Ektar 100 In 120 Rolls

Photo Engineer · Jan 25, 2009

wogster said:
Ink would not be on the film, but the backing paper, although that would result in solvent issues, although these days, many inks are water based and should not give a problem.

Paul;

When wound on the spool, the film emulsion is in direct contact with the backing paper and the inked information. All inks must be tested for transfer properties. Chemicals can migrate via that contact.

I have seen other mfgrs products with the imprint of the numbers and other information on the emulsion due to just such contact.

"Should not" does not assure "will absolutely not" and therefore would have to be tested in a wet oven, and a dry oven for several weeks and at ambient for up to one year before validation of the ink.

Kodak uses a special ink and glue on the tape and backing paper to prevent such problems.

PE

wogster · Jan 25, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
Paul;

When wound on the spool, the film emulsion is in direct contact with the backing paper and the inked information. All inks must be tested for transfer properties. Chemicals can migrate via that contact.

I have seen other mfgrs products with the imprint of the numbers and other information on the emulsion due to just such contact.

"Should not" does not assure "will absolutely not" and therefore would have to be tested in a wet oven, and a dry oven for several weeks and at ambient for up to one year before validation of the ink.

Kodak uses a special ink and glue on the tape and backing paper to prevent such problems.

PE

Does the film type even need to be on the backing paper?

Photo Engineer · Jan 25, 2009

It is numeric data for observation in the little window.

IDK if it is absolutely necessary, so you may have a point. It may be a holdover like the appendix.

PE

David A. Goldfarb · Jan 25, 2009

The frame numbers are certainly necessary, but the film type could be printed on the tape at the beginning and end of the roll and the same backing paper used for all films of a certain brand. I wouldn't be surprised if it's already being done that way by some of the East European and Chinese manufacturers.

wogster · Jan 25, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
It is numeric data for observation in the little window.

IDK if it is absolutely necessary, so you may have a point. It may be a holdover like the appendix.

PE

I don''t mean the frame numbers, although I don't know of any modern camera that uses them, no camera since the beginning of the wide spread use of panchromatic film is designed with one. Does the backing paper on Tri-X need to say Tri-X on it, most shooters will take the spool out of the pouch, and put it in the camera, so the only time it becomes an issue is when the roll is done and taken out of the camera. Although it would mean that it would be hard to identify the roll for processing times. A small printer plate in the slitting equipment could use the current ink to stamp the ends of the paper, then again maybe they print the paper on the fly now. The idea is that they don't need to store 4 miles of paper for each film type, which would save money in inventory costs, Maybe just as well would be to use plain type on the paper, so there is no design aspect to printing up the paper. Paper being used tomorrow would be printed up today.

David A. Goldfarb · Jan 25, 2009

wogster said:
I don''t mean the frame numbers, although I don't know of any modern camera that uses them, no camera since the beginning of the wide spread use of panchromatic film is designed with one.

Frame counting windows aren't too unusual on cameras made through the 1950s, well after the introduction of panchromatic and even color film.

The currently produced Chinese (DaYi/Focus, Shen-hao, and others) backs for LF cameras use the frame counting window (not necessarily red--in some cases it's an open window with a foam light trap around it), and Fotoman cameras use it as well, as do many medium format pinhole cameras.

The red window is more reliable, really, than a mechanical frame counter, because there is nothing to go wrong. I've used cameras like this for years and have never had a light leak due to the frame counting window, and the frame spacing is always perfect.

Photo Engineer · Jan 25, 2009

Paul;

I cannot answer you, except to say that every company does it that way. Maybe it is genetic among marketing or engineering types!

IDK.

PE

Chazzy · Jan 26, 2009

Back to the subject of Ektar 100 in 120 rolls. I suppose that the question Kodak must be asking is whether it would cannibalize their sales of Portra 160 VC. Can Kodak's sales really support two medium speed, vivid color emulsions? Are people really that impressed with the Ektar 100 as over and against Portra 160 VC? My roll of Ektar 100 is still in the refrigerator, so I haven't had a chance to shoot it yet myself, but I have to say that, in my opinion, the current generation of Portra films is very, very good.

David A. Goldfarb · Jan 26, 2009

I like the Portra films, but the difference between 160NC and VC is fairly subtle--subtle enough that for users who are printing by means other than traditional projection, it's almost insignificant. It's arguable that if one is printing digitally, 160NC plus a little boost in saturation might give a better result than 160VC, since 160NC has finer grain. I'd give up 160VC for Ektar 100 in medium and large formats.

domaz · Jan 26, 2009

So why didn't anyone ever produce Medium Format film in a cartridge of some sort? It would eliminate the wasteful backing paper and make things much easier. Of course that would mean everyone would have to buy new cameras/film backs. Backward-compatability is always a drag.

