 |
 | 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 2004Old 70mm negatives
Well, I just bought two packages of negative sleeves for 120, and discovered that my old negatives don't fit. They appear to be closer to 70mm in width, and a quick Google search informs me that is a standard film width. I've heard of it for motion picture film, but not for still photography. Was this type of film in common use for amateur photography back in the 1920s and 1930s? Thanks -Mark On 2/16/2004 9:16 PM Mark spake thus: > Well, I just bought two packages of negative sleeves for 120, > and discovered that my old negatives don't fit. They appear [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > type of film in common use for amateur photography back > in the 1920s and 1930s? At least one old film format (Kodak's no. 116) was basically 70mm. (I know because I have an old Hawkeye that takes this size film, and I'm still looking for some to use.)  SignatureIt's fun to demonize the neo-cons and rejoice in their discomfiture, but don't make the mistake of thinking US foreign policy was set by Norman Podhoretz or William Kristol. They're the clowns capering about in front of the donkey and the elephant. The donkey says the UN should clean up after them, and the elephant now says the donkey may have a point. Somebody has come out with a dustpan and broom. - Alexander Cockburn, _CounterPunch_ (http://www.counterpunch.org), 9/17/03 > On 2/16/2004 9:16 PM Mark spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > because I have an old Hawkeye that takes this size film, and I'm still looking > for some to use.) Are you looking for 116 or 70mm to respool? You could ask J&C when the 116 is supposed to be available. 70mm is available in 100 feet bulk rolls from B&H. Nick On 2/17/2004 5:05 AM Nick Zentena spake thus: >> On 2/16/2004 9:16 PM Mark spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > is supposed to be available. 70mm is available in 100 feet bulk rolls from > B&H. I'm looking for 116 so I can use my Hawkeye (seems to have a pretty nice lens on it). I know about those 100' rolls: thanks, but no thanks. I've been emailing J & C since they announced the forthcoming availability of this film (I heard 1Q this year), but so far nothing. SignatureIt's fun to demonize the neo-cons and rejoice in their discomfiture, but don't make the mistake of thinking US foreign policy was set by Norman Podhoretz or William Kristol. They're the clowns capering about in front of the donkey and the elephant. The donkey says the UN should clean up after them, and the elephant now says the donkey may have a point. Somebody has come out with a dustpan and broom. - Alexander Cockburn, _CounterPunch_ (http://www.counterpunch.org), 9/17/03 > I'm looking for 116 so I can use my Hawkeye (seems to have a pretty nice lens > on it). I know about those 100' rolls: thanks, but no thanks. I've been > emailing J & C since they announced the forthcoming availability of this film > (I heard 1Q this year), but so far nothing. I keep thinking about getting a nice 116/616 camera. The fridge is stocked with 300' of 70mm film I picked up for a good price awhile back and I'm not worried too much about respooling. But things like empty spools and backing paper seem to be more of an issue. Nick On 2/17/2004 11:34 AM Nick Zentena spake thus: >> I'm looking for 116 so I can use my Hawkeye (seems to have a pretty nice lens >> on it). I know about those 100' rolls: thanks, but no thanks. I've been [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'm not worried too much about respooling. But things like empty spools and > backing paper seem to be more of an issue. Yes, backing paper: you hit the nail right on the head. If not for that detail, a guy could get one of those big rolls of 70mm film and roll his own 116 (at least as many as he has 116 spools for). Since I'm now working as a printer, I should investigate getting suitable paper (opaque, basically) in realllly long lengths. (I've seen spools from time to time on eBay.) Then maybe a bunch of us wackos could go in together and get some usable 116 (or 616) film out of it. Perhaps you'd be willing to donate part of your stash? (All in the name of science, of course.) By the way, as further incentive, my camera, which is in very good shape, cost me $5 at a local flea market. SignatureIt's fun to demonize the neo-cons and rejoice in their discomfiture, but don't make the mistake of thinking US foreign policy was set by Norman Podhoretz or William Kristol. They're the clowns capering about in front of the donkey and the elephant. The donkey says the UN should clean up after them, and the elephant now says the donkey may have a point. Somebody has come out with a dustpan and broom. - Alexander Cockburn, _CounterPunch_ (http://www.counterpunch.org), 9/17/03 > Yes, backing paper: you hit the nail right on the head. If not for that I've thought of taping two rolls of 120 together but the seam in the middle might be a problem. > Then maybe a bunch of us wackos could go in together and get some usable 116 > (or 616) film out of it. Perhaps you'd be willing to donate part of your > stash? (All in the name of science, of course.) Shipping it across the border might cost more then I paid for it. One roll is out of date and cost me $10. The other two are fresh and cost I think $30. It shows up on Ebay quite often. Usually colour. Mine is all Porta NC. The expensive stuff is the shorter pre-rolled cans. 15feet? Nick > Well, I just bought two packages of negative sleeves for 120, > and discovered that my old negatives don't fit. They appear [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > type of film in common use for amateur photography back > in the 1920s and 1930s? 116? I think 116 and 616 were both 70mm wide. How big is the exposed image? Most of the 70mm backs expose an image in one of the standard 120 sizes. 116 is much wider. Nick > 116? I think 116 and 616 were both 70mm wide. How big is the exposed > image? Most of the 70mm backs expose an image in one of the standard 120 > sizes. 116 is much wider. The exposed area is 64mm wide by 106mm. With the border, the negatives are 69mm by 116mm. (These measurements were taken with a ruler incremented in sixteenths of an inch, converted to decimal and multiplied by 25.4.) -Mark >> 116? I think 116 and 616 were both 70mm wide. How big is the exposed >> image? Most of the 70mm backs expose an image in one of the standard 120 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > (These measurements were taken with a ruler incremented in sixteenths of an > inch, converted to decimal and multiplied by 25.4.) 4.5inches makes it 116/616 I bet. Nick |
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.