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

[MCB18]

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.

I didn’t think they made techpan in 70mm? But if they did then holy crap that’s an awesome find! The lowest speed, finest grain 70mm I can get my hands on is Aviphot 80 as FN-64, which while very fine grained, is nothing compared with techpan shot well. I’d absolutely love to get my hands on some to run through my RB67.

As far as the paper, I got 1 kg if it from Astrum in Ukraine, and I should be able to get more if I run out. Never heard of using any plastic for rollfilm, my concern would be it possibly stretching and becoming more transparent allowing light in.

 

[Romanko]

I didn’t think they made techpan in 70mm?

They did but unfortunately (for me) it is perforated.
And here is a video on making 122 type film which you might find useful:

 

[MCB18]

They did but unfortunately (for me) it is perforated.
And here is a video on making 122 type film which you might find useful:

Oh man that would be perfect for me, I’m planning to buy a 70mm back for my RB and type 2 perf film is very hard to get fresh now. I can get 70mm width but perforations are not possible,

Of course, there’s Ilford’s ULF offer of 50 ft for $330, plus whatever markup their distributor adds, plus the fact there’s an MOQ of like 10 rolls or whatever… which is just not justifiable.

I hope to be able to mod it non-destructively to shoot non-perf film, but until then I’ll be stuck with Aviphot 200 NOS from India.

As far as 122 film, that backing paper solution is very clever! That plastic seems actually fairly good at the task. And it is very similar to how I roll 120 now, although I used to roll the paper taped end first into the spool before I figured out how to line the film up with the loose end of the film going in first. Actually that reminds me, I need to update my tutorial…

Unfortunately I can’t get 90mm width film (yet…), but I would suggest looking for NDT film. There are high speed stocks available, mostly Agfa and Foma iirc, that are green or blue sensitive that look pretty good when shot, see Foma Ortho 400. If I do end up getting a slitter made though, I may be able to get areal film stocks cut to a bunch of odd widths, we’ll see.

Edited to add:
Got curious and found some Agfa/GE STRUCTURIX D4 film on eBay, in date, 9 x 43 cm. You could make half length rolls of 122 with it. Unfortunately no examples online but you get 100 sheets for like $70 so you could definitely experiment with it. Supposedly it’s 100 ISO but I’m not sure if that’s the same standard as used for photography film.

1 Pack AGFA STRUCTURIX D4 3.5"x17" Film 90mm 100 NIF X-Ray Exp 07/2026 | eBay

1 Brand New Box of Agfa D4 100 NIF 3.5x17" Industrial X-Ray Film. Exp 07/2026

www.ebay.com

 

[lamerko]

The new Kodak papers are kind of weird, they look kind of... plastic. I guess that solves a lot of problems with moisture and ink.
There used to be a special varnish for paintings - it was used as a protection. As far as I know, it's inert - if the ink area is treated with such a varnish, wouldn't it have a positive effect?

 

[grain elevator]

Nice! Another thing this could be useful for: some red window advance 6x6 cameras have enough space to widen the film gate to 6x7. You'd just need to make marks for that negative with in the middle of the paper, where the numbers for 6x6 normally are.

 

[axestrata]

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.

Awesome - thanks for sharing!

 

[axestrata]

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

What were the issues with the backing paper from each respective manufacturer?

 

[Romanko]

Nice! Another thing this could be useful for: some red window advance 6x6 cameras have enough space to widen the film gate to 6x7. You'd just need to make marks for that negative with in the middle of the paper, where the numbers for 6x6 normally are.

The same should work for 116/616 and 122 type cameras converted to shoot "panoramic" 120 type film.

 

[MCB18]

I made some 220 leaders and trailers tonight, I cut them on my rototrim since the lengths are much shorter and the one join between lengths doesn’t need to be light tight… maybe I’ll get around to putting real film in it at some point, but I’m not really in the mood to go in the darkroom tonight. Too tired. But in theory this should work just as well if not better than the 120 I made.

 

[lamerko]

I made some 220 leaders and trailers tonight, I cut them on my rototrim since the lengths are much shorter and the one join between lengths doesn’t need to be light tight… maybe I’ll get around to putting real film in it at some point, but I’m not really in the mood to go in the darkroom tonight. Too tired. But in theory this should work just as well if not better than the 120 I made.

Do you believe that masking tape will hold the film in place at 220 format?

 

[Don_ih]

Masking tape front and back should hold it fine.

 

[MCB18]

No need to even put it on both sides, masking tape is essentially what is used at the factory. Just a single piece works fine. I have used it for every MF roll I’ve ever made and it works great.

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

...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.)

Even among "quality" cameras, there are still some out there that rely on the Frame 1 marking. A lot of older Rollecords were this way-you advance until you see 1 in the ruby window, then press a button to start the frame counter.

I regularly use Hasselblad "12" backs, which will work with any V system Hasselblad, and those also require manually starting the frame counter when you see frame 1 through the peephole in the back. Hasselblad made these until somewhere around 1969/1970, so there are plenty of them out there even though most people(myself included) prefer the later "Automatic" type backs.

