolls @
>30.5m or maybe I can get them to take 3 rolls of the 90.5m.
>Just let me no when you are ready, I will ask Harman to get back to me
>if anybody else is asking about it.


I have not yet followed it up because I am currently shooting 70mm in a 6 * 4.5 Hasselblad back (no typo folks - a very rare beast indeed).

If you (and any other users) are interested, I am sure we could organise a bulk order to satisfy minimum order requirements - apparently having nothing to do with the ULF run.

Seemingly - on the face of it - the information provided by Mr. StoneNYC is not quite correct.

Best wishes,

Richard Hughes.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear All,

61.5mm cut film is not offered, and it will not be offered as it is a standard roll film size.

Simon ILFORD Photo / Harman technology limited