Shanghai GP3 220 film is possibly too long for my old Nebro (Not Paterson after all) tank/reel

[Sirius Glass]

I no longer photo-flo on the loaded reels; I mix up a tray 5x7" distilled water and see-saw the 220 through it

It is difficult to get rid of residual photo-flo on reels

BTW the 70mm stock is -even more fun- to get to load. I talking about modified Paterson reels widened to fit 70mm stock

Estate purchase Paterson System 4 by Nokton48, on Flickr

My Stash of 220 Film by Nokton48, on Flickr

I agree. I remove my film from the reels and put it in a separate container with the PhotoFlo solution.

 

[Digital Wendy]

I have learned a LOT here and I'm hugely grateful for all your input and advice.

1) I have now tried to feed this same film into the reel after development and in the light. It is amazing that I got as much film as I did into that reel! There is just too much friction in these old reels for this long, slightly softer film.
(Had not realised that my tanks and reels were quite that old - they are black bakelite and the larger one is a bit gritty [blush]. Been using it forever without giving it a thought)
2) Rounding the leading film corners DOES make a big difference and I shall add that to all future workflows.
3) Keeping photoflo out of tanks is a good tip. That one will be added to my list too.
4)Have now measured and this particular 'edition' of Shanghai 220 film is 159cm long. I have to assume that is standard . . .
5) No numbers or film marks as mentioned by @Maris above. Kinda works for me as I expose the full width of the film, but I'm happy with film markings too. (Youngster says it's cool to see that the images came from film!)
6) Have given both tanks a very thorough toothbrush scrub but they are still too gritty to take this film easily

At a first look the negatives look OK. I may need to slow my exposures even further, but that's do-able.
Bigger question is whether I want to buy a new tank and reel simply to use this film. I'm very used to my old tanks with the top twirler and side spouts. Nice and easy by the kitchen sink.
Lots to think about, as always.

Thank you all!

 

[Don_ih]

Have given both tanks a very thorough toothbrush scrub but they are still too gritty to take this film easily

You can go buy some 600-grit sandpaper, tear it into strips that you fold over and run through the grooves of the spiral to cut down any grittiness. The surface of your reels have probably started to break down a bit, from getting wet and drying over and over and over. The sandpaper will polish it.

 

[Donald Qualls]

buy a new tank and reel simply to use this film.

Assuming that's a Paterson System 4 or Super System 4 compatible, you could just buy a reel from Freestyle. The tank won't matter; it's the spiral plates where the problem lies.

And for whatever it's worth, I always Photo-Flo my film in the tank, on the reels -- but I also go over each plate with a toothbrush under warm running water after unloading the film, before setting it to dry, so there's never surfactant residue on the reel plates after drying. Even with my hard water, this hasn't caused any noticeable issues yet.

 

[Digital Wendy]

Assuming that's a Paterson System 4 or Super System 4 compatible, you could just buy a reel from Freestyle. The tank won't matter; it's the spiral plates where the problem lies.

And for whatever it's worth, I always Photo-Flo my film in the tank, on the reels -- but I also go over each plate with a toothbrush under warm running water after unloading the film, before setting it to dry, so there's never surfactant residue on the reel plates after drying. Even with my hard water, this hasn't caused any noticeable issues yet.

Umm - the problem arose when you first said 'most modern tanks'.
I tend to see anything younger than me as 'modern' but after some careful thought this one may date from the mid 1950's! Fear it may not be compatible with anything.

 

[Digital Wendy]

You can go buy some 600-grit sandpaper, tear it into strips that you fold over and run through the grooves of the spiral to cut down any grittiness. The surface of your reels have probably started to break down a bit, from getting wet and drying over and over and over. The sandpaper will polish it.

This is something I can try easily. I have jewellers polishing paper that may work well on ancient bakelite.
Will report back . . .

 

[MattKing]

Umm - the problem arose when you first said 'most modern tanks'.
I tend to see anything younger than me as 'modern' but after some careful thought this one may date from the mid 1950's! Fear it may not be compatible with anything.

Check here and tell us what you have:
https://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Paterson/Developing_Tanks.html

 

[Digital Wendy]

Check here and tell us what you have:
https://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Paterson/Developing_Tanks.html

Now I'm embarrased.
Have taken it apart for a thorough scrub and find I truly have not even been taking enough notice of it to get the brand right. Been using it without a second thought - one of those things that 'just works'.
It's a battered Johnson/Nebro 'Universal' film tank. Like this picture, but without the shine. Like the Paterson 'Major'. Has the nice spring in the bottom and side spout is handy.

Science museum says it's 1959 at the latest .
Perhaps it's time to send it into retirement as a plant pot. Think I've thrown the box away already (could no longer stand the smell ).
The reel is 92mm wide so I don't think a new Paterson reel will fit.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The reel is 92mm wide so I don't think a new Paterson will fit.

Not only is a modern Paterson reel bigger, I think the core is a different diameter, too.

You can usually find Paterson "2-reel" tanks on eBay for hardly anything -- just make sure the photos include that core piece; it's part of the light trap. Or you can get a new one (which won't include a reel) for twenty bucks or so from the usual vendors. The "2-reel" is misleading; it's big enough for two reels set to 35 mm spacing, which just nicely fits one reel set for 120/220. You need a "3-reel" to develop with two 120 reels at once.

Different people have different opinions about whether the System 4 (still available as Universal, IIRC) or latest Super System 4 (with larger diameter "Tupperware" style inversion cap) is better; I have 1, 2, and 3-reel sizes of the "Super" and I love them. All use the same reels, but the cores don't interchange (different heights) between System 4 and Super System 4. They won't do 116, but they will do 127 and can be fairly easily modified to handle 16 mm/110.

 

[Digital Wendy]

Not only is a modern Paterson reel bigger, I think the core is a different diameter, too.

You can usually find Paterson "2-reel" tanks on eBay for hardly anything -- just make sure the photos include that core piece; it's part of the light trap. Or you can get a new one (which won't include a reel) for twenty bucks or so from the usual vendors. The "2-reel" is misleading; it's big enough for two reels set to 35 mm spacing, which just nicely fits one reel set for 120/220. You need a "3-reel" to develop with two 120 reels at once.

Different people have different opinions about whether the System 4 (still available as Universal, IIRC) or latest Super System 4 (with larger diameter "Tupperware" style inversion cap) is better; I have 1, 2, and 3-reel sizes of the "Super" and I love them. All use the same reels, but the cores don't interchange (different heights) between System 4 and Super System 4. They won't do 116, but they will do 127 and can be fairly easily modified to handle 16 mm/110.

Thank you . Time for some shopping.

 

[Bayliss]

I agree. I remove my film from the reels and put it in a separate container with the PhotoFlo solution.

That's interesting - what's the issue with putting wetting-agent in the processing tank?

 

[Don_ih]

That's interesting - what's the issue with putting wetting-agent in the processing tank?

Many people find it hard to fully rinse off the reels - that it leaves the reels sticky.

 

[Bayliss]

Many people find it hard to fully rinse off the reels - that it leaves the reels sticky.

Ah I see - I've never noticed that myself but it is possible I don't use enough, despite the wetting-agent I do still get the occasional water spot

 

[MattKing]

Perhaps it's time to send it into retirement as a plant pot.

If it is otherwise working well for you for other sizes of film, why?
For plastic reels, I recommend the current Paterson Super System 4 tanks with the AP/Samigon/Arista Premium compatible reels - the ones with the wider flanges.

 

[eli griggs]

For Photoflo residue, try a final soak of the reels with some Everclear white liquor, 90 - 95% in the last water rinse, it won't take much and it's free of Isopropyl or denatured additives, so in fact, safe.

An ounce in a three or four reel tank will do a number of rolls and you might want to save it for future use, the alcohol will kill nasties before they get a grip on your rinse bath.

IMO.

 

[Roger Cole]

A number of “rolls?” Are you saying to use the booze to clean the reels, or as a final film rinse to avoid wetting agent?

 

[Digital Wendy]

If it is otherwise working well for you for other sizes of film, why?
For plastic reels, I recommend the current Paterson Super System 4 tanks with the AP/Samigon/Arista Premium compatible reels - the ones with the wider flanges.

Thank you!

 

[pentaxuser]

So have we established that the reel is OK to accept the new Shanghai 220 film's length and that the problem lies in the need to get rid of the OP's current reels stickiness?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

So have we established that the reel is OK to accept the new Shanghai 220 film's length and that the problem lies in the need to get rid of the OP's current reels stickiness?

Thanks

pentaxuser

No - the 60 year old and relatively unusual, non-Paterson reel is probably not designed for film as long as 220.

 

[Maris]

Here's what the new Shanghai GP# 220 format packaging includes:

 

[Roger Cole]

Serious slightly related question: I see some other threads mentioning it too. Is the fascination with this stuff simply that it is, as far as I know, the only film available today in 220? I have a few rolls of frozen Astia in 220 that I'm looking forward to shooting and finding out if keeping them in the freezer all this time has kept them looking as good as I know Astia looked, but I'm just not particularly motivated to shoot a different film just to get more shots. I do recall some years ago reading that this film was nearly identical to old, classic Plus-X and if that were true THAT would get me very interested. I really liked Plus-X. FP4+ has been my replacement but I'd prefer Plus-X. But what Maris said about the true film speed would seem to mean that it's not similar at all.

Don't get me wrong; I understand that for some people having twice as many shots on a roll could be a real advantage. It just isn't for the way I shoot.

 

[Digital Wendy]

Don't get me wrong; I understand that for some people having twice as many shots on a roll could be a real advantage. It just isn't for the way I shoot.

Twice as many shots on a roll IS a real advantage to me. I'm using it in a fiddly Graflex '51' roll film holder and 220 might give me 15 shots per load/roll.

 

[AgX]

I have learned a LOT here and I'm hugely grateful for all your input and advice.


3) Keeping photoflo out of tanks is a good tip. That one will be added to my list too.

We had discussions whether such apart bath makes sense on the alleged "wetting-agent build-up".
In this respect it makes no sense to me.

However, having the film fall out of the reel into a wetting-agent bath is a alternative way of getting the film off the reel for hanging.

 

[dynachrome]

Many years ago I had a frustrating experience trying to load a roll of 220 HP-5 (not HP-5+) into a Peterson reel. If my memory is correct on this, the film base of 220 HP-5 was even thinner than that of 220 TXP or 220 PXP. I finally gave up. I took out the reel, wound the film into a roll, took out the spool and leader and tail, made sure the center column was in place and closed the tank with the film inside. The next day I bought a Brooks stainless steel narrow spaced 220 reel. It was much easier. I developed the film in a 16 oz. stainless steel tank and tge film looked good. Improper loading of HP-5 220 could result in bends which caused white half moon shaped marks.

Years later I found a stainless steel Nikor wide spaced tank and reel set for 220. This was much easier to load than the narrow spaced Brooks reel. More solution is required but that didn't bother me. I now have more of the wide spaced sets from Nikor and Kindermann. I have three 220 rolls of the GP-3 film to try out. I will not be using any of my Paterson reels to develop them. I also have four rolls of the film on 120 size to experiment with. Two days ago I received seven stainless steel reels form an eBay seller. They are all in good condition. They were $2 each: 3 wide spaced 220 reels, one narrow spaced 220 reel and three 120 reels. The stuff is out there.

 

[dynachrome]

the film.