 |
 | 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 / April 2005Bulk Loading 120 film?
Bulk loading 120/220 film. Was this ever common? Why not? : Bulk loading 120/220 film. Was this ever common? Why not? It sounds like a pain to me.  SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > Bulk loading 120/220 film. Was this ever common? Why not? No. In fact, the only medium format bulk loader I ever heard of was for 70mm film (sprocketed) that loaded into magazines for long roll, motorized school portrait type cameras or for Hasselblad's 70mm film backs. Hasselblad even had a tank and reel system with loader, so photographers could process their own film. Why it wasn't common, I don't know, but I can guess. To load a 120 roll, you need to align exactly the film to the backing paper, so the frame numbers on the paper line up properly, so you can load the film to the first frame whether it automatically stops there or you have to use a window to view the frame numbers on the back of the paper. Also, the film has to load exactly straight on the paper. 220 would be a little easier, since it doesn't have backing paper, only a paper leader with alignment arrows and a tail to cover the exposed film. In any case, if you're shooting lots and lots of 120/220 and don't want to change rolls frequently, 70mm was the solution. I think most general medium format camera manufacturers have discontinued 70mm. Not enough people using it to warrant continued production. SignatureStefan Patric NoLife Polymath Group tootek2@yahoo.com >> Bulk loading 120/220 film. Was this ever common? Why not? > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > general medium format camera manufacturers have discontinued 70mm. > Not enough people using it to warrant continued production. Yes it does sound like a pain. And I'm guessing the price per frame didn't do much to incourage it either. The 70mm sounds kind of interesting though. What types of emulsions are available in 70mm? > Yes it does sound like a pain. And I'm guessing the price per frame didn't > do much to incourage it either. The 70mm sounds kind of interesting though. > What types of emulsions are available in 70mm? Today? About one colour film from each company. Usually a portrait film I think. Kodak might have one B&W film. J&C is going to have Efke in a couple of weeks. But the perforation issue might bite you. The 70mm back I have can take either perforated or non. Some backs can only take perforated film. In todays world you might not have a choice of perforation/non in your film of choice. Plus only bulk rolls are available now. At least I don't think anybody is selling the pre loaded cans. I think a few films designed for aircraft camaeras may also be available. Nick >> Yes it does sound like a pain. And I'm guessing the price per frame didn't >> do much to incourage it either. The 70mm sounds kind of interesting though. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >anybody is selling the pre loaded cans. I think a few films designed for >aircraft camaeras may also be available. Years ago I had an X_US Army 70mm Combat Graphic (Graflex) with 3 lenses and it was a ball! 6x9cm images and a huge cassette. It took 15' of film (I may be wrong on that its been so long) In the 80's and early 90's I got a 90mm Keith back for my Crown Graphic and boy did that save lugging around hundreds of film holders. THOM > Nick >>> Bulk loading 120/220 film. Was this ever common? Why not? >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > didn't do much to incourage it either. The 70mm sounds kind of > interesting though. What types of emulsions are available in 70mm? I haven't check lately on what's available in 70mm. Not much, I imagine. With digital coming of age and the camera manufacturers adapting to that market, film is falling more and more into disuse. And with the reduction in film use, film manufacturers are adjusting, too, by discontinuing many film types that are not profitable or have little demand like 70mm. (Like I said: Hasselblad has discontinued their 70mm accessories, but it's available used, usually at a very good price, since their is little demand for it.) In any case, if you really like a particular emulsion, and if it's still in production, I sure you can special order it in 70mm. I don't know what the minimum order would be, but years ago, I had a friend who shot 8x10, 11x14 and 20x24 b&w, and special order it (Super Double-X, I think. It was still being made.) from Kodak. The miniumum order was $1000 US, but that was like a year or two supply, all the same emulsion number, regardless of the format. Saved him a lot of time with Zone System calibrations. SignatureStefan Patric NoLife Polymath Group tootek2@yahoo.com >>>> Bulk loading 120/220 film. Was this ever common? Why not? >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >imagine. With digital coming of age and the camera manufacturers >adapting to that market, film is falling more and more into disuse. I must respectfully disagree. The digital is just replacing the amiture cameras plus remember that acording to some computer magazines only 29% of house holds have computers. Thats why they have come out with these printing stations because they are running out of customer base. Digital is actually creating an interest in real photography where none had existed before. Look at the interest in sheet film, look at how quickly view cameras get snapped up on eBay and the new interest in 5x7 and 8x10. 