Saving an embarrassing mistake..

Huss · Aug 24, 2020

I was set to shoot a roll of Tri-X 220, but did not want to use my Hasselblad H1 or Fuji GW690 as I wanted to carry around something much smaller. I thought that I could use my Mockba 5 because it does not use a frame counter, but the red window hatch to read the exposures off the backing paper.
You can see where this is headed...

Yup.. brain fart and forgot that 220 does not have backing paper! I realized this the moment I started wondering when the dots on the paper would appear..
I closed the window, hoping that maybe I only messed up one or two exposures, took the film out in the dark and rolled it back onto the original spool which didn't take long as most of it was still on it.
Will have to use it on the H1 or Fuji after all!

Donald Qualls · Aug 24, 2020

Yep...

You could probably get away with 220 (with a trimmed spool) in a Kodak Reflex II. It's got a friction-roller frame counter (i.e. length counter) that can be manually reset. It normally uses the Frame 1 mark on the backing before setting the counter, but you could set the start arrows, wind two frames, reset the counter to 1, then when it gets to 12 reset to 1 again, and when it gets to 12 the second time (up to you how to remember which twelve you're on) set it to 11 (because you skipped one frame on the counter resetting to 1). I thought about that all the time I've owned this model camera. Back in the early 1970s, you could still buy 220 but I didn't know about spool trimming (and most 120 still came on steel spools then) or respooling. Now, you can't get it...

wiltw · Aug 24, 2020

But red filter on the back is only protective to ORTHOCHROMATIC film. Your Tri-X is sensitive to all colors, it is 'panchromatic'.
So anything which was wound past the red frame indicator window, if you were even in ordinary room light, would have fogging, impeded only by an apparent opacity of a few layers of film on the roll.

Paul Howell · Aug 24, 2020

I thought 220 film was out of production.

neilt3 · Aug 24, 2020

Paul Howell said:
I thought 220 film was out of production.

It is .
I'm down to about my last twenty rolls .

wiltw · Aug 24, 2020

Paul Howell said:
I thought 220 film was out of production.

220 B&W from Kodak stopped in 2015.

Huss · Aug 24, 2020

wiltw said:
But red filter on the back is only protective to ORTHOCHROMATIC film. Your Tri-X is sensitive to all colors, it is 'panchromatic'.
So anything which was wound past the red frame indicator window, if you were even in ordinary room light, would have fogging, impeded only by an apparent opacity of a few layers of film on the roll.

Agreed. But anything that wasn't wound past the red window should be ok... hopefully.
I stopped winding the moment I noticed the backing paper was no longer there!

wiltw · Aug 24, 2020

Huss said:
Agreed. But anything that wasn't wound past the red window should be ok... hopefully.
I stopped winding the moment I noticed the backing paper was no longer there!

Unless the first layer has insufficient opacity to stop the light from the window at a single layer of film!

I don't have any Tri X around, but I do have a sacrificial roll of Tmax 100 that I keep around. I just measured it on a light table with a spotmeter, and a single layer of Tmax 100 attentuates light by -4.6EV. With ISO 400 I suspect that damage is NOT limited to a single layer of film!

Huss · Aug 24, 2020

wiltw said:
Unless the first layer has insufficient opacity to stop the light from the window at a single layer of film!

I don't have any Tri X around, but I do have a sacrificial roll of Tmax 100 that I keep around. I just measured it on a light table with a spotmeter, and a single layer of Tmax 100 attentuates light by -4.6EV. With ISO 400 I suspect that damage is NOT limited to a single layer of film!

But only a single layer of film passed by the window.

Donald Qualls · Aug 25, 2020

wiltw said:
Unless the first layer has insufficient opacity to stop the light from the window at a single layer of film!

With the location of a 6x9 ruby window, the film still on the supply spool is protected by the same situation that prevents "around the corner" fogging during exposure: a bend in the film at the first guide roller and the opaque edge frame of the film gate. Any film that got cranked under the red window will be fogged, at least in a streak where the window is, but the spool should be fine.

For those who might be wondering about my earlier post concerning the Kodak Reflex II and 220, the red window on that camera has a spring-loaded shutter and if you know where to start and how many frames to advance before resetting the counter, it need never be opened.

Huss · Sep 19, 2020

Developed my film. No issues, didn't even lose a shot. The light leak (big black blob!) was on the emulsion, but only before the first frame. Phew!

Donald Qualls · Sep 19, 2020

Nice escape!

I completely understand the economics behind 220 being gone -- but I do occasionally miss it, even though I've never used it. Maybe I need to give the shutter in my Bantam RF a little TLC and make up a few rolls of "228" -- 828 with just the leader and tail paper, and bare, unperfed 35mm film between. Ought to be able to put close to 36 exposures (at 28x40 mm) on the spool...

Prest_400 · Sep 19, 2020

Glad you were able to salvage the roll. A comparable screw up I once did was to load up an already exposed 120 roll (keep them separate!) in my GW690. A big EXPOSED was not the usual start arrow!

I only keep 5 rolls of 220 160NS I purchased in Japan 4 years ago, always frozen, awaiting the occasion to be shot... And I forgot I keep them, it was to be used on some trip. TBH 220 is a good idea when travelling with larger formats 6x7+.

eli griggs · Sep 20, 2020

By now I expect you have read the good news that Shanghai is introducing their GP3 400 film in 220, so it might be that you'll want to note the next roll of 120 that camera or other windowed cameras, how many actual turns on average get you to your first frame, and if your camera does no have an auto-stop, how many turns on average getting to the next frame you need to allow.

IMO.
https://www.facebook.com/pierre506/posts/10215891422192313

Prest_400 · Sep 20, 2020

eli griggs said:
By now I expect you have read the good news that Shanghai is introducing their GP3 400 film in 220, so it might be that you'll want to note the next roll of 120 that camera or other windowed cameras, how many actual turns on average get you to your first frame, and if your camera does no have an auto-stop, how many turns on average getting to the next frame you need to allow.

IMO.
https://www.facebook.com/pierre506/posts/10215891422192313

I heard rumors which by now date a few years back that Shanghai planned to introduce 220. Now this is interesting, and a 400 film? They didn't have a 400 film in their roster. Methinks that the rumor of "german partner"(Orwo?) for the 35mm manufacturing (or just spooling) could have something to do with this 400.

eli griggs · Sep 20, 2020

Prest_400 said:
I heard rumors which by now date a few years back that Shanghai planned to introduce 220. Now this is interesting, and a 400 film? They didn't have a 400 film in their roster. Methinks that the rumor of "german partner"(Orwo?) for the 35mm manufacturing (or just spooling) could have something to do with this 400.

I'm waiting to see some real reviews on this film and format, plus trustworthy vendors that are putting reasonable pricing and shipping charges out there.

I've seen some very nice pics in the 100 iso stuff, in 120 format/135, but until Photorio.com members start adding to the conversation and reviews, I'll most likely just make a small purchase and try it on my own.

Saving an embarrassing mistake..

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency