Paper backed roll film made with backing paper cut at home.

[MCB18]

I thought I would share this with you guys here, I just finished making a roll of 120 film using the big roll of red Soviet paper I got last month. Ideally I’d have a machine that cuts perfectly even strips from the paper, but as I don’t have that, I have used a hobby knife and straightedge to do it. It is by no means perfect, but it should be good enough to test to see if the paper will work well in a camera. The ends are cut well enough that daylight loading and unloading should be possible, that is another question I am testing. I’ll share the results when I’m done shooting.

 

[loccdor]

It looks like the paper has held up well. I would want to check if the paper is leaving any residue on the shiny side of the film.

 

[lamerko]

It's a good idea not to throw away the old original papers and rolls... They do a good job for 120/220, but for other formats like 116 I would like to get a roll of paper like yours.

 

[MCB18]

It's a good idea not to throw away the old original papers and rolls... They do a good job for 120/220, but for other formats like 116 I would like to get a roll of paper like yours.

That’s the idea in the long run, larger formats that don’t have easy to get backing paper. Although it would be nice to not have to rely on recycled 120 papers to make MF film, those can be annoying to get sometimes.

 

[pentaxuser]

I just finished making a roll of 120 film using the big roll of red Soviet paper I got last month.

Is this Soviet red paper made of the same or similar stuff to 120 roll backing paper? Given the problems Kodak Ilford and seemingly Foma have had with backing paper what will be interesting is whether in the longer run other paper creates issues

Or is it the case that provided there is no writing on the backing which seems to describe yours and there is no unknown film storage issues which also descríbes your situation then any paper as long as it is black and thick enough will do the job?

pentaxuser

 

[MCB18]

As I understand it, the red paper is similar to the 2-ply paper used by Kodak for a very long time, until the 1980’s iirc. The black part and red part are 2 separate paper stocks that have been laminated together to provide a light tight paper with a side that can be printed on. From what I can tell, the paper itself is pretty inert, you can get decent results from old film rolled in it from the 1990’s.

The problem, as you mentioned briefly, is the ink that is used to print on the backing paper. Most of the time the paper itself is fine, but the ink used can cause unwanted interactions with the emulsion. That problem I have yet to take on, but I was told that acrylic paint may be a good option, so long as the paint is allowed to dry for a few days before rolling the film onto the paper.

 

[pentaxuser]

That problem I have yet to take on, but I was told that acrylic paint may be a good option, so long as the paint is allowed to dry for a few days before rolling the film onto the paper.

Thanks for the reply. Can I clarify your above quote? Do you intend to print on the backing paper and the presumably black acrylic paint is a way to stop the printing from bleeding through onto the film i.e. if there was no need to print such as might be the case in a Pentax 645N where there is no window on the insert you would not use the paint?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[MCB18]

As the film is rolled up, the red part of the paper comes in contact with the emulsion. Anything printed on the red side also comes in contact with the emulsion. This is why with bad ink, the film may have the numbers printed on the film, as the ink has interacted with the emulsion and caused an undesirable reaction. This is why printing will be so much of a challenge.

 

[abruzzi]

...which limits usefulness for old folders, TLRs and box cameras with a film advance window, but not the 120 cameras with geared advance. I'm curious what percentage of 120 film is shot on cameras that require frame numbers? I've got many 120 cameras from 6x4.5 to 6x12, and the only camera with a film advance window is a wooden pinhole camera that I haven't used in years. I know many will probably want to argue this, but I wouldn't bat an eye if all 120 film stopped having any printing except the start arrow (which isn't close to the emulsion.)

 

[MCB18]

Just developed this roll, and it actually came out way better than I expected it would! It was treated no differently than any other 120 film, loaded and unloaded in daylight and used in a RB67. Almost no light leaks, which is pretty neat! Came out better than some factory packed film I’ve used.

 

[MCB18]

...which limits usefulness for old folders, TLRs and box cameras with a film advance window, but not the 120 cameras with geared advance. I'm curious what percentage of 120 film is shot on cameras that require frame numbers? I've got many 120 cameras from 6x4.5 to 6x12, and the only camera with a film advance window is a wooden pinhole camera that I haven't used in years. I know many will probably want to argue this, but I wouldn't bat an eye if all 120 film stopped having any printing except the start arrow (which isn't close to the emulsion.)

