Ektar 100 In 120 Rolls

[Photo Engineer]

In one of my latest gallery postings, you can see the back of a 9"x18" camera in an RF101 that is unbuttoned.

It is the briefing on the runway photo, and the casette is in the background plane where you can look through the open sides.

PE

 

[MikeSeb]

Ron, I've visited your gallery and left a few comments. As i said there, you had to have had the best job in the Air Force. Speed Graphic and all the Super XX you could shoot, and you get to fly around very fast, and sometimes even right-side up!

I especially love those gantry photos. I'd like to get hold of one of those cameras. Wonder if any of those old aerial or "launch" cameras are still out there somewhere, or have they been consigned to museums?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Some of the old cameras still exist and some are still in use.

PE

 

[ssloansjca]

I think the key question here is, with most of the wedding photography and portrait photography gone from medium format is there enough business left for manufacturers to be motivated to come out with new medium format films?

If so, is there enough of a market to profitably make Ektar 100 in 120?

Yes, I would buy it. But, will enough others?

~Steve

 

[r-s]

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.

What, is this supposed to make me *stop* regretting having sold my Bessa II some 30 years ago?

I see no reason they couldn't have one standard/generic paper, and then stick a label on each end -- or, use a glorified automatic rubber stamp strike each end. The tail end is VERY important -- no lab is going to put unknown film in with the rest of their batch just because someone insists it's thus and such emulsion.

 

[r-s]

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?

Normal 70mm cassetes aren't really that big/long length. However, there *are* some Hasselblads with 70mm backs that *do* take fairly long rolls. You can even get them for free. All you need to do is hop over to the Moon and pick them up.

 

[Radioiron]

I thought they took the magazines and left the camera. It might be a little difficult to take apart a magazine and remove a cassette with bulky pressure gloves on.

 

[fschifano]

That's right. They took the magazine and left the camera. It would have been kind of dumb to have left the film behind. Even more dumb would be to have taken the camera back. Every little bit of weight mattered, and NASA wanted moon rocks.

 

[nickandre]

That's right. They took the magazine and left the camera. It would have been kind of dumb to have left the film behind. Even more dumb would be to have taken the camera back. Every little bit of weight mattered, and NASA wanted moon rocks.

Next time we go back we should pick them up. I'd use one.

 

[braxus]

As posted elsewhere and on Kodak's site here:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...tar/ektarIndex.jhtml?pq-path=13319/1230/13328

Kodak is finally listenning to us. Good. Without us they have no business to run.

Available in 120 starting this April. So if you want them to keep making this guys, keep buying this film. No one off production roll or expiring film in stores will keep this 120 film on their list.

I was one of many who called Kodak in support in making Ektar 100 in 120. Nice to see Kodak taking a shot at it. I hope it sells well.

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

Normal 70mm cassetes aren't really that big/long length. However, there *are* some Hasselblads with 70mm backs that *do* take fairly long rolls. You can even get them for free. All you need to do is hop over to the Moon and pick them up.

Normal cassettes can store up to around 16 1/2 ft. (~198 in., ~502cm)

 

[Q.G.]

The 'regular' Hasselblad 70 mm backs take cassettes that hold approximately 4.7 meters.
They are called "70", not after the film, but in Hasselblad style after the approximate number of exposures a load yields.

There are also Hasselblad 70 mm backs that use spools, no cassettes, that hold more film: approximately 6 - 7 meters. They are called "100/200", indicating the number of exposures.

How much exactly depends on how thick the base of the film, and how tight you load the thingies. They are called "500" again the number of exposures.

And there were huge Hasselblad 70 mm back that took full 30 meters rolls.

You need not go to the moon for anyone of those. And they are not free, though with 70 film being rather scarce, you can get any of those for next to nothing.

(Besides: they left the cameras on the moon, not the film backs.
The backs used on lunar surface cameras are of the "100/200" type.)

 

[stealthman_1]

And they are not free, though with 70 film being rather scarce, you can get any of those for next to nothing.

except for the 70mm 6x4.5 back, which I'd love to have...if anyone has a line on one, PM me.