 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / February 2004120 developing tank
Ok, dumb question: I have a Nikor developing tank I use for processing a single 120 roll. The tank requires 1 liter of fluid. Do I really have a 220 reel and tank? > Ok, dumb question: > > I have a Nikor developing tank I use for processing a single 120 roll. The > tank requires 1 liter of fluid. > > Do I really have a 220 reel and tank? Probably. When you load 120 film, is there a lot of the reel unused? More likely you have a tank that is able to hold two reels, one on top of the other. Charles Portland OR > Probably. When you load 120 film, is there a lot of the reel unused? It takes one reel, and yes, a good portion of the reel is unused. I must have a 220 reel then... > > Probably. When you load 120 film, is there a lot of the reel unused? > > It takes one reel, and yes, a good portion of the reel is unused. I must > have a 220 reel then... I have one of those. If you don't like using it, sell it on e-bay. I've been offered some serious bucks for mine because loading the squeezed down, tightly rolled 220 reels made to fit a standard tank can be a nightmare. But do it soon. 220 B&W is on its way out. :) Just my luck. I do find it difficult to load 120 film...would a smaller reel be any easier? The other downside is that I waste .5 liters of developer each time... > I have one of those. If you don't like using it, sell it on e-bay. I've been > offered some serious bucks for mine because loading the squeezed down, > tightly rolled 220 reels made to fit a standard tank can be a nightmare. But > do it soon. 220 B&W is on its way out. :) > Just my luck. I do find it difficult to load 120 film...would a smaller > reel be any easier? The other downside is that I waste .5 liters of > developer each time... I don't know the tank you mentioned, but every tank I've seen holds the reel on it's side, so you won't save any chemistry (unless you use higher dilutions) as you need to put enough liquid in to cover the reel, and that won't change for a 120 or 220 film. Nige. > > Just my luck. I do find it difficult to load 120 film...would a smaller > > reel be any easier? The other downside is that I waste .5 liters of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Nige. If this is the tank I think it is its quite a bit larger in diameter than the standard Nikor SS tank. It has a large diameter reel for 220 film, I think it may also take a reel for 70mm film. They are not very common but I did see one for sale at the Buena Park sale a few weeks ago. This is not ideal for 12O because of the need for double the amount of solution.  Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com ... It has a large >diameter reel for 220 film, I think it may also take a reel >for 70mm film. They are not very common but I did see one >for sale at the Buena Park sale a few weeks ago. > This is not ideal for 12O because of the need for double >the amount of solution. \ feb504 from Lloyd Erlick, The ususal load of 70 mm film is fifteen feet long, most often contained in a 70 mm film cassette that looks just like a magnified 35 mm cassette. Would that fifteen feet of film fit on a spiral made the same diameter as a 220 spiral? I have three 70 mm developing reels made by Hewes. They are magnificent specimens, and smooth to load and unload, but they are a *lot* wider than any 220 reel I've seen. However, a 70 mm spiral made to fit a 220 tank would be a wonderful thing. Now is certainly the time to bring one to market, what with the burgeoning popularity of 70mm film... I actually do have a 70 mm developing reel that fits a regular 120/220 tank. It came with my adjustable JOBO hand inversion daylight tank, which I bought new in 1968. The styrene plastic spiral is adjustable to hold 127, 35mm, 120-220, and 70 mm (!). However, it will accommodate only five feet of film, so it has a severe limitation for 70mm. regards, --le _______________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, 2219 Gerrard Street East, unit #1, Toronto M4E 2C8 Canada. --- voice 416-686-0326 lloyd@the-wire.com http://www.heylloyd.com _______________________________________ > However, a 70 mm spiral made to fit a 220 tank would be a wonderful > thing. Now is certainly the time to bring one to market, what with the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > accommodate only five feet of film, so it has a severe limitation for > 70mm. The only new 70mm reels I know of are designed for things like Xray film. Or maybe it's something else they aren't from a photographic supplier. The upside is they are fairly cheap [Less then $10 US] the downside is since they aren't from a photographic supplier they don't fit any normal light tight tanks. That leads to either making your own tanks or working in the dark. Personally I picked up a couple of tanks designed for up to 116/616 film. They cost $1 each and might have never been used. I wouldn't dare claim the up to the standard of the best reels out there but I'm sure when I get around to actually using them they will be fine. It's a shame that Jobo doesn't sell thier 70mm reels anymore. Even if they only held 5 feet it would have been a lot less hassle for me. Nick OK, let's straighten this out. First, is the tank you are referring to 4 1/2" in diameter? And, is it 3 1/2" tall [without the top]? If so, it holds a 220 reel. BUT, it will also hold other reels designed for it - namely, 35mm "long roll" reels [also called 6' reels]. Nikor made tanks for the larger 35mm reels in 2 sizes. One [yours] holds 2 of those reels. They also made one for just one reel - it is only 1 7/8" tall [still 4 1/2" diameter.] I like and use these tanks and reels for 35mm processing since the reels provide more separation between the windings and hold extra solution for high dilution developer mixes. Honeywell/Nikor made 220 reels in two sizes, one to fit the tank you have, with more than adequate spacing between the windings, and one to fit regular 120 tanks [3 3/8" diameter, 3 1/4" high, again measured w/o the top on]. Those later reels should be avoided because of the restricted chemistry volume. Nikor also made "short roll" reels for 70mm, primarily designed for clip tests or short photo sessions. Those reels are designed only for regular 120 tanks. For full 70 exp. 70mm film processing, the reel and tank are much larger than those cited above. So, for your 120 single reel processing with SS tanks, you want a tank 3 1/2" tall and 3 3/8" wide. The proper reel for that tank is 3 1/4" wide. Hope that clears up THAT question. I agree the 220 tanks are not selling well these days [for 220 use] but might also be sold for "long roll" 35mm work. So, you have two proposed uses for your tank to add to your sales/trade proposal. > > However, a 70 mm spiral made to fit a 220 tank would be a wonderful > > thing. Now is certainly the time to bring one to market, what with the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Nick > The other downside is that I waste .5 liters of > developer each time... You waste as much as I've ever put in my one liter tank. Dan A smaller reel will be worse yet... It may be that you are using excessive tension while rolling... That will always cause a problem.. Also, squeezing the sides of the film to narrow it will cause problems... The real (reel:) key is having the film slide between your thumb and forefinger which are resting gently on the rim of the reel to position the film square to the reel and at the correct angle and only pull just enough to keep the film from twisting as it winds, etc... One extra ounce of tension beyond that, and it all goes off into the weeds... Waste a roll of film to use for practice while you waste time in front of the boob tube... By the end of another wasted evening you should be able to whip that film into the reel while standing on your head.. cheers ... denny "Mike" <nomail@foo.com> wrote in message > Just my luck. I do find it difficult to load 120 film > A smaller reel will be worse yet... It may be that you are using excessive > tension while rolling... That will always cause a problem.. Also, squeezing > the sides of the film to narrow it will cause problems... If you can load 220 plus-x (how thin that stuff is!) on a 220 reel that fits into a Nikkor 120 can, then you gotta be some kind of brain surgeon. Maybe I've been using my hands as heavy equipment tools for too long, but I can't do it. Nope, no can do... Don't even want to try... I was discussing <I thought> 120 film onto a 120 reel... denny > > A smaller reel will be worse yet... It may be that you are using excessive > > tension while rolling... That will always cause a problem.. Also, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I've been using my hands as heavy equipment tools for too long, but I can't > do it. > Nope, no can do... Don't even want to try... I was discussing <I thought> > 120 film onto a 120 reel... OH! Like making a woman's size 12 shoe inside with a size 5 exterior. If we could do that, we would be rich! M&M, <no_email@xyz.com> ? ?crit : > I have a Nikor developing tank I use for processing a single 120 > roll. The tank requires 1 liter of fluid. Tank from Paterson and Jobo requires 500 ml, for one 120 ! Signature-- Daniel Rocha <> Photographie -- http://www.monochromatique.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.