That's what it's supposed to do.I'm unsure if a still photo camera even has the motor strength to harm itself. I figure, if the film jams, the motor just hangs up.
If I were ham fisted enough with polyester film I would have stripped the gears, thus saving the holes.
-) PET based type 135 films have been widely on the market for over 15 years by Maco (aside of 72exposure thin-base film from Ilford from much earlier) and I do not remember a single report here of a camera having been broken to such films.
However Ilford say so:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...dwaynes-refusal-to-process.67884/#post-958097
Kodak uses PET also in all Lomography Color films.
Does it now? I bought Lomo CN 100 and 800 at the same time (with roughly the same exp. date) and only 800 was on Estar.
Hasn't Color Plus always had "Kodacolor" printed on the cassette? The box says Color Plus but the cassette still says Kodacolor.
My local mini-lab operator as had some of the new films in and she was a bit concerned, but all have been processed successfully.
Light piping has nothing to do with the choice of base per se, which can be appropriately colored or coated in either case. Piping was more a problem with cheaper Eastern European roll films when those were around. But none of these should be loaded in direct bright light. That's just common sense.
I know this may have been asked before, but I can't find the answer. Ilford stated that 135 Polyester Base would damage cameras in 2009 ish. BUT I have not seen any evidence of Breakage, actual or anecdotal on forums I have searched. I know the hypothesis of Ilford's case... I Just don't know if it actually happens in the real world. With Kodak (Portra 800 135 and ColorPlus 200) now on Estar, maybe even a year or longer... Does anyone have any data or examples of broken cameras?
The camera manufacturers and camera repairers the film manufacturers used to communicate a lot about issues of common interest. If Ilford has said that the PET films increased the likelihood of damage to cameras, it is through those discussions that they would have become aware of the problems.
Kodak would have also participated in similar discussions, but they also would have had direct experience, due to their movie camera line.
It worked the other way with acetate films. Cameras with film transport problems caused damage to film. So if a customer's film came back to them with tears, it was usually due to a transport or loading problem.
I know this may have been asked before, but I can't find the answer. Ilford stated that 135 Polyester Base would damage cameras in 2009 ish. BUT I have not seen any evidence of Breakage, actual or anecdotal on forums I have searched. I know the hypothesis of Ilford's case... I Just don't know if it actually happens in the real world. With Kodak (Portra 800 135 and ColorPlus 200) now on Estar, maybe even a year or longer... Does anyone have any data or examples of broken cameras?
I would say PET is better for film long term because it is cheaper and also greener. (You don't need to dissolve ground up animal bones in Acid! LOL)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?