He said he was doing that and the paper is worn out. Also said it's not 120 size, but 3-3/4" wide, thus the need for DIY.
Anyone ever make their own roll film paper backing?
-
A
- Thread starter 480sparky
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Kern Aarau Macro Yvar 150mm f/3.3 with M42 mount
- Started by varg
-
For Sale Universal Heliar ($2100 Shipped)
- Started by Richard Man
Forum statistics
He said he was doing that and the paper is worn out. Also said it's not 120 size, but 3-3/4" wide, thus the need for DIY.
If the shipping charge seems excessive call and order, when I bought it the shopping cart quoted a ridiculous shipping cost, they had some data entered incorrectly I called and got a much better rate.
Is this for a postcard camera? I'm planning to trim some 5x7 sheet film and shoot singles.
OP
OP
I've cut down 4x5 film and used that, but it's rather impractical. Especially since I plan on taking the camera on a vacation.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2008
- Messages
- 1,793
- Format
- Multi Format
Would it be feasible to splice 120 backing paper lengthwise so it's wider? The tough part would be making the join elegantly. If overlapping it would add thickness in that area. If butt-joined it's hard to know if it would be opaque enough (and would probably also add thickness anyway due to some type of tape... )
Another problem could be with the glue used. Would it have a deleterious effect on the emulsion?
If you are trying to spool 122 roll film for a postcard camera good luck. If you have success let me know. I have my grandmother's 3A Kodak still works fine. From what I can find Kodak stopped VP 122 in 1971. About 30 years back a crazy friend and I cut down 11 x 14 Azo double weight and made postcard contact prints, we even printed the backs with a letter press. Kodak made Kodabromide post card fiber base up until about 20 years back.
I would try overlapping 120. My 3A has a metal shutter on the red window that can be closed from the inside of the camera back. I have no idea why?? I don't know how you could advance the film without it open. My only guess is that it was so you could shoot a plate? ??
Best Regards Mike
OP
OP
A final gasp of Verichrome was done due to demand in 1973, of which I have 5 rolls dated June 1973. I have another 8 rolls with various dates back to 1948. Of course, with such an eclectic mix, characterizing any of it would be an exercise in futility. I may just end up shooting and developing it just for S&Gs so I can get the spools.
I have some paper from some 122 I've shot (the image results being quite dismal), but it's so brittle with age it literally cracks when handled. Attempting to reuse it would be senseless.
I can easily run 120 through with the use of some spools adapters that were created on a 3D printer, but of course framing becomes an issue.
If I can find suitable backing paper, I'll order a few rolls of Ilford's 9cm stuff during their next ULF promo. Hopefully, I can bring my copy of my grandfather's 3A back to it's full potential. I've tested the shutter with a timer, so I know it's oddities, and the bellows is light-tight.
That's awesome good luck and keep us posted. . I wouldn't let fear of chemical attack deter you. Find a paper or black plastic sheet and go for it. As long as you keep your spools cool and not would for too long you should be OK. The black plastic bags Ilford uses for photo paper could be slit, maybe? Put white number stickers on the back. This is a noble experiment. If I had a few millions laying around, instead of Polaroid. I would bring back a postcard camera,film, paper and a little auto LED contact printer.
Good Hunting, Mike
I'm pleased to report to this old thread that after buying many rolls of partially opaque paper from various vendors (especially the world's biggest one) in search of something that would work as film backing paper, I've found a kind of paper that worked, at least for me. I wanted it for 122, 124, 118, and 130 and I'll probably eventually replace my worn-out 116 rolls as well.
The paper I found was from JAM papers and is sold as their
It's a relief since I've been searching, well, forever.
The paper I found was from JAM papers and is sold as their
"Black Matte Wrapping Paper - Short Mini Roll (26.3 Sq Ft)"
It's a mid-weight paper, between cover and bond thickness (probably about 5 mil?), and it's fine-textured and coated on both sides with black ink or pigment. It seems very opaque. I write on it with white pen.It's a relief since I've been searching, well, forever.
MattKing
Moderator
Two questions of interest:
Does it or anything you write on it react to the emulsion or cause the emulsion to react with it?
Is it dimensionally the same as the specialized backing paper - i.e. is it very slightly thicker in the middle than it is at its edges when rolled with film on to the spool?
Short list so far. How about 126, 17.5mm, 16mm, 110, #00, there are LOTS of others, and not all are ancient.
Well I didn’t know about the differential thickness. Tell me more about that. How do you know about it and how much thicker do you think it is? Is it the case for all films?
And it doesn’t appear to react with my film, but I’ve never stored it for long periods.
As for the pen I used to write on it with, I’m not sure yet. It may react, so I’m not ready to suggest that you use whichever pen I’ve used. YMMV as they say.
For anything narrower than 62mm I use 120 backing paper. Tried and true.
MattKing
Moderator
The variation of thickness is one of the mechanisms used to ensure that the paper makes full contact with the inner edge of the flanges on the spool. Without that, there is a much greater likelihood of light leakage.
That variation is part of the official specification for the film and its associated backing paper.
And yes, that variation is employed for all roll films that use that same type of spool and backing paper configuration - 828, 127, 620, 120 and the older films like 116, 616 and the myriad of other extinct film sizes.
We all learned a lot more about backing paper a few years ago when Kodak had huge problems sourcing modern backing paper after their inventory of years of stored, self manufactured backing paper ran out.
Large numbers of Kodak 120 films were prone to wrapper offset issues - the sections of the emulsion pressed into the areas of the paper where the ink (for frame numbers and the like) are where the sensitivity was increased, leaving areas of increased density corresponding to those numbers in those areas of those negatives. A whole bunch of people ended up with ghost images of numbers spread throughout their photographs.
The list of specialized paper manufacturers and printers left who can make such opaque, close tolerance papers of varying thickness which are resistant to chemical interaction is very short, and the modern emulsions are very sensitive to the papers and inks now available.
Modern inks are also quite different than the older inks.
Back when all of this was current, Ilford for one mentioned that it cost more money for them to buy the backing paper to be included with a roll of 120 film than it did for them to make the film.
That's fascinating, I had no idea about the variation in thickness. The only spec available to those of us too cheap to pay is, of course, the Indian spec for 120 and 127 film, which makes no reference to a variation in thickness, and my caliper can't sense a difference in thickness in current backing papers. But in some old paper there is a narrow (1mm) feathered edge that might perform this function. If you have a spec that explains the variation could you post an excerpt? I'd love that.
Anyway, as you might guess, what I'm looking for is something that an amateur with a handful of old cameras and a roll of wider film might use, I'm not trying to manufacture anything. I've just been looking for something - really, anything, that I could try to make use of the fascinating cameras that Kodak made in the first part of the 20th century. The old stuff is crispy now, and there's very little out there that ordinary folks can try that's even close.
And as for those problems a few years ago with Kodak backing paper, yes, I'm afraid I'm quite aware of them. Alas! Kodak's current paper seems great and surely is expensive.
Thanks again for your insights.
MattKing
Moderator
Unfortunately I don't have the specification itself or its exact details.
I understand about wanting to use the older cameras - this photo of mine in the gallery and its associated story (see the gallery item description) is an indication of some of where my understanding comes from.
I've had some success using adapters in the 616 camera pictured in the gallery that permit use of 120 film.
This Van Dyke print was made from a 2.25" x 4.5" negative I made on 120 film using that method:
Outside of that, you might be able to minimize problems with the paper you have found if you:
1) minimize the writing on the back of the paper;
2) use the most inactive ink/pigment you can find for that writing;
3) spool the backing paper and film together shortly exposing the film;
4) handle the film at all times in the lowest practical illumination available to you; and
5) after exposing the film, you separate it from the backing paper as soon as it is practical.
What film sizes are you trying to work with?
Hope this helps a bit.
I understand about wanting to use the older cameras - this photo of mine in the gallery and its associated story (see the gallery item description) is an indication of some of where my understanding comes from.
I've had some success using adapters in the 616 camera pictured in the gallery that permit use of 120 film.
This Van Dyke print was made from a 2.25" x 4.5" negative I made on 120 film using that method:
Outside of that, you might be able to minimize problems with the paper you have found if you:
1) minimize the writing on the back of the paper;
2) use the most inactive ink/pigment you can find for that writing;
3) spool the backing paper and film together shortly exposing the film;
4) handle the film at all times in the lowest practical illumination available to you; and
5) after exposing the film, you separate it from the backing paper as soon as it is practical.
What film sizes are you trying to work with?
Hope this helps a bit.
I found backing paper! It is the stuff Soviet 120 was rolled in. Comes in giant rolls that you need to somehow cut to length, and I’m sure finding an ink that doesn’t mess up the film would be pretty hard, but I have it now.
Got it from Astrum. Though I believe you need to have a $1k order from them in order to get it based on a previous conversation about it when I wasn’t ordering massive amounts of film.
Might be willing to part with some short lengths if anyone wants it. I do have projects that I want to use this for though so if you want a large amount I’ll let you know when I do my next big order from them.
Got it from Astrum. Though I believe you need to have a $1k order from them in order to get it based on a previous conversation about it when I wasn’t ordering massive amounts of film.
Might be willing to part with some short lengths if anyone wants it. I do have projects that I want to use this for though so if you want a large amount I’ll let you know when I do my next big order from them.
Attachments
Interesting. How wide is the roll?
I’ll need to get home and check, but I think it’s around 8 inches? Definitely smaller than the 9.5” film it was next to in shipping
Was reading through some of the most recent replies of this thread and thought I would chime in here. Maybe it used to be thinner on the edges in the past, however now the backing paper is actually the same thickness all the way through, it’s the spools that ensure the paper fully seals against the roll. If you read the most recent ISO standard, it mentions that the flanges should have a taper, with the inner edge separation being more than the outer edge separation, so that the paper will be slightly larger in width than the spool on the outside, but as the roll is unwound the flanges will widen up and allow the roll to be advanced with less friction. I apologize if I did not do a good job explaining, but here is the relevant section in the standard:
And here is the figure referenced:
MattKing
Moderator
FWIW, as recently as when Kodak was having their wrapper offset problems, part of those problems were related to how difficult it was to obtain paper manufactured with varying thickness.
So the change must have been very recent.
I expect though that the variation in thickness requirement remains, and that it works in conjunction with the spool design to ensure light tight performance.
So the change must have been very recent.
I expect though that the variation in thickness requirement remains, and that it works in conjunction with the spool design to ensure light tight performance.
Possibly. I’m not an expert, just going off my own experience and the ISO documentation I have. Would probably be something to ask the folks who worked at Kodak about, I know there are a few here, but I don’t want to bother them with something so trivial.
8 3/16”, or 810mm.
MattKing
Moderator
That is where I got my information, when the offset problem was happening. And it is far from trivial, because Kodak's problems came very close to forcing them to leave the 120 film market all together.
Do you have ISO documentation for the paper, and what is its revision date?
I do have a copy of the relevant ISO document, and the revision is from 2000. I can share it privately if you want.
| 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:  |