I would say that the vast majority of 120 cameras use the frame advance numbers. Yes, we as hardcore film enthusiasts (with a lot of money) love our modern medium format cameras. However most people, including DIYers, rely on the numbers. With a few notable exceptions, automatic film advance wasn’t really a thing in consumer rollfilm cameras. And after the 60’s, consumers stopped buying 120 cameras. So there really was no point to making a cheap 120 camera with automatic advance. I dare say most 120 shooters are using Lomo/Holga caneras, folders, or DIY 120 cameras, and will definitely be annoyed if the numbers go away.

 

[pentaxuser]

As the film is rolled up, the red part of the paper comes in contact with the emulsion. Anything printed on the red side also comes in contact with the emulsion. This is why with bad ink, the film may have the numbers printed on the film, as the ink has interacted with the emulsion and caused an undesirable reaction. This is why printing will be so much of a challenge.

I never realised that the red top side can come into contact with the emulsion as the black side which is slightly wider than the fílm always appears to be in contact with the film? It may be my spatial unawareness that makes me thing that but, that apart, do I take it that printing being a challenge refers to printing on the back of the red part of the paper?

Just out of curiosity how will you print to ensure that the printing will be in the right areas for the red windowed cameras?

Two more questions if I may: 1. What makes you believe that black acrylic paint will withstand the curl on the backing paper? Is there something in acrylic paint that makes it OK when other paints such as watercolour paint or oil paint will not work?

Finally do I take it that your reply above indicates that if no printing is necessary for non-windowed cameras such as my P645N then any kind of paint is unnecessary?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[MCB18]

Yes, the film emulsion comes in contact with the printed side of the paper, here is a picture. In this case it’s the white side of Ilford paper.



I know where each number needs to go because I have the ISO document that lists the positions for each number. It is simply a case of measuring each position and then writing it on the paper. Even if I didn’t have that I could be reasonably accurate with a ruler and some normal 120 paper. Or other sizes, theoretically I could make massive rolls, up to 8” wide film like cirkuit cameras use.

As far as the acrylic paint, I know that it can handle being put on flexible papers, I’ve used it while making posters before and it worked well. As far as why it should work, I was told that once completely dry, it is basically a colored plastic that, in theory at least, should be pretty inert and not affect the film.

And yes, if you have an automatic advance camera, no markings are needed on the back besides the start mark, and maybe some markings that tell you what film you are using.

 

[MattKing]

One side of the paper is against the back of the film.
The other side of the paper - the one with the numbers and letters on it - is pushed against the emulsion when the film plus backing paper sandwich is rolled tightly on to the spool.
Film emulsion is intended to be very sensitive to tiny amounts of light.
Its tough to make film and ink that doesn't react with that very sensitive emulsion when pressed hard together - which is what happens when everything is rolled tightly on to the spool.
Thus the problems that occur.

 

[Don_ih]

What about inkjet ink? Can't you put the full width of your paper roll in a printer and it could print out the full run of numbers for several strips side by side? Since it's not specifically inkjet paper, you'd need to let it dry for a while.

 

[Photosandpotatoes]

Gahhh this is so cool!! Well done! Negatives look great, too. Thanks for sharing.

I’m trying a DIY contraption to nicely roll 35mm onto 120 backing paper with help from Acere here, so I love these projects.

Although it would be nice to not have to rely on recycled 120 papers to make MF film, those can be annoying to get sometimes.

Just responding to the one comment about backing paper and spools, the lab near me always has a bunch extra so if you ever need any just let me know and I can send for the cost of postage.

 

[Cholentpot]

I reuse old backing paper and slit down 70mm to 120. Like others have said in this thread, I would love some 616/116 backing paper. Currently I have no practical way of shooting that format.

 

[MCB18]

What about inkjet ink? Can't you put the full width of your paper roll in a printer and it could print out the full run of numbers for several strips side by side? Since it's not specifically inkjet paper, you'd need to let it dry for a while.

Someone else is currently experimenting with this idea, @Wolfram Malukker, but I don’t have a printer capable of doing that.

Gahhh this is so cool!! Well done! Negatives look great, too. Thanks for sharing.

I’m trying a DIY contraption to nicely roll 35mm onto 120 backing paper with help from Acere here, so I love these projects.

Thanks! I believe there is something like this on eBay for 35mm and 127, I’ve considered getting it but I may just keep doing it by hand, it’s not super difficult honestly.

Just responding to the one comment about backing paper and spools, the lab near me always has a bunch extra so if you ever need any just let me know and I can send for the cost of postage.

Thanks! I actually have a ton of backing paper rolls at the moment, so this is just a fun “Can it be done” experiment currently.

I reuse old backing paper and slit down 70mm to 120. Like others have said in this thread, I would love some 616/116 backing paper. Currently I have no practical way of shooting that format.

At some point I hope I can help with that. Might take a bit, paper slitting machines are not cheap, and as mentioned printing will be pretty difficult. I know Wolfram is working on both, so I might be able to work with them. So it could happen, just takes time.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks MCB18 for the very comprehensive reply with the example and to Matt for additional reply

pentaxuser

 

[Wolfram Malukker]

My involvement in this is more along the lines of unobtainable or difficult to obtain backing papers, like the 116, 127, 828, and 103/109 sizes.

There probably isn't a huge demand for this stuff but things like 116 and 127 were made for over 80 years, so there are a lot of cameras out there that could be used again if backing paper was available.

 

[Cholentpot]

My involvement in this is more along the lines of unobtainable or difficult to obtain backing papers, like the 116, 127, 828, and 103/109 sizes.

There probably isn't a huge demand for this stuff but things like 116 and 127 were made for over 80 years, so there are a lot of cameras out there that could be used again if backing paper was available.

I threw in the towel and got a FKC127 slitter. Not the whole kit, just the slitter for the film and paper. Works great. So I can scale down 120 paper but not up.

 

[BobUK]

My idea for marking the paper may be a bit far fetched.



For security marking your valuables with an address, name and post code, ultra violet pens and torches are available quite cheaply.

The pens leave an almost invisible mark on the item written on, and the writing glows brightly when lit with the UV torch.

No ink as we know it to rub off onto the film.

As I have only just thought of it, I have no idea if it would work in practice.

Some of the security torches are no bigger than a fountain pen. Not much of an inconvenience to carry around with you.

 

[MCB18]

My idea for marking the paper may be a bit far fetched.



For security marking your valuables with an address, name and post code, ultra violet pens and torches are available quite cheaply.

The pens leave an almost invisible mark on the item written on, and the writing glows brightly when lit with the UV torch.

No ink as we know it to rub off onto the film.

As I have only just thought of it, I have no idea if it would work in practice.

Some of the security torches are no bigger than a fountain pen. Not much of an inconvenience to carry around with you.

While the ink may not be visible to normal light, the ink is still there, and it could still do the same thing to the film.

 

[Wolfram Malukker]

My idea for marking the paper may be a bit far fetched.



For security marking your valuables with an address, name and post code, ultra violet pens and torches are available quite cheaply.

The pens leave an almost invisible mark on the item written on, and the writing glows brightly when lit with the UV torch.

No ink as we know it to rub off onto the film.

As I have only just thought of it, I have no idea if it would work in practice.

Some of the security torches are no bigger than a fountain pen. Not much of an inconvenience to carry around with you.

The UV sensitive inks are still ink-they're a pigment or dye dissolved in a carrier. Usually they're the same inks used in laundry soaps as optical brighteners, even in the "free and clear" detergents there is enough optical brightener dye to build a good dye laser out of it. (I did this for my high school physics project, and there were a LOT of things that you could get to lase if you pumped enough optical power in!)

 

[Romanko]

I thought I would share this with you guys here, I just finished making a roll of 120 film using the big roll of red Soviet paper I got last month.

Thank you for sharing. Great results!

I have a couple of 116 format folders, a 30 m roll of 70 mm Technical Pan but only a few backing papers left. They might be good for two or three reloads but then I will need to find a replacement.

How much of this "red Soviet paper" did you get and will you be able to buy it again once your stock is used up?

I heard of people using light-tight plastic sold in rolls for covering soil in green houses as an alternative to backing paper. Any thoughts on this? The material is cheap and readily available. It could be thinner and more stretchy than the paper, though. If "poly" in the specs means polyethylene the material should be fairly stable.