How to reuse an unfinished 120 film?

[2F/2F]

Been a couple of days, by now I would think either he wound it back but doesn't know how it turned out or he went ahead and used the film up.

Hopefully he or she shot five extra pix rather than developing five blank coulda-been pix. However, with either one of these decisions, the worst he or she did was to increase the price of the exposed shots by two for that one roll alone. B.F.D.

 

[lxdude]

Let's just try to help the OP by answering his direct question.

Oh c'mon. Where's the fun in that?

I think it's valid to put forth the downside of something or offer an opinion on whether it's worth the trouble (one way or the other), point out potential risk or offer a different idea. And 2F/2F's last point is good too.

That's why it's called a forum. People have opinions and this is the place for 'um.

 

[fschifano]

That is exactly the reason I answered his question without questioning his motives. The APUG "keepers of light and truth" were the ones who question his motives and used the term "wrong-headed"! You, APUG "keepers of light and truth, hang your heads in shame!

Steve

To paraphrase the bard, I think you protest too much.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The motives were clear: save the rest of the film for further use.
These motives were questioned, because doing that may very well result in losing the film that has already been used (which includes losing everything that the use of that bit of film might have resulted in).

At no point, oh Guardian of the Real Truth, does that involve or require an analysis of the OP's economic and financial position. You Advocate of Falsehoods are the one who should bow your head in shame for thinking what the OP would do could work, because (!) he perhaps can't afford film! After doing that you will be allowed a little time (only a little, mind) to prepare yourself for perpetual punishment for arguing your case so badly on an internet forum.

Q.C., as usual you entirely missed the point. I objected to the attacks on him that demeaned him because he would dare to do something they would not. It is one thing to tell someone the downside of their actions and quite another to insult his intelligence because he wants or needs to disregard their points of view.

So you do not miss the point and drag this out forever, thus taking over the thread with endless chatter. Say X is not a good way to go because ... . Do not say because you are going to do X, you are a dumb (&^)(*&)!

 

[Q.G.]

Q.C., as usual you entirely missed the point. I objected to the attacks on him that demeaned him because he would dare to do something they would not. It is one thing to tell someone the downside of their actions and quite another to insult his intelligence because he wants or needs to disregard their points of view.

So you do not miss the point and drag this out forever, thus taking over the thread with endless chatter. Say X is not a good way to go because ... . Do not say because you are going to do X, you are a dumb (&^)(*&)!

No, no, oh Master of the Unique Truthfulness.

You apparently did not understand the "The motives were clear" bit.
Can't say that comes as a surprise.

Telling someone that, say, throwing a glass against a brick wall will break the glass is informing that person about what will happen when he throws a glass against a brick wall.
You, and only you, do add the "and if you still do you're stupid" motif, trying to insult our intelligence as you go along, oh Holy Keeper of The Form.
We also know why: we Underlings dared to give advice contrary to Your Revealed Truth.

 

[pentaxuser]

Why would it be that when you do a mid-roll rewind, it ends up any more susceptible to light leaks than is the case when the film is wound on to its finish?

What is technically speaking different enough to make light leaks the likely case to any extent and or at least to the extent of making it likely that other than the non image forming edges of the film will be affected?

It seems to me that from a practical viewpoint, key to providing a helpful answer to the OP is the following: How many here have tried to do a rewind with the OP's make and model of camera and what has been the results?

pentaxuser

 

[Q.G.]

Why would it be that when you do a mid-roll rewind, it ends up any more susceptible to light leaks than is the case when the film is wound on to its finish?

What is technically speaking different enough to make light leaks the likely case to any extent and or at least to the extent of making it likely that other than the non image forming edges of the film will be affected?

The thing you could have read way up near the beginning of this thread: paper and film are two separate thingies, and are likely not to wind equally tight.
The result is that one of the two forms a 'bulge, the following length of film and paper can not flatten out. It will get worse and worse as you go along.

It seems to me that from a practical viewpoint, key to providing a helpful answer to the OP is the following: How many here have tried to do a rewind with the OP's make and model of camera and what has been the results?

Why oh why oh why do people assume that we do not know what we are talking about?

From a practical viewpoint, it would be helpful if you only post "do you know what you are talking about?" posts if, and only if, you actually do know that noone of your fellow particpants in a thread do not know what they are talking about.

 

[anikin]

Back to the original post.
How about this: open the camera in the dark, cut the film, process the exposed portion of the film and use the remaining unexposed portion of the roll for making internegatives from slides. I know that's what I would do...

 

[Q.G.]

With 120 roll film? No go.

 

[Mike Crawford]

If I was the OP I think I would have switched to digital by now if this is an example of a learned debate between film users.

Blimey, handbags at dawn!

 

[anikin]

Q.G.:

With 120 roll film? No go.

Why not? I have a lovely print of my wife and daughter on a wall behind me that was made using 120 roll film inter-negative from 35mm slide. Or were you replying to some other post?

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

With no winding automation or clicking shutter and cocking to speak of, I have successfully loaded, unloaded (in sleeping bag) and reloaded 120 film (Neopan Acros 100 and Provia 100F) in my Zero Image multi-format pinhole by marking the backing paper first nearest leader end with a corresponding mark inside the camera. A lot more precision required in memorising the alignment of the next frame number.

 

[Q.G.]

Why not? I have a lovely print of my wife and daughter on a wall behind me that was made using 120 roll film inter-negative from 35mm slide. Or were you replying to some other post?

You can't cut 120 film, take out one part, and continue to use the rest, the way you can with 35 mm film.

You can take the remaining film out, put it somewhere where it will not be exposed, and cut it up for other use.
But if that would be a solution the OP is looking for?

 

[anikin]

You can't cut 120 film, take out one part, and continue to use the rest, the way you can with 35 mm film.

Oh, I see your point. No, what I meant is to cut the film, take both parts out of the camera and use the unexposed portion to make internegatives under the enlarger - not in camera. I use 2x3 speed Ez-El as a framing device under the enlarger. I agree, continuing to use the remainder in camera would be rather tricky.
I don't know if OP would be interested in this solution, it was just an idea.

 

[Iridium]

I will ask it again: Why not just take five more shots before developing the film?

First of all, in the case that you don't have time to take these shots. Then, if you cannot find something interesting, not using the rest frames it's the same for me as shooting several things just to finish the film.

However, I repeat that my very first question was just to know your technique and then everyone could evaluate if it is worth it or not.

But I don't understand why some people here combine the cost of the camera with the reuse or not of a film. That is, the ownership of a plastic toy camera justifies the reuse of a film, while on the contrary the one of a Mamiya not??
This is silly. Since one process is quite easy to use why not to do it?

As long as the reuse of a 120 film is risky, of course I will choose to sacrifice some frames. If the question comes to a 135mm film which its reuse is quite simple (you don't need darkroom or bag), I would do it either with a Leica or with a Fisher Price...

 

[rphenning]

If the O.P can afford a Mamiya 7 he can afford five shots of 120 film.

haha shoot i have a 7 and i treasure every frame i get because of the exact opposite of what you said: I can't afford much film.

maybe the op does have his reasons and people shouldn't be bothered so much by the principal of it?

 

[Iridium]

haha shoot i have a 7 and i treasure every frame i get because of the exact opposite of what you said: I can't afford much film.

maybe the op does have his reasons and people shouldn't be bothered so much by the principal of it?

As the O.P. I gave my full explanation just above!