Film Identification

[Duceman]

Very interesting thread. I've slowly being doing the same process, going through my grandmother's old negatives and scanning them. Her negatives go back to the 1950's. Recently just did a few in color, and I was wondering the same thing... what type of film? Mine appears to be the same as the OP, but in smaller format. Measures just slightly less than 2" x 2". I'm guessing this is 127 film, not sure of the camera. Maybe a Brownie? Anyway, for reference, I know for certain that this image was taken in June, 1952. You'll notice that it has a single hole punched near one edge of the film. All other negatives have this same hole punched, in nearly the same location, so my guess this was done after developing.

 

[BobUK]

Those negs were shot with a Hasselblad.

Did you identify the Hasselblad connection from the tiny nicks in the corners of the exposed portion of the negative?


I read an article years ago, written by a chap having trouble selling his transparencies to editors. His shots were not taken on Hasselblad's.
He believed that the editors looked for the presence of the tiny nicks in the corners of the image.
If the nicks were present the editor would think it was shot on a Hasselblad. And so it must be a quality transparency and, a sale would result. That was his reasoning.

He took a file and cut nicks into the negative frame of his non-Hasselblad camera, thereby imitating a Hasselblad.

He soon noticed an increase in sales. Result!


So, do the corner nicks identify negatives as being from a Hasselblad?

 

[BrianShaw]

Did you identify the Hasselblad connection from the tiny nicks in the corners of the exposed portion of the negative?


(snip)


So, do the corner nicks identify negatives as being from a Hasselblad?

In post 17 it is very well illustrated. Notice the two "V marks" radiating from the image into the rebate. That is the mark of a Hassleblad not corner nicks, which I've seen on some Rollei TLR images..

 

[MattKing]

<Kodak Safety Fi LM

How clever?

And interestingly, in days gone by when there was Kodak film manufacturing in multiple locations around the world, you could tell from how the lower and upper case characters were seemingly randomly distributed in "Kodak Safety Film" where a particular film was coated.

 

[BobUK]

In post 17 it is very well illustrated. Notice the two "V marks" radiating from the image into the rebate. That is the mark of a Hassleblad not corner nicks, which I've seen on some Rollei TLR images..

I see now. The two V cuts near the centre of the side.

I wonder if editors really did look for the two nicks as confirmation of a good image?

 

[foc]

IIRC the Kodak inside the black arrow on the negative rebate was C22 negatives (of course I stand to be corrected)
C41 negatives didn't have this.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

And interestingly, in days gone by when there was Kodak film manufacturing in multiple locations around the world, you could tell from how the lower and upper case characters were seemingly randomly distributed in "Kodak Safety Film" where a particular film was coated.

Do you know what the N means in the Processed By Kodak line? This scan came from a slide I took apart and have confirmed that 5031 is Ektachrome 64. But which Kodak plant processed it? I'm guessing it was in New Jersey because I used to send the prepaid mailers to Kodak there from NYC where I lived at the time.

 

[MattKing]

Do you know what the N means in the Processed By Kodak line?

I do not.
In fact, I had never seen it before, because all the Canadian processed by Kodak film that I've ever dealt with didn't have any such labelling.

 

[lamerko]

Hello,
I got hold of an old film, but it doesn't say what process it is intended for. The film is 3M (Ferrania) ColorSlide, expired in 1978. I have (the same?) one from another batch - 1982, where it says E-6. I doubt the first one was an E-6 either, because if it expired in 1978, it was probably made in 1976. The probability of it being an E-6 in 1976 is slim to none...

 

[foc]

I checked my British Photographic Journal 1974, and found the formulae ad processing times for 3M Color Slide and it's definitely not E6 or E4. It appears to be its own proprietary process.

Here is a scan of the page, if it's of any help.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

I checked my British Photographic Journal 1974, and found the formulae ad processing times for 3M Color Slide and it's definitely not E6 or E4. It appears to be its own proprietary process.

Here is a scan of the page, if it's of any help.

Quite similar to E6 generally, but using CD-1 (S28?) instead of CD-3 and processed at a lower temperature. It is around the time Kodak retired C-22 for C-41 (1974) and E-4 for E-6 (1976).

Certainly a simpler alternative to E-4 or K-14 or whatever Kodak was running at the time for color slides.

 

[lamerko]

Hmm, interesting.
Thanks so much for the formula.

It reminds me of Agfa/ORWO, which may not be a coincidence. Luckily for me, the developing agent is CD-1 and not some of the discontinued and out of stock. With one small exception, I have everything I need for these formulas.
It is noteworthy that the stop bath and bleach are hardeners. Considering that the process requires strictly low temperatures, we can expect a fairly gentle emulsion.
Obviously, the color developer is not designed to be kept for a long time, but that won't be a problem - its capacity is very small. Capacity is vaguely set - 5-6 120 or 135/20 films, and this is strange. Approximately, the area of the 120 format is the same as 135/36 - the number should be adjusted for 36 frame 135 films...
I'm a bit confused about the process. Missing washing between fixing and stabilizer. In the last two steps, the stabilizer is given first, followed by 15 minutes of washing. Such a sequence is strange to me. I would replace the sodium thiosulphate with ammonium thiosulphate - this will greatly reduce the need for washing, and I believe it will be better for the emulsion.
Finally - maintaining a constant temperature of 20 degrees for more than 10 minutes would be quite difficult for me. But that makes things more interesting

 

[cmacd123]

I do not.
In fact, I had never seen it before, because all the Canadian processed by Kodak film that I've ever dealt with didn't have any such labelling.

some I had would have had a "T" their which I assumed meant "Toronto" perhaps N means New youk