Have you ever bought a used bulk loader with anything other than Tri-X in it?

[BAC1967]

That was my experience with the above recently rediscovered roll of Tech Pan. When developed normally (for me) in Diafine, I got edge markings that were only just barely, barely visible, and images taken at EI 200+ were equally almost invisible. The easiest way to identify Tech Pan is that it's on a thin ESTAR (polyester) base that is obviously harder to tear than acetate.

I don't know if Tech Pan would be amenable to Diafine with more time in Part B or if it's just a non-starter. But I just bought more HC-110 anyway so I'm good.

The one roll of Tri-X that came in one of my bulk loaders was long expired. I did a bracket test on a short roll then developed it normally and came up with an ISO of 32. I use it as a slow film and still get good results.

Air by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Last Lloyd film loader I bought came with more that half a roll of Plus X. Was able to load like 14-15 24 exp rolls. Sadly film was VERY fogged. Seem like loader was on a car trunk or an oven

Still have like 13 of them on the fridge waiting for experimentation or so.


Marcelo

 

[Xylo]

I got about six rolls of HP5 (non-plus version) in a Lloyd's loader. It was surprisingly kept in good condition.

 

[Molli]

Ektachrome 64 Loaded 12th of May 1981 — came with an LPL C7700 6x7 Enlarger.
Ilford HPS (?).
Three 30 metre rolls of Kodak Ortho - the tin has rusted clear through on one of them. The other two are still completely sealed - came with an Omega D2V 4x5 Enlarger.
A half used roll of Ilford FP4 with tape across the label reading "Fine Grain".
A full roll of HP5+ which I excitedly tested in developer to reveal that I'm the proud owner of some old bank's surveillance footage! I don't know if the whole roll is already developed or if that was my doing on the test strip. A shame, either way, however it was free so all that I lost was a bit more/of hope.

 

[eli griggs]

Plus-x in a Watson 100 ' loader.

 

[eli griggs]

Last Lloyd film loader I bought came with more that half a roll of Plus X. Was able to load like 14-15 24 exp rolls. Sadly film was VERY fogged. Seem like loader was on a car trunk or an oven

Still have like 13 of them on the fridge waiting for experimentation or so.


Marcelo

This sounds like a good material for extending the frames you get from reloaded cartridges, by cutting into tongues and tails instead of wasting good film for those parts of a loaded roll of film.

IMO.

 

[ant!]

Right now on the way to me: A loader with a 3/4 roll of HP5+ (bought 9 yrs ago) inside and a sealed roll of Plus-X (expired mid 80s), for CAD 30 + shipping. Basically, cost is what I see used loaders offered around here usually, and the film is free.

 

[randyB]

I went to an estate sale a few years ago and found a Lloyds bulk loader with an unknown film in it. I stripped off a few feet and developed as a 100 speed film. It was totally age fogged. I found in the Lloyds box a label for Dupont film, must have been from the 50's/60's. I was disgusted that my $1 buy didn't give me that gold mine of film that we all want but I got over it.

 

[darkroommike]

I have bought 3-4 used bulk loaders over the years. All of them came with some film left inside. All of the film was Tri-X.

Anyone ever lucked out with a roll of Tech Pan or something color?

I have a lot of bulk loaders, more than 15, I just counted them the other day but always seem to find a few more when tidying up. And some of the loaders have mystery film, so mysterious. Some are labeled, I have one or two with perforated Kodalith, and a couple that may be some sort of Ektachrome, not labeled of course, I need to pull a short bit and just process it in B&W chems to find the edge codes.

 

[eli griggs]

Would a still bath of caffenol.+ C be a good choice to ferret out the nomenclature on the films?

 

[eli griggs]

Last time I got bulk loaders with film inside (mostly I'm not that lucky and get them empty) it was some funky stuff that was obviously IR sensitive and had purple colour instead of green. Tossed that sh*t (3 x 100') and loaded it with some proper film - Foma, Aviphot and Eterna.

You guys always get Tri-X?! I must be the unluckiest person in the world...

In the future, instead of tossing 'bad' rolls film, ask if anyone, for example, like myself, will use that film stock for making tails and tongues for their reloading of raw film without wasting exposures.

Finds like yours do have a place in the darkroom, and have value in extra rolls per load, especially for those of us that short load rolls of 12 - 16 - or 24 frames.

A Merry Christmas HOLIDAY to ALL

 

[brbo]

In the future, instead of tossing 'bad' rolls film, ask if anyone, for example, like myself, will use that film stock for making tails and tongues for their reloading of raw film without wasting exposures.

Yeah, but question is would you pay me $10 for it?

But seriously, you'd use EIR for tongues and tails? How rich are you actually?

 

[Terrence Brennan]

No, but in the 1970s I sold an old Lloyds bulk loader for $5 with a part roll of the original Ektacolor negative film in it.

 

[eli griggs]

Yeah, but question is would you pay me $10 for it?

But seriously, you'd use EIR for tongues and tails? How rich are you actually?

Not rich, poor actually, no income, no service related compensation for decades of living with the many illnesses I receive as a result of the Army and my assignment to Eniwetok Atoll fom 67 plus atomic and nuclear devices, bombs from kilotons to megatons, and old story told here before, but, more than willing to strip the emulsion from bad colour film I can not use for making images, for it's clear base, made into tongues and tails.

Just trashing, without recognizing it's other uses or it's potential users, makes no real sense to me.

And yes, I'd pay the postage for such a find, even if I have to wait a week or so.

 

[brbo]

more than willing to strip the emulsion from bad colour film I can not use for making images, for it's clear base, made into tongues and tails.

Just trashing, without recognizing it's other uses or it's potential users, makes no real sense to me.

And yes, I'd pay the postage for such a find, even if I have to wait a week or so.

But, wouldn't you feel conflicted? I mean, hundreds of meters of film I trashed was obviously worth thousands of dollars. Would you really have me give you that kind of film for free under pretence that you're going to use it for tongues and tails? Or would you really use it for tongues and tails?!




(just in case somebody is reading this, both, eli and me, are joking. not a millimetre of EIR/Aerochrome was trashed.)

 

[eli griggs]

I have thought you've already trashed this film, and was speaking to anybody that might be tempted to toss bulk films, colour or b&w, that are "bad" instead of finding someone who could use them, using myself as an example only, for this singular task of tails and tounges.

No, I would have not use for that good film myself, as I do believe good film should be used and developed, and, E-6 kits are just something out of my budget.

If Cibachrome was still available, I might find a way to do Ektachrome, though shooting Ballet and Modern Dancers is way behind me now, and while I have nice colour films on my fridge, I just don't shoot enough of them often enough, on a single project to justify asking for and keeping bulk rolls of colour, it'd be a waste, period.

It's nice we can joke about these issues, but finding a user, or buyer, for good or bad films, is seriously an quasi-obligation in keeping analog photography vital and enticing for new or potential users, no?