Anyone else using Labyrinth Film Cassettes?

[StepheKoontz]

I picked up the Leica FILCA to use with my IIIa after reading standard 35mm cartridges don't align/fit just right in the early cameras. I found them to be such a neat idea, I got a set of them to use with my canon, nikon, leotax, contax, zorki etc. I then discovered the Shirley Wellard "Universal" 35mm Cassette, which fits and works in quite a few cameras I own.

One thing I like is: many times I'd rather shoot 12-15 frames instead of 36, so I can preload however many I feel like shooting that day. That there is no felt light trap to scratch the film is also a bonus. Plus they are just an ingenious solution to film loading!

 

[Donald Qualls]

Short rolls are easy with any bulk roll loading system, and I've never had an issue with scratching from cassette felt/velvet.

What I think is ingenious is how Kodak/Nagel managed to design a cassette that worked with virtually all the 35mm full frame cameras of the 1930s -- specifically Leica and Contax, which could not use either other's proprietary cassettes. Of course, anything made since about 1936 was designed to use the new cassettes.

Ask me, the only improvement over the Kodak 135 cassette was the Rapid/Carat spoolless cassette-to-cassette system. Auto loading, any film length (up to about 24 frames, anyway) -- should have taken over the market, but it got beaten out by 126, of all things...

 

[pentaxuser]

Stephe, I agree. The Shirley-Wellard cassette is an amazing piece of engineering. The problem is (1) finding one and (2) finding one at a reasonable price. You need to be sure that "mechanicals" inside are perfect as well.

Fortunately I haven't found the "cheapie" re-usable cassettes to be a problem nor the re-use of cassettes from which there is only a half inch or so of film remaining to which you can attach the bulk roll. The sticky part of a "Post-It" slip run between the felt trap will usually pick up any pieces of grit lodged there.

pentaxuser

 

[StepheKoontz]

Stephe, I agree. The Shirley-Wellard cassette is an amazing piece of engineering.
pentaxuser

I guess that's one of the things I love about these is the mechanics/engineering behind them. How the bottom latch also opens/closes the film cartridge etc.

 

[BAC1967]

I just loaded a short roll in a FILCA this evening to test a Leica IIIc that was giving me problems. I find them easier to load in a darkroom or changing bag than a Watson type loader. Sometimes the Watson loader wants to roll the cassette shut while I’m loading Resulting in scratched film. I pre cut a bunch of tails that load into the cassette so I can just tape the film to it, makes it easier for me. Be careful, sometimes the camera doesn’t click the cassette closed completely when you take it out.

 

[Pioneer]

I use the FILCA and the Zeiss Ikon cassettes from time to time but I also use regular reloadable cassettes as well. I can't say I have never experienced scratches on my film but I am pretty certain it happens more frequently because I forget to turn open the door than from any dirt in the felt. I feel pretty dumb when I realize after loading up a full reel of film that I forgot to open the loader door.

 

[ColdEye]

Does the FILCA cassettes have specific markings? I bought a couple of cassettes that were supposedly Leica old style cassettes, they arrive next week. Not really sure what they are but they were pretty cheap.

 

[BAC1967]

Does the FILCA cassettes have specific markings? I bought a couple of cassettes that were supposedly Leica old style cassettes, they arrive next week. Not really sure what they are but they were pretty cheap.

They have a Z or N on top, depends which way you look at it. There are two Leica cassettes, the FlLCA has a black or brass knob on top and the IXMOO has a chrome knob. The IXMOO is a little shorter than the FILCA. The IXMOO works in a M mount Leica and the FILCA works in a Barnack Leica. The one on the far left in the photo above is the FILCA. The second from the right looks like a Contax cassette.

 

[StepheKoontz]

The order in the picture from left to right Leica FILCA, early Canon (the VT/L1 and later use a different version with 1 knob called a Model V), Leotax, one version of a Shirley Wellard, Contax and then a different version of the Shirley Wellard universal. A Zorki/Zenit has its own, it looks like a contax but is clocked different.

 

[semjueels]

Stephe, in your opening post you mention shooting shorter 10-15 frame rolls. Would you mind sharing your development routine for these, please? I am particularly interested in how to calculate /adjust developer proportions or development timing in relation to the decreased film size… (from 36 to say 15 exposures). Or, in case there already is an existing thread on this topic, a link to that would be highly appreciated. Thanks!

