Thank you for the sources of rerolled film to 620. As others pointed out the Kodak Brownie Hawkeye Camera will take 120 rolls as long as it is received on 620 rolls. One must remember to save the 620 rolls.
220 Film Prices
-
A
- Thread starter wjlapier
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Sold Nikon Fe10
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale M-Mount Lenses (Leica/Zeiss/Voigtlander)
- Started by Steinberg2010
-
For Sale Deardorff 5x7 (V5) Camera
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale NEW UNUSED FIDELITY 13x18cm boxed, 4 pieces.
- Started by Philippe-Georges
-
For Sale LINHOF 4x5 to 13x18cm POLAROID 54 adapter
- Started by Philippe-Georges
Forum statistics
Actually, there are three generations; one (the oldest, probably) takes untrimmed 120 supply; the second takes 120 trimmed for diameter, while the third may be too tight on spool length to feed from 120 unless the flanges are sanded very thin.
Remind me why remjet can no be used to substitute for paper, other than a leader, for 220 B&W and colour still films?
I wouldn't expect remjet to prevent fogging through for the length of time a frame might be under the red window. It's antihalation, not totally opaque.
Would a thicker coating help with that?
I see Kodak colour movie films, being used as 135mm folder, so does Kodak, etc, also coat 70mm movie film as well.
A piece of electrical tape or cardstock, over a red window would take care of that concern and my Hasselblad does no have any red window magazines.
Cheers.
I see Kodak colour movie films, being used as 135mm folder, so does Kodak, etc, also coat 70mm movie film as well.
A piece of electrical tape or cardstock, over a red window would take care of that concern and my Hasselblad does no have any red window magazines.
Cheers.
I have been using medium format for aver 40 years and can honsetly say i never used 220 ... I am content with 12 shots on a 6x6 camera!!!
MattKing
Moderator
The remjet would exclude the colour film from C41 or E6 lab processing, and it wouldn't block enough light.
Actually, I recently viewed a YouTube video on removing that backing from Kodak Colour Movie Film, which is being used by some still film photographers.
There is also another video on mixing the clearing agent from scratch, which is pretty simple.
A second layer might include some titanium oxide, dyed or otherwise made suitable for an opaque barrier.
There is also another video on mixing the clearing agent from scratch, which is pretty simple.
A second layer might include some titanium oxide, dyed or otherwise made suitable for an opaque barrier.
Actually, I recently saw, on YouTube, Kodak movie film that has remjet backing on colour C-41 film.
I also watched a video that walks you through mixing the clearing agent, which is simple enough to make.
Lastly, perhaps a second layer of darkened titanium oxide or similar opaque material can be included in the formula.
While I have small hope Kodak would do this, for B&W or Colour 220, perhaps Ilford could make some for 120 bulk rolls and leave the photographers an opportunitie to put it into bulk loaders or dark rooms, bags and tents, and use the leaders of processed 12 frame rolls to our best abilities to roll our own 220.
I also
There
I also watched a video that walks you through mixing the clearing agent, which is simple enough to make.
Lastly, perhaps a second layer of darkened titanium oxide or similar opaque material can be included in the formula.
While I have small hope Kodak would do this, for B&W or Colour 220, perhaps Ilford could make some for 120 bulk rolls and leave the photographers an opportunitie to put it into bulk loaders or dark rooms, bags and tents, and use the leaders of processed 12 frame rolls to our best abilities to roll our own 220.
I also
There
I know Photrio loves exploring hypothetical questions, but I do not understand what problem hypothetical remjet on 220 film in red window cameras would be solving. It's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole using a noodle as a hammer.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 638
- Format
- Multi Format
+1. Some of these questions and ideas are head-scratchers for sure, but they’re often good for a chuckle.
This is a genius idea, really. If the backing is opaque enough, it would be great. And then the film would need to be a bit wider. Cine camera "daylight spools" don't use paper leaders as far as I know, and they have worked fine for decades. So maybe you don't even need remjet backing on all the film, just an opaque leader and trailer.
It would be easier to get a Delorean Time Machine and buy up all the 220 film you can.
@eli griggs The Kodak films you've seen with remjet on YouTube aren't C-41, they're ECN-2. The difference is minor, comparatively; the dye couplers in ECN-2 are optimized for CD-3 instead of CD-4 as found in C-41 chemistry, and the film has remjet -- but remjet is VERY bad for mini-labs, because if it goes into their color developer, it will not only require them to dispose of the entire tank solution (all three, because the remjet will carry over and contaminate all the baths), but also to thoroughly clean the entire machine, as well as likely replace multiple films from other customers that were damaged by the remjet floating loose in the solutions. Needless to say, this will make you unpopular with the lab.
That said, as YouTube channels say, it's not hard to remove remjet, but it needs to be done as an additional step before color developer, and because the film will now start wet instead of dry, the color developer time may need some adjustment. Further, there will be some subtle color shifts due to mismatched dye couplers (the dyes formed by CD-4 aren't quite the same as those from CD-3), and potentially some crossover due to differing development start rate on wet film vs. dry film.
So, shoot Visions3 on your own? Sure, no problem, it's not very difficult to deal with -- just don't take it to a lab in a cassette marked as C-41...
That said, as YouTube channels say, it's not hard to remove remjet, but it needs to be done as an additional step before color developer, and because the film will now start wet instead of dry, the color developer time may need some adjustment. Further, there will be some subtle color shifts due to mismatched dye couplers (the dyes formed by CD-4 aren't quite the same as those from CD-3), and potentially some crossover due to differing development start rate on wet film vs. dry film.
So, shoot Visions3 on your own? Sure, no problem, it's not very difficult to deal with -- just don't take it to a lab in a cassette marked as C-41...
Oh, this opens the potential for a very very long thread: "Which year should we set the DeLorean back?"
Don't forget to fix the starter and hit up those terrorist for the rest of their plutonium...
Cheers, this fills in the picture even more, which is always good.
I take it on faith that b&w films would sim
Black and white films don't need remjet; they can have an ordinary dye-based antihalation (like B&W still films mostly do) or even, if they're intended for reversal to a positive like Foma R100, can have a silver antihalation layer (which is removed by the bleach step in reversal process). Remjet has another function in cine films, as well; it acts as a combination lubricating layer, base protection (from scratches) and antistatic layer (because the black in it is effectively soot, which is somewhat conductive) to prevent lightning-like static discharge marks when four hundred feet of 35 mm film runs through a camera in just under four and a half minutes (18 mm frame at 24 fps) -- or much longer rolls in the same time (far larger frames at higher frame rate) in formats like Imax.
Didn't Ilford/Harman explain in detail why it would cost about £300,000 to fix their 220 machinery and bring 220 back into production?
That was so much that they reckoned they'd never be able to make it back. One run of 220 wouldn't sell out before it expired, even cold stored.
I want Kodak to give me a free roll of 35mm Kodachrome and processing mailer for every roll of Kodak 220 film I buy.
Will you supply the DeLorean, plutonium,. and flux capacitor?
I demand a lifetime supply of free Kodachrome in 220, 135 and super 8. Plus free processing. A hundred rolls of each a year until I die. I demand nothing less.
Kodak wouldn't need the DeLorean, plutomium, and flux capacitor to get their Kodachrome production lines up and running. Maybe a small investment to lube them up, but certainly doable.
Can you cost this, please? And let us know your conclusions.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |