Rolling 135 on 120 Backing Paper

[RoboRepublic]

Hi folks, recently fell in love with the panoramic format and have been loading 135mm on to 120mm backing paper and spinning it up in my mamiya 7.
I know there are a number of ways to go about this, but i quite like the versatility of using backing paper, despite having the 135 adapter for the camera.

I'm using bulk loaded film and my question is this: when i load the film into the camera, i noticed immediately how much stiffer the film advance is. I'm wondering what might be the cause for this?

Am I winding the film on to the spool with too much tension such that the take up spool has to do additional work to unwind the unexposed film?

Alternatively, another thought I had is that the tension is sufficient, but because the film is bulk rolled (I'm at the start of 100ft roll) its relatively flat, and winding it onto the spool necessarily means it will want to unwind once released (there by expanding in the spool slot and adding more friction).

Thoughts? Prayers? Thanks!

 

[abruzzi]

I believe (though may be wrong) that 135 is generally thicker than 120 film. I wonder if paper plus film is thick enough to cause issues? I know with commercially loaded 120 filmI can definitely feel on my Penax and Bronicas when the film is into the works, because the film advance lever gets noticably stiffer.

 

[Donald Qualls]

135 is generally thicker than 120 film.

It is. In fact, 35mm still film is almost as thick by itself as 120 plus the backing.

 

[wiltw]

I just measured some old film I keep around for different purposes other than exposure.

• 120 Fujicolor Professional, 0.009" film+backing, 0.0060" film only
• 125 Kodak Kodacolor II, 0.0065" film

 

[cdowell]

I don't have any technical expertise to offer, but reading this thread did inspire me to give this approach a try today. Using a Brownie Target Six-20 (6x9 negs), I was able to wind through a roll of TMax taped to 120 backing paper and spooled onto a metal 620 spool. Lots a fun and a super cheap way to "go wide." I've tried 120 film in larger cameras but don't think I've ever tried 35mm. Thanks for the idea. Here's a negative scan (with contrast applied to help the red filter along).

 

[RoboRepublic]

I've been having a blast, and glad you are too!

I don't have any technical expertise to offer, but reading this thread did inspire me to give this approach a try today. Using a Brownie Target Six-20 (6x9 negs), I was able to wind through a roll of TMax taped to 120 backing paper and spooled onto a metal 620 spool. Lots a fun and a super cheap way to "go wide." I've tried 120 film in larger cameras but don't think I've ever tried 35mm. Thanks for the idea. Here's a negative scan (with contrast applied to help the red filter along).

 

[RoboRepublic]

I put a commercially loaded 135 TX400 36exp canister into the mamiya 7 with out backing paper, and the film advance is smooth as can be. I believe the film needs to be wound with some tension, so as not to de-spool inside the canister, there by creating additional friction/ drag when pulling the film out (as one does when advancing to the next frame).
Alternatively, Its possible that the plastic reloadable canisters have a defect thats causing this as well. If anyone has any recommendations on where to purchase high quality reloadable canisters, please do share. The ones on the 'bay, seem to be vintage gear and carry a pretty hefty price tag.

 

[Rowreidr]

I have settled into rerolling 135 back into canisters, 220 style. Canister-----short strip of backing paper-----bulk film------another strip of backing paper-------upside down canister. I think I got this from one of Donald Q's posts. Still need adapters, but now you can change rolls out in the field and I had a hard time keeping the 135 centered on 120 backing paper, when trying to tape.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've used plastic cannisters with bulk loaded 35mm film (the extra-thick ORWO DN21, no less) in a 6x9 folder and got good results. It's a little stiff in a 35mm camera if I load the cassette with more than 20 frames with that film -- it's on a very thick or very stiff base.

 

[rulnacco]

Hmmm, why would you *need* to roll 135 film onto backing paper? Maybe there's something I'm not understanding, but I'm shooting 35mm in a 220 back on my RZ67--and I'm sure I could do the same in my Hasselblad if I chose--without needing to do that. There are several sellers on eBay who have 3D-printed adapters for putting a metal 35mm/135 cartridge into a 120/220 back/camera. Some of them also sell take up spools that center the film, but on my RZ67, I've found it readily centers itself on a standard takeup spool, and haven't needed one.

On my RZ, it is possible to trick the camera/back into shooting before the back counter reaches 1, which I suppose might be one reason for winding onto 120 backing paper, to avoid wasting perfectly good film at the start of a roll depending on the camera. I haven't actually shot 135 film in my Hasselblad back, as I'm not keen on a vertically panoramic photo--the RZ67 makes it easy to shoot horizontal panoramas--so I haven't yet had to deal with figuring out how to get *it* to shoot on film when it "thinks" it's winding past the backing paper. But it seems to me that if necessary, it would probably be easier to just tape some scrap 35mm film of the proper length to simulate the backing paper onto the front of the "good" film--that would avoid a lot of the problems in trying to get the 135 film centered on the paper in the dark, cutting it the right length, getting it to roll up with the right tension onto a 120 spool, etc. And you could just re-use the scrap film.

I'm legitimately asking why. So far as I can see, the advantages of rolling 135 film onto 120 backing paper would be: (1) you don't waste film at the start of a roll, the back/camera will wind on until it passes the backing paper and reaches where the first exposure would normally be; (2) you can carry and shoot several rolls of 135 film, and wind it off/reload just like you would with normal 120 film; *not* rolling it into backing paper and using the technique I do means that I have to take the back into a darkroom/changing bag to unload the film and either wind it back into the metal canister before processing or load it straight into the tank, so that back is "out of action" until I do so; (3) you might avoid centering and especially film flatness issues by trying to make the film the correct thickness for the back (I use a 220 back, and normally 36 exposure film, so I don't need to worry about the latter); (4) some cameras like the Rolleiflex or cameras/backs that have a red window for determining the start point/film spacing *have* to have backing paper for the film counter/other things to work properly. Are there other advantages to going through all the rigamarole of loading 135 film onto 120 (or, in my case, 220) paper that I haven't grasped so that I should be doing it?

I've shot a few rolls of 135 in my RZ67 and have had few/no problems with it. So yes, if anyone can explain what it is I'm missing by *not* rolling my 135 film onto 120 backing paper, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks!

 

[cdowell]

Hmmm, why would you *need* to roll 135 film onto backing paper? Maybe there's something I'm not understanding, but I'm shooting 35mm in a 220 back on my RZ67--and I'm sure I could do the same in my Hasselblad if I chose--without needing to do that. There are several sellers on eBay who have 3D-printed adapters for putting a metal 35mm/135 cartridge into a 120/220 back/camera. Some of them also sell take up spools that center the film, but on my RZ67, I've found it readily centers itself on a standard takeup spool, and haven't needed one.

On my RZ, it is possible to trick the camera/back into shooting before the back counter reaches 1, which I suppose might be one reason for winding onto 120 backing paper, to avoid wasting perfectly good film at the start of a roll depending on the camera. I haven't actually shot 135 film in my Hasselblad back, as I'm not keen on a vertically panoramic photo--the RZ67 makes it easy to shoot horizontal panoramas--so I haven't yet had to deal with figuring out how to get *it* to shoot on film when it "thinks" it's winding past the backing paper. But it seems to me that if necessary, it would probably be easier to just tape some scrap 35mm film of the proper length to simulate the backing paper onto the front of the "good" film--that would avoid a lot of the problems in trying to get the 135 film centered on the paper in the dark, cutting it the right length, getting it to roll up with the right tension onto a 120 spool, etc. And you could just re-use the scrap film.

I'm legitimately asking why. So far as I can see, the advantages of rolling 135 film onto 120 backing paper would be: (1) you don't waste film at the start of a roll, the back/camera will wind on until it passes the backing paper and reaches where the first exposure would normally be; (2) you can carry and shoot several rolls of 135 film, and wind it off/reload just like you would with normal 120 film; *not* rolling it into backing paper and using the technique I do means that I have to take the back into a darkroom/changing bag to unload the film and either wind it back into the metal canister before processing or load it straight into the tank, so that back is "out of action" until I do so; (3) you might avoid centering and especially film flatness issues by trying to make the film the correct thickness for the back (I use a 220 back, and normally 36 exposure film, so I don't need to worry about the latter); (4) some cameras like the Rolleiflex or cameras/backs that have a red window for determining the start point/film spacing *have* to have backing paper for the film counter/other things to work properly. Are there other advantages to going through all the rigamarole of loading 135 film onto 120 (or, in my case, 220) paper that I haven't grasped so that I should be doing it?

I've shot a few rolls of 135 in my RZ67 and have had few/no problems with it. So yes, if anyone can explain what it is I'm missing by *not* rolling my 135 film onto 120 backing paper, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks!

Hello -- In my case, at least, I'm using a 1940s box camera where the red window allows you to see the numbers printed on the backing paper to advance properly (-ish).

 

[MattKing]

Hmmm, why would you *need* to roll 135 film onto backing paper?

A couple of more advantages, even if not needs:
1) better film flatness;
2) really good anti-halation and less concern with flare;
3) the film feed systems work better with 120 spools than with the alternatives; and
the most important of all:
4) you don't have to worry about rewinding the 135 film into the cassette, with a camera that isn't equipped to do so.

 

[RoboRepublic]

A couple of more advantages, even if not needs:
1) better film flatness;
2) really good anti-halation and less concern with flare;
3) the film feed systems work better with 120 spools than with the alternatives; and
the most important of all:
4) you don't have to worry about rewinding the 135 film into the cassette, with a camera that isn't equipped to do so.

#4 is the gold I'm after #2 is a close second.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've had pretty good results shooting 35mm in a 6x9 folder with just a pair of plastic adapters (3D printed by someone who sold them on eBay). Guess-winding leads to excessive spacing, but it's not like you were going to depend on automatic scanning at the local Noritsu machine for this film.

That said, with some very minor modifications, an RB67 or RZ67 can give perfect spacing and with a leader added to the film (and a 220 back) you can get up to around 20 frames on a 36 exposure roll. My next thing to think about is adding a film cutter to the 220 back for my RB67 to allow easy in-field film changes. Take up into an empty cassette, cut film when it stops advancing, wind on into the cassette, and reload, either with previously set up two-cassette loads or by taping the film to the cut stub in the previous cassette.

 

[rulnacco]

Thanks for the responses! I had anticipated most of those, and particularly #4 would definitely be an advantage--as I have only one 220 back, I can shoot only one roll of film per outing, then I have to take the back into a darkroom or put it into a changing bag to unload the film safely. #3 hasn't been a problem for me, as the RZ67 back works really well with the adapters that plug into the ends of the 135 cassette--and I just use a regular 120 takeup spool anyway. I'm not entirely convinced--at least with my own camera and method of use--of the benefits of #1 and #2. I'm shooting in a 220 back, and of course 220 film *doesn't* have paper except at the ends. However, obviously other cameras may not work in the same way and those may indeed be advantages with them. Sounds like I'm okay to keep on shooting the way I am.

A couple of nice things for me--and it will be until people notice this and cause prices to rise--is that 220 backs for most cameras are very cheap, as most folks regard them as pretty useless (I do have quite a bit of 220 film in the freezer, which is why I bought one). I was able to pick up a 220 back for my RZ67 for less than $30, and it will easily accommodate a 36-exposure roll of 135 film before the film counter locks up the back, so by using my trick of fooling the camera and back into shooting before the back reaches 1 on the frame counter, I can pretty easily shoot an entire roll of 36-exposure film and use nearly *all* of it!

 

[rulnacco]

Donald, your idea, if it could be executed, would be great. I just use a regular 120 take up spool and wait until I get home to unload the film. I *have* seen people online leaving a stub of film in a 135 cassette, and taping it to the leader of the new roll, so that they can use that to "rewind" the film into a cassette (on the take up side) as they shoot; obviously, unless you then unloaded the film in a darkroom/changing bag you'd still lose the last shot on the roll and maybe part of the penultimate shot as well, whereas your film-cutter inside the back would prevent that from happening. And if it could be placed in exactly the right spot, it would leave the stub of film sticking out of the cassette you just shot to become the take up cassette for the next roll.

Have you any ideas how you could accomplish this?

 

[Rowreidr]

#4 is the reason I do the cassette to cassette, plus I found it much easier to load multiple, back to back, in a darkbag. I make a lot of short rolls using my bulk roller. 13 clicks gives me 3 frame rolls for my 6 x 12, when I am using my special handmade one of a kind acrylic, matte scotch tape, with sharpie to mask out the 135 frame, focusing insert. #1, depends also on which way your film curves. If its along the long axis, and especially with the wider formats, its going to curve. #2, especially because the film curve. #3, just depends on your system.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Have you any ideas how you could accomplish this?

Obviously, it would require permanent modification of the back, but as you note, 220 is gone and won't be back, so I'm not very concerned about that. I know it can be done -- Exakta Varex cameras had a film cutter built into the back.

I'm not sure whether I can light seal a cutter in the shell door, or if I'll have to run a rod into the bottom of the insert, but I'm pretty sure I can run the blade just short of the first turn-around roller (the one before the one that drives the counter) and leave a useful stub on the cassette. It's a fairly major undertaking, and probably only possible/practical because of 3D printing, which will allow me to make a part cheaply, and if it doesn't work or fit just right, make another one, still cheaply.

 

[Cholentpot]

I've been trimming backing paper to make a lead to roll 35mm through 120 cameras that don't need backing paper. When rolling with paper I've always run into issues centering the film. I just never manage to get it.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I bought a hundred feet of cine leader stock (reusable, to a point, so it's probably a lifetime supply) -- not sure how much I can get into a cassette along with a full 36 roll, but if I'm to emulate 120 for start marks I'd need about fourteen inches of leader. I could probably cut that to ten inches, given the amount of leader that normally gets exposed loading a 35mm camera.

 

[abruzzi]

I haven't actually measured, but the key length is the distance from the start arrow to the beginning of the film. With your leader, you would need to mark your own start arrow at a point the same distance from the start of that actual film. OTOH, the distance from the beginning of the leader to the start arrow you may be able to shorten. All you need is enough to feed through the works, then have enough to fully catch on the takeup spool. I've never used a RB or RZ, but on my GS-1 (wouldn't use the ETRSi because it runs the film vertically) there is a noticable amount of winding before the the arrow appears. That amount of distance will vary based on the film path. My P67 would probably require shorter leader than the GS-1 because of the straight path.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Exactly, @abruzzi -- but my experience with the RB67 backs is that there's little to spare between "caught on the takeup spool" and the start arrow at the mark, at least with 120 film. 220 is supposed to be different backing (never used a roll), but on 120 there's 14 inches from start arrow to film start, at least on the Fomapan/.EDU Ultra I measured. I've got a dummy roll I made up with cut backing in place of the film (thickness is about the same with the Fomapan); I'll verify that advance distance with the actual 220 back before I start cutting leader strips.