 

[Donald Qualls]

What makes you think you need different dilution or time for a short roll?

If you use a replenished developer, you'll need less replenishment, but the time is determined by the developer used, dilution (and temperature) and by the film stock. A single frame will take just as long to develop as a roll of 40 (did that last frame actually fit in the reel, or will it get scratched up against the tank wall?).

 

[semjueels]

"What makes you think you need different dilution or time for a short roll?"​

Thanks for the reply! I remember reading someplace that the strength of the developer is "tuned" for a specific surface area of film. From this I assume that decreasing the surface area and using the same amount amount of liquid as for 36 exposures would cause the developer to act differently (stronger?) on the film. Also, doesn't the equation frequently used for developers "roll of 35mm = roll of 120 = sheet of 8x10" suggest the same thing?

I might be wrong / missing some basics though…

 

[Finn lyle]

That’s just a formula for calculating chemical exhaustion, or for highly dilute developers (hc110 for example) the bare minimum concentrate needed to develop a roll of film. It’s says one roll of 135-36 has the same amount of silver as a single roll of 120 which also has the same amount of silver as a single sheet of 8x10 film. So if 1L of working strength developer contains enough developing agent to satisfactorily develop 5 rolls of 135-36, it could in theory give satisfactory results with 10 rolls of 18 exposure 35mm film or 10 sheets of 4x5. The developing time, as Donald Qualls mentioned is entirely determined by the stock of film and the developer used. Another way to think about it is the times for developing 3 rolls of film in a tank is the same as the time for developing 1 roll, there’s just a change in volume to cover all three rolls of film.

 

[grain elevator]

I find it hard to believe that, at least with dilute developers which would be near exhaustion after development of a full roll, the absence of exhaustion and less build-up of restraining bromides in the solution would have no effect on contrast. I'd start with a time on the short side at least, if you're using a dilute developer.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I find it hard to believe that, at least with dilute developers which would be near exhaustion after development of a full roll, the absence of exhaustion and less build-up of restraining bromides in the solution would have no effect on contrast. I'd start with a time on the short side at least, if you're using a dilute developer.

This is why there are published "minimum volume" levels for various developers. For instance, Kodak has published a minimum amount of Xtol stock solution that's required to develop a single roll of film (to their stringent standards, and accounting for huge variation in exposure level). Use less than that (for instance, with 1+3 dilution and minimum volume for a single roll of 135-36) and you risk exhaustion during the process producing uneven development -- and this is sometimes done on purpose!

For instance, Rodinal 1:100 generally will exhaust, especially in the above case -- but when used with stand development (30-60 minutes with no agitation, or only a single inversion halfway), the exhaustion doesn't move around, with the result that heavily exposed areas get less development than less exposed regions of the film. This produces "compensation" which reduces contrast (especially in highlights) and can prevent blocking highlights in a very high contrast scene.

Generally, however, the difference in exhaustion between a 135-36 and a single frame in the same size tank is negligible, because standard dilutions are designed not to show photographically significant exhaustion for a single tank cycle -- and are discarded afterward, except for reused or replenished stock solution.

 

[semjueels]

Thanks for your comments everyone! Seems I'm starting to get somewhere with this topic.

However, by not having chemistry as my strongest side I am trying to understand what's going on in the development process through some analogies. So lets say that when a pack of 10 dogs is fed 10kg of meat they eat it all up in 15 minutes. Next time when the same pack of dogs is given 5kg, they manage to clear that away in 7.5 min.

How does this differ from the way a developer acts? Aren’t the chemicals in 350ml solution just “eating away” at whatever is available for them? So, if 36 frames in 15min, then 18 in 7.5… If this analogy doesn’t hold for what’s going on with film in the developer, could someone please point to the difference in the process?

Also, suggestions for some relevant reading resources on this would be highly appreciated as well.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Pioneer]

Thanks for your comments everyone! Seems I'm starting to get somewhere with this topic.

However, by not having chemistry as my strongest side I am trying to understand what's going on in the development process through some analogies. So lets say that when a pack of 10 dogs is fed 10kg of meat they eat it all up in 15 minutes. Next time when the same pack of dogs is given 5kg, they manage to clear that away in 7.5 min.

How does this differ from the way a developer acts? Aren’t the chemicals in 350ml solution just “eating away” at whatever is available for them? So, if 36 frames in 15min, then 18 in 7.5… If this analogy doesn’t hold for what’s going on with film in the developer, could someone please point to the difference in the process?

Also, suggestions for some relevant reading resources on this would be highly appreciated as well.

Thanks in advance!

I will never again look at my developing tank the same way I have in the past.

...if I hear a growl...

 

[summicron1]

I just loaded a short roll in a FILCA this evening to test a Leica IIIc that was giving me problems. I find them easier to load in a darkroom or changing bag than a Watson type loader. Sometimes the Watson loader wants to roll the cassette shut while I’m loading Resulting in scratched film. I pre cut a bunch of tails that load into the cassette so I can just tape the film to it, makes it easier for me. Be careful, sometimes the camera doesn’t click the cassette closed completely when you take it out.

ALWAYS hold onto to the spool opposite the film crank on the loader while winding film into a Leica cassette. This prevents the trap from closing when you don't want it to.

And, yeah, sometimes it doesn't quite close it all the way when you want it to, but it's closed enough. I've never had a leak.

 

[summicron1]

Thanks for your comments everyone! Seems I'm starting to get somewhere with this topic.

However, by not having chemistry as my strongest side I am trying to understand what's going on in the development process through some analogies. So lets say that when a pack of 10 dogs is fed 10kg of meat they eat it all up in 15 minutes. Next time when the same pack of dogs is given 5kg, they manage to clear that away in 7.5 min.

How does this differ from the way a developer acts? Aren’t the chemicals in 350ml solution just “eating away” at whatever is available for them? So, if 36 frames in 15min, then 18 in 7.5… If this analogy doesn’t hold for what’s going on with film in the developer, could someone please point to the difference in the process?

Also, suggestions for some relevant reading resources on this would be highly appreciated as well.

Thanks in advance!

no, totally wrong. It takes the same amount of time no matter how long the film is.

The developer is not eating away anything, it is reacting with the tiny teeny silver crystals on the film that are created when light hits the silver halide there to make them grow depending on how much light hit them. It takes the same amount of time for this process to take place whether the film is 36 frames long or 3.

Temperature is also critical -- chemical reactions are faster at higher temps -- our chemistry is designed to work optimally at 68 F. A couple of degrees up or down can be compensated for by changing the time, but for best results stick to 68. Trying to cut the time in half by heating the developer will result in poor performance.

Time in the fix is not time sensitive as long as it is in there enough -- after developer has converted silver halide on the film to metallic silver crystals, the fixer removes the undeveloped silver -- as long as it is all gone (five minutes is typical) the film can sit for a bit longer with no ill effect. Again, temperature as 68 is best.

 

[MattKing]

Thanks for your comments everyone! Seems I'm starting to get somewhere with this topic.

However, by not having chemistry as my strongest side I am trying to understand what's going on in the development process through some analogies. So lets say that when a pack of 10 dogs is fed 10kg of meat they eat it all up in 15 minutes. Next time when the same pack of dogs is given 5kg, they manage to clear that away in 7.5 min.

How does this differ from the way a developer acts? Aren’t the chemicals in 350ml solution just “eating away” at whatever is available for them? So, if 36 frames in 15min, then 18 in 7.5… If this analogy doesn’t hold for what’s going on with film in the developer, could someone please point to the difference in the process?

Also, suggestions for some relevant reading resources on this would be highly appreciated as well.

Thanks in advance!

This would be a reasonable partial explanation for any process that proceeds to exhaustion.
And there are some film developing approaches that do that, at least locally. Stand development with dilute developers is one, and William Mortensen's gamma infinity developing is (sort of) another.
But most development isn't done that way. It is done with the developer maintaining a high level of activity throughout the development time. The factors that lower the response toward the end of the development time are:
1) the build up of development byproducts, which tend to get in the way of further development; and
2) the fact that once a microscopic area of the film is developed, you cannot develop it again.
It isn't the developer (dog food) that runs out. It is the silver halides (the dogs) themselves that get fed, and the development byproducts (the leftover bones) that get in the way of further development (feeding).

 

[Donald Qualls]

So lets say that when a pack of 10 dogs is fed 10kg of meat they eat it all up in 15 minutes. Next time when the same pack of dogs is given 5kg, they manage to clear that away in 7.5 min.

How does this differ from the way a developer acts? Aren’t the chemicals in 350ml solution just “eating away” at whatever is available for them? So, if 36 frames in 15min, then 18 in 7.5… If this analogy doesn’t hold for what’s going on with film in the developer, could someone please point to the difference in the process?

Others have approached this, but:

You don't have a pack of 10 dogs; your developer represents a pack of roughly 10^23 dogs -- a 1 with 23 zeros behind it. The limiting factor isn't how much meat (exposed halide) there is for them to eat; they'll always eat it all if you leave them at it long enough. Rather, the process is limited by how fast an individual dog can eat. The more each dog has to eat, the longer it takes to clear away the offered meat -- this is controlled, in practice, by what breed of dogs (which developing agents), how hungry they are (level of alklinity), whether the meat is frozen, merely fresh, or a little "aged" and tenderized (temperature). Plus, we almost always take the meat away before the dogs have eaten all of it (timed development vs. developing to completion).

You can change how much meat you offer (by developing a longer or shorter roll), but the dogs are dogs; they'll growl at each other or get in fights if the steaks are too close together. Fewer dogs can get to a short roll than a long one. If you develop a single frame, only a tiny fraction of the dogs wind up in the right place to get a meal; develop a full 36-exposure roll, and dozens of times as many dogs get fed. The nature of the developer is that, in general, there are more dogs than you'll be able to feed; you'll never have more meat than they can gobble up (unless you specifically and intentionally create such a situation).

 

[Truzi]

I think the idea of eating is not quite apt as an analogy. Developing is a chemical process that takes a given amount of time. The volume of developer is to insure there is enough volume of chemical to develop the volume of silver, but does not affect the speed.

Going back to the dog analogy, think of development as how quickly that food comes out the other end, not how much or fast a dog eats. The same food will take roughly the same time to pass regardless of the volume. (Would playing fetch be analogous to agitation? lol.)

 

[grain elevator]

If developing a whole roll of film leads to no significant developer exhaustion, then how do you explain that when re-using developer, an extension of developing time is called for? The Xtol data sheet says that after 5 rolls in a liter, you need to add 15% more time for the next rolls. That's a liter of stock strength Xtol. So the ca. 300ml typically used per roll of 135 can develop less than two rolls without change in contrast, now what about 1+1, 1+2 or 1+3? I think that shows that there is some decline in developer activity after developing a whole roll. As that of course happens gradually during the development and is priced into the development time for the first roll, I still believe less film in the developer will need a bit shorter time. I'll give you that maybe it's not noticeable in most cases; I believe most of us won't notice 10% more or less on a roll of mixed scenes.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Okay, you add 15% -- go from 7 minutes for Fomapan 400 to 8 minutes -- after five rolls in a liter.

Naturally, there's some exhaustion from a single roll -- that's why we can't just reuse developers indefinitely (if developing agents were a true catalyst, we could, more or less, but they oxidize in order to reduce the silver). The amount of exhaustion from a single roll, however, doesn't affect the process enough to require adjusting that single process during processing, compared to processing a single frame.

This isn't the case with all development -- I'm told that processing RA-4 prints can show color shifts between a sub-size test strip and a full sheet when processed in a drum with minimal developer. This is a case where the combination of amount of silver reduced (for the larger print area) and aerial oxidation (tiny amount of developing being rolled around inside the drum) does lead to photographically significant exhaustion during the initial process -- and the process is designed around that exhaustion.

Our developing times are arrived at in a small tank environment; they already take into account the amount of exhaustion for a single roll of 35mm in, say, 250-290 ml of developer (that's pretty much the worst case; other formats can't get significantly denser than that in rolls per liter) in determining the time it takes to get normal contrast. So, process a single frame, and you get a couple percent of that much exhaustion, which isn't enough difference in time to matter -- or to reliably apply.

 

[MattKing]

The recommendations for extending time after re-use are most likely related as much to build-up of development byproducts as they are developer exhaustion.