Film for Bessa I 6x9?

[fmiller4]

Just tried to load a roll of Portra 400 into my ancient Voigtlander BUT the proper frame numbers never showed in the little red window on the back.

So... assuming that this is just how Kodak puts, or doesn’t put, numbers on 120 film now (?)...

Can someone recommended a c41 film that IS good for use in an old folder?

Or is there a workaround I can use here?
Thanks!

 

[MattKing]

There have been relatively recent changes to the numbering on Kodak's 120 film backing paper. The changes are due to problems with the ink reacting with the emulsion adjacent to them. There are now fewer sets of numbers and the ink is much lighter.
If the problem arises from there no longer being numbers where your camera's window might reveal them, than there isn't much you can do with Kodak films, other than to look for older film.
But you should check to see if the numbers are there, but harder to see. A small LED flashlight pointed at the window might make the difference.

 

[awty]

I have a bessa 1 as well, haven't tried portra, let us know if you work it out before I try. No point in both of us wasting a roll.....Although my portras are a few years old.
BTW how do you range find? My biggest problem with that camera is getting a closish focused image any more open than f16.

 

[Rick A]

Do the numbers just not line up with the red window, or are they too feint to see through it?
Awty, I don't own a Bessa, I have a Zeiss Nettar, with a Hugo Meyer range finder clipped to the accessory shoe. It's extremely accurate for focusing.

 

[graciemansion]

I don't shoot color negative but I have had no problem with the Ilford films I've put in my Voigltander Bessa I. Fuji still makes a color negative film in 120 format you can try, but who knows for how much longer it'll be available considering the rate at which Fuji's discontinuing film. I suppose if you really wanted to use the Portra you could replace the Kodak backing paper with say an Ilford one in a darkroom. It might be a little tricky to do in the dark but I am sure someone's done it before.

As for estimating distance, this is going to sound silly but the way I do it is I've got a friend who's about 6 feet tall, and I imagine laying there between the camera and the subject. One of him is 6 feet, two of him is 12 feet, and so on. If the distance is one of him but maybe a foot closer I know that it's 5 feet away. I do miss focus from time to time, but it works well enough for me.

 

[pentaxuser]

Wasn't there a thread a while back in which was mentioned the change to Kodak film backing paper that resulted in the numbers needed for 6x9 either not being there or not lining up?

Anyone recall the thread? Hopefully someone will either provide the link which may either confirm or deny my vague notion

pentaxuser

 

[wjlapier]

The only film I put through a Bessa I was XP2 and Fujifilm Pro400. I think I had the same problem with the Kodak film. XP2 and Fujifilm numbers showed up fine.

 

[summicron1]

film numbering on backing paper is supposed to follow an international convention -- i have no experience with recent kodak film, but I wonder if they've switched to a numbering ink that is not compatible with your standard red window. I have no trouble with Ilford B/W films, but some foma/arista films are kinda hard to see as well.

 

[MattKing]

Wasn't there a thread a while back in which was mentioned the change to Kodak film backing paper that resulted in the numbers needed for 6x9 either not being there or not lining up?

Anyone recall the thread? Hopefully someone will either provide the link which may either confirm or deny my vague notion

pentaxuser

This thread is probably the one you mean: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/kodak-brownie-no2-what-am-i-doing-wrong.147933/#post-1936511
The camera involved was first made over 100 years ago, and was the camera that introduced 120 film to the world.
There still are numbers on the backing paper that work with most standard 6x9 cameras. But there have been a lot of very different 6x9 cameras/film backs made over the years, by a lot of different manufacturers, and they don't always have the windows in the same location.

 

[awty]

As for estimating distance, this is going to sound silly ........ .

Yes it does. I thought you were going to say you pace out the distance, but your method seems even weirder. Im a tad over 6' might try that method.
I bought a cheap laser measure, which I havent tried in the field yet but works ok in not bright light up to about 25meters. Been on the look out for a inexpensive working range finder, but most seem to want more than I paid for the camera and no guaranty they actually work.
Oh my Portra is 2012, so should be right to go.

 

[keenmaster486]

I've noticed this very pointless and frustrating problem on all of the new Kodak film I've bought recently.

As a result, I won't be buying very much Kodak 120 film any more, simply because I can't use it in my cameras due to the backing window placement on the particular models that I have.

For color 120, I try to get Fuji color positive film if I can find it for decent prices. Love those huge detailed color images - from my Bessa 1, I might add. A very good camera.

 

[mnemosyne]

If it has to be Kodak film and nothing else, you could try the following workaround (cumbersome):
First, put an index mark on the film transport knob and a reference on the camera body.Now sacrifice a roll of Kodak film, roll it slowly through the camera with the backdoor open, mark the faint numbers relevant to 6x9 with a marker pen so they will be easily visible through the red window. Respool the film on the feeding spool. Now run the film through the camera as you would normally do, but precisely note the number of turns of the film winder knob that you need to reach the next shooting position. As the film gets wound up on the take up spool and diameter increases, the number of turns from one frame to the next will decrease, I reckon. So you have to write down the exact number for each of the 8 frames. Write down the results on a sheet of cardboard that you attach to the camera. The method is cumbersome, but so is shooting with a folder in general,

 

[Frank53]

As far as it is the ink Kodak is using, would it be a problem to remove the red window? It’s the back of the backing paper and most films are sensitive to red light anyway, so I suppose it is not causing a light leak.
Regards,
Frank

 

[John51]

afaik, golfers aren't allowed to use rangefinders in competition. A workaround that some use is to hold out an arm, palm inwards with the thumb sticking up. Viewing with only one eye, then the other, has the thumb 'move' relative to the target distance. If using your right arm, line your thumb up with the target and your right eye. When using your left eye, the target will now be somewhere along your index finger. After some practice on known distances, it is quite accurate.

 

[AgX]

As far as it is the ink Kodak is using, would it be a problem to remove the red window? It’s the back of the backing paper and most films are sensitive to red light anyway, so I suppose it is not causing a light leak.

Even if the paper would be lighttight enough, Kokak "tackled the issue" by reducing the rows of figures too. If there is no appropriate printing at the height of the window at all...

 

[John51]

I can't be the only one that would like to stop using the red window on my folders.

With some more modern 120 cameras, you line up 2 arrows, close the back and the camera mechanism does the rest. Does this mean that whatever the brand of 120, the 2 arrows are always the same distance from the start of the film?

If so, that would mean only one roll needs to be sacrificed for all of the old 120 cameras. Plus an extra roll for 620 cameras.