I've had a few other cameras that worked like this. One particular Zeiss Super Ikonta that I stupidly sold a few years ago did. For some reason I'm thinking it was a model 636/16 but don't hold me to that-it was a 6x6 format camera, coupled rangefinder, f/2.8 Tessar in a Synchro-Compur shutter(and with the weird quirk of the automatic frame counter only going to 11-there was a way to get it to shoot a 12th frame, but about half the time it was right at the edge or off the end for me, so I would only chance it on one I didn't care about).

 

[Don_ih]

No need to even put it on both sides, masking tape is essentially what is used at the factory. Just a single piece works fine. I have used it for every MF roll I’ve ever made and it works great.

As the film goes around a sharp bend in a back like Hasselblad or Bronica, with no tape on the back, the film can peel away from the masking tape in 220. It can't happen in 120, really, but very easily in 220, since the film is more rigid than the tape.

You risk gumming up a back by not putting tape on the reverse of the 220 film.

 

[paul ron]

i just got some new kodak 120 tmax. i noticed the new backing paper feels like its got a plastic coating instead of the paper they were famous for bleeding onto the film.

 

[MCB18]

As the film goes around a sharp bend in a back like Hasselblad or Bronica, with no tape on the back, the film can peel away from the masking tape in 220. It can't happen in 120, really, but very easily in 220, since the film is more rigid than the tape.

You risk gumming up a back by not putting tape on the reverse of the 220 film.

I’ve been doing this for almost 3 years now, probably used around 20 rolls of 220 myself and sold something like 75, if it was an issue I would have heard of it by now.

Mass produced rolls used almost the exact same tape, and only put it on one side of the roll, as specified in the ISO document. Masking tape is good because as the film is rolled up it is put under pressure, which sets the adhesive and makes it into a pretty solid join. But, it also comes away clean from the film during processing with a little effort.

Pretty much the only difference between what I do and what the big manufacturers did in terms of tape is that they had an automated machine that put the tape on there for them.

 

[MCB18]

i just got some new kodak 120 tmax. i noticed the new backing paper feels like its got a plastic coating instead of the paper they were famous for bleeding onto the film.

Yeah, the new paper has a plastic coating to make it black and some sort of varnish to protect the film from the ink. And yet, I still hate it because it’s impossible to read.

IMO Fuji still has the best paper. I think they make it in-house and also use their own ink which is why it’s been constantly good since the 90’s when they started using the current paper. God I wish they’d sell it to other manufacturers…

 

[Don_ih]

If it hasn't been an issue, that's great. As long as the cuts are square and the tape is well-aligned, it probably never will be an issue.

And masking tape is a great choice.

 

[MCB18]

Well, there’s real film in there now

 

[MCB18]

Made another roll of 120 paper, I just folded the paper up until it fit in my cutter. Much nicer than my previous attempt at 120 paper. Still too lazy to mark the numbers though, lol

 

[Cholentpot]

Might as well update to.

The FK127 slitter worked fine. All I needed was the slitter, anyone with a little experience doing darkroom games doesn't need the whole kit. I can slit down 120 backing paper to 127 size now. I can even do an entire roll with the film if would want to. I now have a source of home made 127 backing paper. I just have to score a baby Rollie and I'll be set.

 

[MCB18]

Might as well update to.

The FK127 slitter worked fine. All I needed was the slitter, anyone with a little experience doing darkroom games doesn't need the whole kit. I can slit down 120 backing paper to 127 size now. I can even do an entire roll with the film if would want to. I now have a source of home made 127 backing paper. I just have to score a baby Rollie and I'll be set.

Very curious to see the 127 paper I ordered from shanghai, the 220 paper from them is good stuff.

 

[eli griggs]

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.

Air warm/hot dry acrylic inks paints for permanent or long lived function.

I had a few rolls of the Soviet red paper 120 stuff years back and I thought it was 'heavily' andwell made.

Kodak papers have left me with the impression years back as too flimsy, and subject to unannounced changes including thicknesses.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I can slit down 120 backing paper to 127 size now. I can even do an entire roll with the film if would want to.

I've recut 120 to 127 (or 828) many times, even in room light (I just cut the roll, trim backing ends as needed, and respool to the correct spool -- this step in the dark, of course) The backing protects the film with only a very tiny fogged edge at the cut line. With the backing ends trimmed to appropriate length, a full 120 length strip will fit on the receiving spool, too (even for 828, though there's very little flange above the paper on the roll). The 120 number is usable for 4x4 or 828 (using the 6x4.5 track), giving 16 frames on a roll.

 

[Cholentpot]

I've recut 120 to 127 (or 828) many times, even in room light (I just cut the roll, trim backing ends as needed, and respool to the correct spool -- this step in the dark, of course) The backing protects the film with only a very tiny fogged edge at the cut line. With the backing ends trimmed to appropriate length, a full 120 length strip will fit on the receiving spool, too (even for 828, though there's very little flange above the paper on the roll). The 120 number is usable for 4x4 or 828 (using the 6x4.5 track), giving 16 frames on a roll.

I did not know that the 645 numbers are useful for 4x4. I've been marking the paper myself which is a pain.