Frame counting question

[HansPB]

Hi,
Being totally new to medium format, I loaded my Reflekta II today with my first roll of film, Ilford Delta 100. The problem is that when I advance the film after loading, I never seem to get to the "1" in the frame counter window. I see the film moving and there is something printed on it, but I have no idea how far I have to wind, and I am afraid I'll waste the roll by winding too far and possibly all the way through. It's probably me being stupid or something, but do you have any advice?

 

[radiant]

There is quite a bit of space in the beginning, arrows/dots etc. I would just go ahead and wind. You don't have other choices

 

[neilt3]

There's quite a bit if paper before and after the film's attached to it .
As said , keep winding and you'll come up to either arrows or dots before a number 1 .
If you see a number 2 first , you went to far !

 

[HansPB]

Ok, thanks. I'll take my chances, then.

 

[Hawkeye]

If you are seeing printing on the backing through the red window, you will soon see number 1. Let us know if it works out.

 

[guangong]

With some older cameras the red windows become either rather opaque or scuffed, therefore difficult to see through. I had to return a nice Zeiss 69 because of excessive abrasions of red window. As you roll, you should see a series of circles, gradually getting larger. This is to tell you to slow down and be ready for “1.”

 

[Dan Daniel]

Ilford has four circles on HP5, no idea if they change it up for different emulsions. Be ready, they are right next to each other. Here's the backing paper from a roll of HP5, for 6x9 you will be seeing the bottom row, most widely spaced-

 

[HansPB]

By God those markings are faint! I see on this image that I have been past several of these circle things, but I didn't see any numbers. It was indoors in not too good light. I tried just now to wind carefully a bit further in good light. Saw the circles, an then the number 12! So as I feared, the whole roll down the drain. That's rather embarrassing, I guess . Oh, well, lesson learned: Only take this camera out in the brightest sunshine or with a powerful head lamp. Why on earth can't they print in proper black?

 

[grat]

If you haven't taken any frames, wind it back onto the original spool, and try again.

Kodak (and apparently Ilford) use low contrast numbers to keep them from leaving an imprint through the backing paper in strong light. Fuji uses darker numbers.

 

[HansPB]

Yes, it wouldn't hurt to try that, but I guess I would have to do it in total darkness.

Is the risk of an imprint through the paper really so high that they have to compromise the whole usability? Then I would say there is a big design flaw somewhere.

 

[radiant]

I've tried rolling whole roll back (with a test roll in daylight) and I would say it is impossible to wind it back well. The reason is that the tape holding the film is in the "end" when you roll it back and if you haven't done it carefully the film has a "wave" when you reach the tape. Your film might be bumped from the back panel during exposures resulting unfocused image.

There is risk for imprint and that is probably the reason why those are faint. There have been multiple cases of numbers transferring to the film and manufacturers take those claims seriously.

 

[Dan Daniel]

If rolling the film back in the dark isn't working out (you almost always need to gently pull up the tape and reposition it to avoid the bumo vedostuu mentions), reroll in the light and save the roll as a tester. Always good to be able to do dry runs, so save such mistakes.

 

[MattKing]

Is the risk of an imprint through the paper really so high that they have to compromise the whole usability? Then I would say there is a big design flaw somewhere.

The risk of imprint isn't usually through the paper.
It is due to what is known as "wrapper offset", which occurs when the ink used to create the numbers reacts chemically with the emulsion that is on the layer of film that follows immediately after it on the roll, and is therefore pressed against the ink.
There is a whole history to wrapper offset. For many years the incidence was low, but with changes in inks, paper supply, emulsions and distribution issues it has become more prevalent again.
Ilford reduced the quantity of ink used, and therefore the visibility of their numbers and letters quite a while ago in order to reduce issues with wrapper offset.
For quite a while, Kodak was able to offer more visible numbers. However, in more recent years, Kodak had a series of problems with wrapper offset that brought rise to many threads here on Photrio and forced Kodak to make major changes in the contract manufactured backing paper that they now have to source (they haven't been able to make their own for several years.
The complexities of emulsions, printing inks, special purpose backing paper, minimum order quantities and changes in the shipping and distribution of film products have created enough posts here on Photrio to supply a website on its own.

 

[Donald Qualls]

No question, the numbering on Ilford films is quite faint. Fuji is/was better, but Fuji has very limited choices in 120 these days. Foma film (either under its own name or as .EDU Ultra from Freestyle and a couple others who buy from them) has much more visible framing numbers, and is also quite a bit lower priced (at least in USA). Current Kodak offerings I can't really talk to, as I haven't used a fresh Kodak 120 roll in years (got a five pack of Tri-X on my desk, but haven't opened it yet).

 

[Oye]

I've tried rolling whole roll back (with a test roll in daylight) and I would say it is impossible to wind it back well. The reason is that the tape holding the film is in the "end" when you roll it back and if you haven't done it carefully the film has a "wave" when you reach the tape. Your film might be bumped from the back panel during exposures resulting unfocused image.

There is risk for imprint and that is probably the reason why those are faint. There have been multiple cases of numbers transferring to the film and manufacturers take those claims seriously.

Rewind a 120 film is a bit tricky, but not impossible. On a table, in darkness, stretch out the film and the backing paper from the fastening tape, keeping them thight; then, give the backing paper a slack of about 1cm (draw the film 1cm further holding the paper back), hold film and backing paper in position together with you right hand while you roll up the backing paper on the take-up spool with your left (it's easier than you maybe believe) till film and backing paper are safely fixed together. Then continue till film and paper are wound up. Tighten the roll some times as you are winding. The "wave" on the the film should then be avoided, or negligeable. If not, repeat the procedure with adjustment of the paper backing slack.

In this way I have changed film in mid-roll from one camera to another many times without problems. Good luck!

 

[guangong]

If the dirty red window illustrated belongs to the OP, that could be part of the problem.

 

[HansPB]

Well, to round this off, rewinding in the dark didn't work out. I didn't notice that the end of the film had slipped off the spool, so I only rewinded the paper, and the film curled up above. So I had to turn on the light in the end. But I rewinded in the light, loaded it in the camera again and practiced winding, and now I know how far to go. So I should be good next time.

Thanks for all the help

 

[neilt3]

Keep that ruined roll of film safe .
I always test a camera when I buy one with a test roll of film , before loading a fresh roll .
That way if there is a fault on the cameras wind on mechanism I find it before putting a good roll in .

 

[HansPB]

Good advice, thank you