Wasn't the outcome of the above thread condensation inside a ziplock bag?
Cinestill DF96 monobath
-
A
- Thread starter Huss
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Beseler Printmaker 35 condenser head, Beseler 50mm lens and other parts
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: (broken) Horseman 6x12 Back
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: Tamron 150mm f/6.3 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Royal Soft Focus 150mm f/4.5 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Kodak Aerochrome 1443 Offcuts, the last I'll be selling
- Started by MCB18
Forum statistics
127 Top
127 side
127 lap
OP had the film inside a changing bag for close to 30 mins trying to get in on a reel.
Open a new thread about this for greater visibilty.
The mottling is what I'd (more or less) expect for film that was out of its airtight packaging for years; it's a result of humidity causing sensitizing dyes to leach out of the emulsion into the backing paper touching it, or some substance from the backing leaching into the emulsion with the same effect.
As to film width, I've always understood 127 to be 46mm wide. But what brand of reel are you using? Assuming it's adjustable, are you certain it was clicked fully into the correct setting for 127? Can't screw that up with Paterson (and compatible), because of the way they adjust, but a Yankee, for instance, is held at the correct width by a simple spring clip in grooves on the core, and could pretty readily get a little out of the groove -- not to mention, if it's an old enough tank and reel set, it might accommodate film sizes that have been obsolete for decades; there was, for instance, 121 film, which was about 41mm wide, 129, which was somewhere between 127 and 120, and some others. If your reel somehow got set to, say, 41mm for 121 film, I think it would be narrower than what you describe, but there may have been another size between that and the 46mm of 127.
As to film width, I've always understood 127 to be 46mm wide. But what brand of reel are you using? Assuming it's adjustable, are you certain it was clicked fully into the correct setting for 127? Can't screw that up with Paterson (and compatible), because of the way they adjust, but a Yankee, for instance, is held at the correct width by a simple spring clip in grooves on the core, and could pretty readily get a little out of the groove -- not to mention, if it's an old enough tank and reel set, it might accommodate film sizes that have been obsolete for decades; there was, for instance, 121 film, which was about 41mm wide, 129, which was somewhere between 127 and 120, and some others. If your reel somehow got set to, say, 41mm for 121 film, I think it would be narrower than what you describe, but there may have been another size between that and the 46mm of 127.
Yes, I was questioning that the thread you referenced wasn't relevant. I might have missed the connection.
The film came in a plastic cannister. I believe I read somewhere the supplier is cutting/respooling by hand. I purchased the film and waited about 3 weeks for delivery. It went into the refrigerator, still sealed up, then into the camera about a week later. Once exposed, back in the cannister and waited one week for developing. I guess there's no way to know what it went through or how old it was prior to being shipped, but I don't think there is any problem with things on my end.
The tank and reel are brand new Paterson, The reel was adjusted and locked into position. I've since gone back and reexamined steps to find anomalies, including resetting the reel and measuring it and the film with dial calipers. No luck. I believe I did everything correctly.
Yep, so they're cutting to full spool size instead of correct film size (based on your measurements on that other thread). That's the problem. For what they're charging, unless you have no spare 127 spools, I'd just cut and spool my own. As a bonus, you get longer rolls; 120 will give sixteen 4x4, or twelve 4x6 (or twenty-four 4x3), though you'll likely need to mask your camera's frame for full or half frame (I did on half frame, for certain).
Here's one thing I don't get: When respooling, how do the frame counters line up? For instance, the respooling kit that guy sells uses the original paper.
Cinestill DF96 thread here... 
More visibilty in other places.
More visibilty in other places.
Ricoh KR-5 Super II | SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/2 | Fomapan 400 | Cinestill DF96
It's something of a coincidence, but genuine 127 backing has two framing tracks: one for 4x4, near the edge of the film (on the right when the film is running bottom to top in a 4x4 TLR), and one for 4x6.5, along the center..
By contrast, 120 has three framing tracks (at least since WWII, before then there were originally three formats on the same film width and you could only count on 120 having the 6x9 track). The 6x9 track is on the bottom when film is running right to left -- that's the one we'll cut off when we split down to 127. The 6x6 track is in the middle of the 62mm wide strip, and the 6x4.5 track (the newest one, hence why many dual format cameras from the early 1950s and earlier have two windows on the 6x9 tracks for 6x4.5 masks) along the other edge (bottom if film is running left to right). If we split off 16mm from the 6x9 track edge, we remove almost all of the 6x9 track, leave the 6x6 track off center, but close enough that one of the three tracks is still just visible in the center window, and the 6x4.5 track (because it has two or three numbers side by side, as do the other framing tracks) lands at the edge of the new 127 strip. Problem is, the 6x4.5 is on the wrong edge for 4x4 127, so if you want to be able to use the film in a square format 127 camera you have to spool it backward, so it counts down from 16 to 1 (you also don't get warning marks if you do this, so you have to advance carefully).
The kit I've seen that seals light tight, so it can both cut and respool in daylight, will leave the film in the correct orientation on the 127 to be able to use the 6x4.5 framing track if you just load it directly out of the device -- except that the film isn't taped at what has become the head end, so it seems to me you'd be very prone to jams; you have to respool twice, 127 to 127, to get the tape at the correct end and still have the framing tracks right. I don't see any way to cut the film successfully after untaping the head end, so you can't move the tape as you cut. By contrast, if you cut the film on the 120 spool and then manually respool it, you can pretty readily pull the tape off the head end, tuck the film back in (as if you were on the second transfer of respooling 120 to 620), then reapply the tape when you come to the end of the film (now the head).
This is easier on 828 -- it's just like respooling 620, except you cut to 35mm width first. Cut to keep the same edge as you would for 127, and the 6x4.5 track lands under the center window in a Bantam or other 828 camera -- and the 16 frames just barely fits on the 828 spool.
Either way leaves you with a "waste" strip. A 127 recut leaves a 16mm strip that can be used to reload a Minolta 16 cartridge twice (just about -- half a 120 length is an inch or so shorter than the proper Minolta load, but it works if you're careful to minimize the leader at the start). The 27 mm strip left from 828 isn't a format anyone uses now (was there ever a 27mm film format?), but it can be cut down to either the 21mm size for a KGB spy camera (usually made by stripping the sprockets off 35mm), or a 16mm strip cut from it that, in this case, won't have edge markings (which can otherwise get into the edges of your frames in the larger frame 16mm cameras).
Thanks!
Baby it's Covid outside...
Rollei QZ35T, TriX, DF96 Monobath
Rollei QZ35T, TriX, DF96 Monobath
Voigtländer Bessa L | Voigtländer Snapshot Skopar 25 f/4 | Kentmere 400 | Cinestill DF96
Grandmothers house by Eric Auer
Grandmothers house by Eric Auer
Nikon F6, Sigma Art 50, TriX, DF96
You guys are putting up some nice images. I hope to develop a roll of 120 tomorrow. Wish me luck, after that last nightmare I'm skittish.
Nikon F6, Sigma Art 50, TriX, DF96
Nice, I found - like you - that Kentmere 400 works really well with DF96.
Just got done developing some Ilford 120, looks ok hanging. I need to make up a negative holder for scanning.
Thanks. I've been very happy with the kent400/DF96 combo. Good value too.
P1061955
P1061969
Looks good, pretty sharp old Brownie too.
What's the color cast of some sort in the railroad picture..?
| 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:  |