PHOTOTONE · Jan 27, 2009

domaz said:
So why didn't anyone ever produce Medium Format film in a cartridge of some sort? It would eliminate the wasteful backing paper and make things much easier. Of course that would mean everyone would have to buy new cameras/film backs. Backward-compatability is always a drag.

They did. It is called 70mm, and it came in a cassette that resembles a 35mm cassette, only bigger. It was also perforated. Hasselblad made a film back for it, as well as other companies may have. The issue is processing. The 70mm filmstrip is several times longer than a 120 roll, required a huge reel, or a roller transport processing line.

accozzaglia · Jan 27, 2009

Was it necessary to only manufacture 70mm in huge lengths, or was that a marketing imperative at the time? 35mm rolls have been sold in all sorts of limited frame quantities even as they can hold up to 36 frames for most varieties. The makers of 70mm cartridges could have disregarded this and decided to produce long-length spools because the assumption is that was what 70mm consumers wanted. On paper, there shouldn't have been any reason not to be able to offer 70mm rolls in lengths comparable to 120 or 220.

A small shame, personally, since there is a film back for the Pentax 645 to accommodate 70mm. Unfortunately, it's terribly massive, as I'm sure any attempts at 70mm cartridge SLRs would also be notably thick and cumbersome. Were there any such beasts?

Aurum · Jan 28, 2009

IIRC 70mm is/was the format of choice for aerial photography, which uses big rolls of film, so even say 24 frame length shot at a 6x6 equivalent would be tiny compared to that.

You could say of course that the same applies to the movie industry and the 35mm format, the difference I would say being that 35mm carts were designed for small cameras, and when the format was first devised, a 36 exposure cartridge was huge in comparison to say the 4, 8, or 16 shots on the larger formats.
I like shooting 6x9 on 120 format. At 8 shots a roll that can become a chore sometimes, but its something I'll live with

Photo Engineer · Jan 28, 2009

Real aerial photography used either 5" film or 9" film in huge rolls that looked like roll film. I don't recall seing a single 70mm camera in use with that type of work. The 70mm was used on many cameras for high speed still work such as done with the Hulcher camera.

PE

Mackinaw · Jan 30, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
Real aerial photography used either 5" film or 9" film in huge rolls that looked like roll film. I don't recall seing a single 70mm camera in use with that type of work. The 70mm was used on many cameras for high speed still work such as done with the Hulcher camera.

Up to a few years back, a Rollei 6003/70mm back/CIR Aerochrome III was our standard aerial camera for natural resource photography. I spent many, many hours in a plane photographing large parts of the Michigan State Forest system using this camera. The results were superb. We're still mourning the loss of this film in the 70mm format.

Jim B.

Photo Engineer · Jan 30, 2009

Mackinaw said:
Up to a few years back, a Rollei 6003/70mm back/CIR Aerochrome III was our standard aerial camera for natural resource photography. I spent many, many hours in a plane photographing large parts of the Michigan State Forest system using this camera. The results were superb. We're still mourning the loss of this film in the 70mm format.

Jim B.

Al Weber used to do that on 120 Kodachrome. His slides are absolutely fantastic.....

A lot of Forestry Service work was done on Infrared Ektachrome to detect ailing trees. It is also used to detect camoflage!

However Jim, our (my) "real" work was done in high altitude military jet aircraft with 36" lenses. See my gallery for the pictures of the planes that I took from backseat on missions in South East Asia. They had a minimum of 4 cameras that used 9" film. And, we used the 5" film (and still do) at missile launches to get large format, high speed shots of launches. The 70 mm there was done using a Hulcher camera.

PE

Mackinaw · Jan 30, 2009

P.E., in real life I'm a Forester working for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources who also happens to be a photo-nut. Most of our aerial flights were for the same reason as the USFS, to detect stressed and diseased trees. We went with the Rollei because of the interchangeable backs which allowed us to use 120 and 220 film for more "conventional" photography. We also have access to a USFS 9.5" camera but the cost of Aerochrome III in that format is prohibitively expensive (at least to us). I saw your large format stuff before, very impressive!

Jim B.

2F/2F · Jan 30, 2009

That is nice that they are getting so many calls for the film to be available in 120/220. However, Kodak has already dumped lots of money into this, IMO, highly redundant film, and now we want them to dump more? Can't we just buy 160VC in 120/220 and call it good without asking them to shell out even more? If you want them to stay in business, keep buying what they already have! I would rather see them stop discontinuing what they have, rather than introduce new and exciting films in various formats.

MikeSeb · Jan 30, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
...our (my) "real" work was done in high altitude military jet aircraft with 36" lenses.... They had a minimum of 4 cameras that used 9" film. And, we used the 5" film (and still do) at missile launches to get large format, high speed shots of launches. The 70 mm there was done using a Hulcher camera.

PE

I'd love to see one of those cameras. I wonder what could be done with one on the ground. Sounds like a great way to burn through some serious cash.

Photo Engineer · Jan 30, 2009

Mike;

The 9" camera back was about 3 feet long by about 1.5 feet across with motor drive. It held two sizes of roll lengths. It had masks for 9x9 and 9x10. The camera itself had a 36" lens or about a 1000 mm focal length. The camera could be fired on auto or manual from the cockpit, and the rate of fire was based on altitude and air speed. Most of the pictures were designed to overlap by 50% to give stereo overlap, and there was a special viewer to use to view the images.

Therre was a device that recorded roll, pitch, yaw and wind displacement, so that when you printed a negative with a special rectifying printer, the images were adjusted for any distortions.

The entier camera + lens stood a bit over 5 feet high when the lens hood was seated firmly on the ground.

The camera windows can be clearly seen in the photos I took. And the sloped front of the aircraft was another window that looked forward and down.

PE

David A. Goldfarb · Jan 30, 2009

MikeSeb said:
I'd love to see one of those cameras. I wonder what could be done with one on the ground. Sounds like a great way to burn through some serious cash.

The two gigapixel cameras that were all the rage in the media a year or two ago both used vacuum backs from aerial cameras that took 9" rollfilm. One of them was basically a Sinar P2 with a custom bellows and the vacuum back. The other one used a precisely aligned frame designed around the back with a custom lens.

Photo Engineer · Jan 30, 2009

We used to use these on the ground, but the minimum focal length was about 1/2 mile.

We used them on the runway mounted on a special USAF truck to calibrate the focus. We had a measured field of view up the taxi strip. I have one of the test exposures done with Aerial Ektachrome lying around here somewhere. We had to calibrate everything as we switched back and forth between normal and IR films.

PE

jd callow · Jan 31, 2009

2F/2F said:
That is nice that they are getting so many calls for the film to be available in 120/220. However, Kodak has already dumped lots of money into this, IMO, highly redundant film, and now we want them to dump more? Can't we just buy 160VC in 120/220 and call it good without asking them to shell out even more? If you want them to stay in business, keep buying what they already have! I would rather see them stop discontinuing what they have, rather than introduce new and exciting films in various formats.

I haven't shot ektar 100 and nor am I likely as I don't shoot much 35mm, but I have shot the UC films and the new VC. UC was far better than VC in grain, colour and contrast. If ektar is anything like UC and by most accounts it is then it is VC that is redundant. If kodak is going spend money to bring a film to market than it stands to reason that they should maximize their investment and at the same time retire one that never really offered much of a return.

Brac · Feb 2, 2009

Thomas Bertilsson said:
As an aside, didn't Ilford make film that had double the amount of exposures once? If I remember correctly, the discussion revealed that the film base was thinner.
Perhaps it would be a good way for the film manufacturers to save money, by coating 120 and 35mm film on the same thin base. But then again, the reason this thick base still remains may still be one of importance that we don't know.

In the 1980's Ilford produced HP5 Autowinder film designed for use in cameras with autowinders or motordrives. It gave 72 exposures instead of 36 and as you rightly say, they got this into a normal cassette by coating the film on a thinner base. I think, from memory, it was a polyester base.

Ilford also sold a special tank with metal reel, designed to take the longer length of film. There was also a device to load the film onto the reel. I still have these items. The film didn't seem to have been a success as it quietly disappeared from the market.

MikeSeb · Feb 3, 2009

Fantastic machines. Thanks for the info, JD and PE et al.

Ektar 100 In 120 Rolls

Photo Engineer

wogster

Photo Engineer

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

wogster

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Photo Engineer

Chazzy

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

domaz

PHOTOTONE

accozzaglia

Aurum

Photo Engineer

Mackinaw

Photo Engineer

Mackinaw

2F/2F

MikeSeb

Photo Engineer

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Photo Engineer

jd callow

Moderator

Brac

MikeSeb

Ektar 100 In 120 Rolls

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency