The Acid Test: First 'serious' roll of 120 through the ol' Kodak 3A Camera.

480sparky · Apr 23, 2015

OK, so my 122-to-120 conversion of my ol' Kodak 3A Folding Pocket Camera is complete. Last thing to do was to verify the focus scale next to the rail was accurate. It was WAY off. So I corrected it by putting some wax paper in the film gate and opening the shutter to focus on a subject exactly 25' away, with the camera's focus scale set to 25'.

After I got that done, the sun broke out and it was a perfect day to go try it out. Just hung the film up to dry.

Framing is off, but that can be corrected. Once I figure out how many turns of the advance knob per frame, I should be able to squeeze 9 frames of 6x7 out of a roll of 120. Now to let it dry and check for focus & sharpness.

Dan Quan · Apr 23, 2015

Personally, I am excited for you. I love the excitement of conquering a challenge and reaping previously unknown personal artistic benefits. In fact, I was going to say AWESOME! and I AM SO STOKED FOR YOU! but it did not seem appropriate for a 53yo man.

oh fuck it!

RIGHT ON! WAY TO GO! I cant wait to see that art!

480sparky · Apr 23, 2015

Hatchetman · Apr 23, 2015

It doesn't have a little window for the spacing?

480sparky · Apr 23, 2015

Hatchetman said:
It doesn't have a little window for the spacing?

They haven't made 122 film since 1971. I've adapted this to take 120.

NedL · Apr 23, 2015

Good for you! That's a fun camera. I wish the full 122 size would fit in my enlarger.

480sparky · Apr 23, 2015

NedL said:
Good for you! That's a fun camera. I wish the full 122 size would fit in my enlarger.

I can sneak it into my Beseler 45, but I lost just a bit of the long dimension. I scored a 4x5 carrier with glass for about $35 off ebay a few months back. However, for printing these shots, I made a 6x7cm gate so I can use my usual 6x7 carrier. What I'd really love to do is find a way to actually make my own, full-size 122 film rolls so I can shoot 'full frame'.

3 more:

NedL · Apr 23, 2015

I usually cut a piece of 5x7 paper down to 3-3/4x7 and just lay it over the film gate. I also made a holder that takes a piece of 4x5 film cut down to 3-3/4x5, which is not quite the full 5-1/2 inches of a 122 frame. The negative look great but I can't enlarge them in my Beseler 23 without losing the corners. I think Ilford sells 90mm film in their annual "special run".... If I had a bigger enlarger, I'd probably be trying to do that.

480sparky · Apr 23, 2015

They have, but 90mm isn't in this year's offering. I'd jump on some too. I have a friend in the printing industry that might be able to print up some paper backing.

NedL · Apr 23, 2015

Well if you do manage to get some, I think I've got 1 or 2 original 122 spools around here somewhere. If/when you need them, PM me and I'll send them to you.

Hatchetman · Apr 23, 2015

I'm not comprehending. So the little red window is in the wrong spot relative to the film numbers?

480sparky · Apr 23, 2015

Hatchetman said:
I'm not comprehending. So the little red window is in the wrong spot relative to the film numbers?

Pretty much. 122 film had the numbers printed not only in a different line, but a different spacing as well. 120 film is marked for 6x4.5, 6x6 and 6x7cm frames. 122 film was for 3¼ x 5½" negs only.

Running 120 film through with adapters puts the edge of 120 film right at the little window, so you'd end up with the edge of the film fogged up.

It is possible to run 120 film through towards that side of the camera, and take 6x13.3cm images at frames 1, 3, 5 and 7..... but that's not a standard neg size and printing becomes a problem.

Meyer Trioplan · Apr 24, 2015

I'm essentially doing a similar test, but electing to use the whole width of the 122 frame to get 6x13+ pseudo-panoramics. Only done one roll thus far and it shows some promise, but want to see how this test roll of Velvia 50 comes back. The tricky part on my 3A is adapting to the unconventional aperture scale, as it shows 4-8-16-32-64 on the RR, which seems to really translate to 8-11-16-22-32 in real terms.

Dan Quan · Apr 24, 2015

480sparky said:
I can sneak it into my Beseler 45, but I lost just a bit of the long dimension. I scored a 4x5 carrier with glass for about $35 off ebay a few months back. However, for printing these shots, I made a 6x7cm gate so I can use my usual 6x7 carrier. What I'd really love to do is find a way to actually make my own, full-size 122 film rolls so I can shoot 'full frame'.

So far this is my fave!

480sparky said:
Pretty much. 122 film had the numbers printed not only in a different line, but a different spacing as well. 120 film is marked for 6x4.5, 6x6 and 6x7cm frames. 122 film was for 3¼ x 5½" negs only.

Running 120 film through with adapters puts the edge of 120 film right at the little window, so you'd end up with the edge of the film fogged up.

It is possible to run 120 film through towards that side of the camera, and take 6x13.3cm images at frames 1, 3, 5 and 7..... but that's not a standard neg size and printing becomes a problem.

Is it possible to make a "custom" neg holder? Maybe with 2 pieces of glass for flatness and some aluminum duct tape for masking and heat resistance? Or something else if it seems better...

edit: sorry, I overlooked that you already have a 4x5 carrier.

480sparky · Apr 24, 2015

Dan Quan said:
.........Is it possible to make a "custom" neg holder? .........

It is... but my enlarger only goes up to 4x5" This camera can produce negs 5½" long, so I could only print up to 5" of it.

I suppose one could make a carrier for an enlarger that can handle larger negs, though.

MattKing · Apr 25, 2015

480sparky said:
It is... but my enlarger only goes up to 4x5" This camera can produce negs 5½" long, so I could only print up to 5" of it.

I suppose one could make a carrier for an enlarger that can handle larger negs, though.

You could get a little bit more out of the long dimension of the negative if you position it diagonally across a 4x5 glass carrier.

GregW · Apr 25, 2015

You mention earlier that 90mm isn't in this years ULF run at Ilford. It is tho. In FP4.
nice photos btw. Now about that backing paper ? : )
greg

480sparky · Apr 25, 2015

MattKing said:
You could get a little bit more out of the long dimension of the negative if you position it diagonally across a 4x5 glass carrier.

Then I'd clip the corners. Severely. As in WAY too much.

480sparky · Apr 25, 2015

GregW said:
You mention earlier that 90mm isn't in this years ULF run at Ilford. It is tho. In FP4.
nice photos btw. Now about that backing paper ? : )
greg

Weird. It's not listed through Ilford.

GregW · Apr 26, 2015

It does, I missed it the first time i looked too, 2nd to last item in the FP4 list 9cm x 50ft Item nº1164756. http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2015415151928873.pdf

480sparky · Apr 26, 2015

Boy..... they sure hid that well. I just may pony up for a few rolls.

studiocarter · Apr 27, 2015

I had cut a sheet of glass that fit exactly between the wooden long side rails and the metal rollers on the short ends. The glass was ground and the focus was adjusted. The back of the camera goes on and off without breaking the glass. Now I realize emulsion can be spread on clear glass to make new film that is full sized. The glass is thinner than standard window glass in the USA.

NedL · Apr 28, 2015

studiocarter said:
I had cut a sheet of glass that fit exactly between the wooden long side rails and the metal rollers on the short ends. The glass was ground and the focus was adjusted. The back of the camera goes on and off without breaking the glass. Now I realize emulsion can be spread on clear glass to make new film that is full sized. The glass is thinner than standard window glass in the USA.

That's a good idea. I've been using mine lately to make calotypes, mostly to test my process without wasting too much material, getting ready to make larger ones. I cut the paper the same way: between the two wooden rails, but not quite to the rollers. Twice it has slipped down over one of the rails, though I've never had that happen with a photopaper negative which is a bit thicker. Thin glass sounds like a great idea. Also, the 122 size is big enough so contact prints are nice.

gone · Apr 28, 2015

Those shots are really good. Nothing wrong w/ that lens! Out of curiosity, what is the film and developer? Thanks, Steve.

480sparky · Apr 28, 2015

momus said:
Those shots are really good. Nothing wrong w/ that lens! Out of curiosity, what is the film and developer? Thanks, Steve.

Ilford PanF+ and DDX.

The Acid Test: First 'serious' roll of 120 through the ol' Kodak 3A Camera.

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency