Is this medium format film?

[Tjack]

I have a couple rolls of this film and I thought it was
120 film and went to load in camera and it won't fit.
It says 6 1/2 x 11 ?

 

[MattKing]

It is medium format film, but most likely not 120 film. 6.5 cm x 11 cm is equivalent to ~ 2.5" x 4.5".

Can you show us the ends of the spool?

Using Kodak nomenclature, it may be 116 film or 616 film (same film, but different spools). I have a Kodak Six-16 camera that yields 2.5" x 4.5" negatives on (long discontinued) 616 film.

 

[Tjack]

It's old film but nicely sealed up, was thinking a old retro look but may not be any cameras left to use it in.

The spool is made of metal and wood.

 

[MattKing]

That looks like a 116 spool - I've got a few of them in a nearby drawer to compare it with.
There are old cameras around that can use 116 film, but film that old will not be "perfect".

 

[mooseontheloose]

There are old cameras around that can use 116 film, but film that old will not be "perfect".

Will the film work at all? I've had limited experience with old films (late 40s/early 50s) but the only ones that worked were the ones that were already exposed, despite sitting in the camera for decades. None of the images I shot on old film (that had not been exposed previously) came out at all (in fact, the emulsion was quite weak and splotchy). Just curious if anyone has had success shooting on really old film - it may be better to just save the roll(s) as a memento, rather than using them.

 

[Tjack]

I've shot b&w film that's over fourty years old and some of it will surprise you in how good it is but you never quite know what to expect.

This roll is to big to fit into a 120 film holder so probably just set aside and use it as backdrop in shooting old camera equipment.

 

[MattKing]

Will the film work at all? I've had limited experience with old films (late 40s/early 50s) but the only ones that worked were the ones that were already exposed, despite sitting in the camera for decades. None of the images I shot on old film (that had not been exposed previously) came out at all (in fact, the emulsion was quite weak and splotchy). Just curious if anyone has had success shooting on really old film - it may be better to just save the roll(s) as a memento, rather than using them.

You can see the sort of "success" I had with film of this sort of vintage in this thread: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[StoneNYC]

It's definitely 116.

I've shot and developed some of that age film, although the images came out, the image quality isn't superb.

Also, make sure the film isn't a nitrocellulose base. It's prone to spontaneous combustion, and could start a fire, its self oxygenating and so even in an airtight container it can burn.

I'm not saying this is, I'm saying if it is, it's super dangerous to keep in your home at the age it's at, they are the most prone to combustion.

 

[Tjack]

Ok, thanks for the replies. Might have to store it in an old metal ammo box, without the ammo

 

[AgX]

Definitely type 116. Its backing paper printing says so.

 

[AgX]

I'm saying if it is [Nitrocellulose], it's super dangerous to keep in your home at the age it's at, they are the most prone to combustion.

Do you know one case where it did so?

 

[StoneNYC]

Do you know one case where it did so?

Well, from a chemical standpoint ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrocellulose

A scientific anecdote...

http://www.atomsandnumbers.com/2013/why-the-golden-age-of-cinema-was-also-its-most-dangerous/

And the debates on keeping history safe at a cost...

http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-814106.html


And some research documents...

Dead Link Removed

https://www.bundesarchiv.de/imperia...filmtechnik_konservierung_restaurierung/2.pdf

Hope those are adequate enough for you

I've also burned some of it myself, it's pretty intense to watch. Especially in a more enclosed space.

Be safe out there kids!

 

[mooseontheloose]

You can see the sort of "success" I had with film of this sort of vintage in this thread: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I think I remember that thread. You had way more success that I did - the emulsions on my old films were splotchy and absolutely no image came out. One of the rolls of film was a partially completed roll; the existing images were fine, but whatever I shot on the remaining roll was non-existent.

 

[Ian Grant]

D8 is the Zeiss code for 116.

Ian

 

[MattKing]

Definitely type 116. Its backing paper printing says so

As per Ian, only if you are "bilingual" (i.e. speak "Zeiss").

D8 is the Zeiss code for 116.

 

[AgX]

There were different codings for Rollfilm types. Today the Kodak coding is international standard.
But in the past there were different codings. As the german one, a alpha-numerical one.

 

[AgX]

Stone,

I am busy with the Nitrocelullose issue for quite some time and so far I have not found evidence for a single rollfilm combusting on its own.

All cases reported I know of are about cine film in bulk storage. For good reason.

 

[pdeeh]

Just curious if anyone has had success shooting on really old film

certainly have.
Got quite a few rolls which appears to be 70mm nitrate stock slit down and hand rolled to 120.
Judging by the reused backing paper and the rest of the stuff I got from the darkroom I cleared, it would be from the 1940s, perhaps earlier.
So, at the very least 70 years old.
It is a bit low contrast now, and a bit foggy, but a dose of benzotriazole or KBr in the developer clears the up latter. The edges are badly fogged but I suspect that's because the person who rolled it didn't do a perfect job.
No idea what the original speed was, I shoot it at 16 or 32.
The images even when scanned have a singular look.
I printed some on Grade 3 Velox glossy (from the same darkroom and equally as old) and they were rather beautiful.
The biggest problem is that it has a curl in it like spring steel, so scanning it or even getting it flat in the enlarger's negative carrier can trigger some bad language.

 

[pentaxuser]

Well it is clearly written in German and seems to have a date( use by date?) of June 1945 on the paper. It didn't come from a bunker in Berlin by any chance, did it

pentaxuser

 

[Tjack]

I'm not sure of its history but may have come from a bunker.

I was putting it back out in the garage in the film freezer and came across some old 4x5 adox film I had that's not dated but has Planfilm PL17 on it and definitely old film. I shot and developed one a couple years back and it turned out pretty good, never printed it but here's the neg.

 

[shutterfinger]

My only experience with old film was with some 30+ year old TriX. It required EI 50 and 150% increase in developing time at 65°F in HC110 to get a printable image. ISO400 and normal time gave base fog equal to exposure.

 

[Jim Noel]

That looks like a 116 spool - I've got a few of them in a nearby drawer to compare it with.
There are old cameras around that can use 116 film, but film that old will not be "perfect".

I believe you are correct - this is 116 film.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

View attachment 165838

Wow, The FR Corporation. When I worked in a photo store during the late '50s, I remember lots of products (including chemicals) from FR. I haven't heard about them for MANY years.

 

[removed account4]

I have a couple rolls of this film and I thought it was
120 film and went to load in camera and it won't fit.
It says 6 1/2 x 11 ?

a kodak 1a box camera works with this film.
i am sure there are others
with regards to non-safety film
it isn't only the intense heat from
collodion based film that is dangerous
the fumes are TOXIC and the cleveland clinic
fire and collodoin based / nitrcellulose based film
was the reason why kodak invented safety film.
while its fun using old film, sometimes it isn't worth
it dangerosity is pretty much a reason why i stopped using
collodion, fun, yes, dangerous yes, worth it, no...

best of luck

 

[Gerald C Koch]

FR (Fink and Roselieve) went out of business years ago. They sold a variety of products.

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Fink-Roselieve