5x7 is the hottest and you will notice that Kodak and overseas companies are again offering the film. Freestyle is a big seller of 5x7 now along with incraesed sales in 8x10. THOM >And with the reduction in film use, film manufacturers are adjusting, >too, by discontinuing many film types that are not profitable or have [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >like a year or two supply, all the same emulsion number, regardless of >the format. Saved him a lot of time with Zone System calibrations. > [...] > Digital is actually creating an interest in real photography where [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and overseas companies are again offering the film. Freestyle is a > big seller of 5x7 now along with incraesed sales in 8x10. To add a data point. As I've mentioned I communicate with some Chinese concerns as part of my day job. 70mm motion-pictures are big there. And why not? The new Chinese economy is buying the best of everything. 70mm motion-pictures are a natural. Digital? Well, yeah sure, but it's for expediency. For real art, it's the real stuff: 70mm. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > with these printing stations because they are running out of customer > base. You disagree that film is being used less and less? But it's true. Certainly, the greatest change is with amateurs, whether snapshooters or the more serious picture takers, but pros, too, especially those where almost all of their photography is destined for print (b&w or 4-color halftones) in magazines, point-of-purchase placards, billboards, brochures, corporate, industrial, etc. Also, I see more and more weddings being shot with digital. Even portrait photographers are switching. It all boils down to cost effectiveness: no expense for film or processing and a big savings on turn-around time. (Time is the most costly thing in business.) If a business can cut expenses and save time, too, it becomes more profitable, and, thus, more competitive. Is film still being used by pros? Of course, but only when the quality that film produces is required or requested. > Digital is actually creating an interest in real photography where > none had existed before. Look at the interest in sheet film, look at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > THOM I agree. Digital does give instant gratification to those who lack the patience (Most of the MTV, I-want-it-NOW! generation ;-) ) to wait a week or two, like I had to, to get their pictures back from the drug store. But still the process is not much different than when the more ancient of us, as children, got our first film camera (no such thing as digital), usually a simple affair, the point-n-shoot of the day. Some never progressed past that first camera, but others did, and a very few developed in to professional photographers. All starting with that first simple camera, whether film or digital. SignatureStefan Patric NoLife Polymath Group tootek2@yahoo.com >> [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Certainly, the greatest change is with amateurs, whether snapshooters >or the more serious picture takers, but pros, too, The pros are going back. Digital is a big disappointment in things like tonal range. Some studios who specialize in quich turn around for printed publications have digital backs but the portrait studios have all but dumped it. So called photo journalists are using it along side of film but some of us are real snobs and don't consider these guys real photographers and the poperotzy don't help that image. :-) >especially those >where almost all of their photography is destined for print (b&w or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >are switching. It all boils down to cost effectiveness: no expense >for film or processing and a big savings on turn-around time. One pro-magazine I read a couple of years ago said most are going back to film. One friend of mine in Denver tried it and almost lost his business. I recently bought a Kodak 3.2mp digital to do a test for an article and I pitted it against and $15 1955 FED-2 ranger finder camera and the FED won hands down. >(Time is >the most costly thing in business.) If a business can cut expenses and >save time, too, it becomes more profitable, and, thus, more >competitive. If your in the business of doing trash photos, I agree. >Is film still being used by pros? Of course, but only >when the quality that film produces is required or requested. Not really. In my studio I used a 6x7 and a 90mm Keith back on a 4x5 and frankly because I was taught about Quality at Brooks I would have used a Gowland 5x7 TLR if I could but I couldn't. >> Digital is actually creating an interest in real photography where >> none had existed before. Look at the interest in sheet film, look at [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >developed in to professional photographers. All starting with that >first simple camera, whether film or digital. In my city the big thing is real AGFA photo prints from digital. The same store charges US$3.17 out the door for 27EXP process and 4x6 high quality prints. They are in a price war right now and charging 11cents with tax for 4x6 prints and US$10.96 for a 20x30 inch digital to real photopaper prints. THOM On 4/26/2005 6:14 AM Thom spake thus: > So called photo journalists are using it along side of film but some > of us are real snobs and don't consider these guys real photographers > and the poperotzy don't help that image. :-) "Poperotzy"? "Amiture"? Interesting spelling style; is that the way everyone in Oz spells? (Hint: it's "paparazzi", which is actually the plural; the singular is paparazzo.) > I recently bought a Kodak 3.2mp digital to do a test for an article > and I pitted it against and $15 1955 FED-2 ranger finder camera and > the FED won hands down. Interesting. What lens did you use--a Jupiter-8, Industar-61, Industar-50? Actually, probably any one of those could've beaten the digicam. SignatureIt's a good guess that one of two things is going to happen in the coming days and weeks: Either Bolton goes down—-or we start learning a lot of unpleasant things about Sen. George Voinovich. - _Slate_, 4/19/05 (http://slate.msn.com/id/2117028/) >On 4/26/2005 6:14 AM Thom spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >"Poperotzy"? "Amiture"? Interesting spelling style; is that the way everyone >in Oz spells? no, its the typos people with problem hands (age you know) and no spell checker get. Thanks for your concern. >(Hint: it's "paparazzi", which is actually the plural; the singular is paparazzo.) actually its spelled VULTURES. >> I recently bought a Kodak 3.2mp digital to do a test for an article >> and I pitted it against and $15 1955 FED-2 ranger finder camera and >> the FED won hands down. > >Interesting. What lens did you use--a Jupiter-8, Industar-61, Industar-50? >Actually, probably any one of those could've beaten the digicam. The Industar-26M which came out before any of them. I actually was quite surprised how well it did. The main problem you have when comparing the two is that any film negitive can be enlarged indefinately and you still have an image but at one point digital just turns into boxes. Its also like comparing a 4-colour separation (printed page) to a photo print. In a way its an unfair test. Things like tonal range are a better comparison. Comparisons like this will continue as the old guard builds the barracades to defend the film fort and the amatures and yuppies with their yuppie phones and digitals attack the tried and true! :-) I have said it before and will again. I believe that digital is actually getting people interested in film photography again. Its kinda like you started out with a 127 Brownie and then get a 35mm or Yashica-D (all in old days terms) but now its digital to film cameras. One big indication I think is the availablitiy of 5x7" film. Theres more now than 4 years ago. Cheers THOM THOM >>> I must respectfully disagree. The digital is just replacing the >>> amiture cameras plus remember that acording to some computer [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > for printed publications have digital backs but the portrait studios > have all but dumped it. Going back, but not totally abandoning. I think some pros thought digital, especially the higher end equipment, would supplant 35mm conventional film for the most part, and they jumped on that train with both feet. Of course, they were mistaken. As they soon discovered. But digital still has its place among the photographer's tools. However, regardless of how you look at it, less film is being shot overall. > So called photo journalists are using it along side of film but some > of us are real snobs and don't consider these guys real photographers > and the poperotzy don't help that image. :-) I think digital is the perfect media for most news/editorial photography. >>especially those >>where almost all of their photography is destined for print (b&w or [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to film. One friend of mine in Denver tried it and almost lost his > business. One magazine doesn't indicate a trend. Your average consumer magazines are less discriminating. Sports Illustrated, for example, uses digital for a lot (I don't know, if they use it for all.) of their stuff. They need quick turn-around. Usually, they are editing the photos of the game while the game is still being played. And they don't have to have a mobile lab on site with E-6 machines running continuously to process the film from a dozen shooters with motor driven cameras. Sorry about your friend. Like I keep saying: digital is an additional tool in a pro's kit; not a replacement. > I recently bought a Kodak 3.2mp digital to do a test for an article > and I pitted it against and $15 1955 FED-2 ranger finder camera and > the FED won hands down. Which doesn't surprise me in the least. I've never, ever purported that digital, regardless of the resolution, was better, sharper, etc. than film. I'd be willing to bet that one of those single use, 3-element plastic lens point-n-shoots from Wal-Mart would produce sharper or at least as sharp pictures straight out of the camera as a 3.2 MP digital straight out of the camera. >>(Time is >>the most costly thing in business.) If a business can cut expenses >>and save time, too, it becomes more profitable, and, thus, more >>competitive. > > If your in the business of doing trash photos, I agree. Too many photographers, who decide to do it for a living, make the mistake of thinking professional photography is not really a business, and that the rules that govern business don't apply. And for those, failure will be the result, "trash" photos or fine art. >>Is film still being used by pros? Of course, but only >>when the quality that film produces is required or requested. > > Not really. In my studio I used a 6x7 and a 90mm Keith back on a 4x5 > and frankly because I was taught about Quality at Brooks I would have > used a Gowland 5x7 TLR if I could but I couldn't. Well, I use everything from 35mm to 4x5, including digital. Whatever fits the requirements of the job. Although most of what I shoot is film, 120 and 4x5, but I usually shoot digitals, too, if I can, for web use (saves me from having to scan the film, which saves me time and my client money) or quick proofing for the client. Do I shoot less film than I did before digital? Yes, I do. If only because, I don't need to shoot Polaroids anymore. I use digital instead. And it saves me dollars. Quite a lot, in fact. At $3 a pop for a 4x5 Polaroid, it mounts up. But I also use digital for actor/model/performer/theatrical publicity shots. Something that for years, I used 35mm b&w (and sometimes color) film to do. But those people have gotten away from conventional silver prints, and gone to digital printed halftones to save time and expense. So, a 3 MP camera is all the quality that's needed. And what used to take me a couple of hours or so per client after the shoot to produce a finished print, I can now do in about 15 minutes, while the client waits. What could be better? >>> Digital is actually creating an interest in real photography where >>> none had existed before. Look at the interest in sheet film, look [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > 11cents with tax for 4x6 prints and US$10.96 for a 20x30 inch digital > to real photopaper prints. There are a couple of pro labs here that do silver prints direct from digital files. Although, mostly I use a nearby Costco photo lab for silver print proofing, 5x7s and 8x10s. And volume printing, too. Surprisingly, the quality, within limits, is every bit as good as the pro lab at much less cost and 24 times faster. (What I have to wait until the next day with the pro lab, I can have in an hour from Costco most of the time.) SignatureStefan Patric NoLife Polymath Group tootek2@yahoo.com >>>> I must respectfully disagree. The digital is just replacing the >>>> amiture cameras plus remember that acording to some computer [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >However, regardless of how you look at it, less film is being shot >overall. Digital has its place like the first time it was used wuth $20,000 Kodaks at the Madrid Olympics. Use it like a movie camera, go under the Stadium and see if you got anything and 10 minutes late Time or Life or whoever got some images. It worked. >> So called photo journalists are using it along side of film but some >> of us are real snobs and don't consider these guys real photographers >> and the poperotzy don't help that image. :-) > >I think digital is the perfect media for most news/editorial >photography. I can't disagree with that but what about histort? Remember when color came in and now we have what they call the lost generation? CD's unless they are kept in acid free paper envelopes have a limited life (as I am finding out personally) and how much of any given towns history is lost unless those images shot on digital are preserved perminently? >>>especially those >>>where almost all of their photography is destined for print (b&w or [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >a mobile lab on site with E-6 machines running continuously to process >the film from a dozen shooters with motor driven cameras. as I said previuously but of course who cares of ball games are lost to history? :-) >Sorry about your friend. Like I keep saying: digital is an additional >tool in a pro's kit; not a replacement. I agree but the makers of expensive units were pushing it otherwise for profit. Next you have the issue of the prints. Its easy now (well here at least) to get real photo prints from digital but what about all those photos done on ink jet? Fall in the pool, live in a humid climate etc etc and the ink runs. >> I recently bought a Kodak 3.2mp digital to do a test for an article >> and I pitted it against and $15 1955 FED-2 ranger finder camera and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >least as sharp pictures straight out of the camera as a 3.2 MP digital >straight out of the camera. I got the Kodak 7300 point and shoot and I'm determined to get to the point where I can get at least decent stuff just for the hell of it. It has a lens about equal to a 34mm on 135 which is usually either too short or too long. Still its a challenge and keep the mind busy. >>>(Time is >>>the most costly thing in business.) If a business can cut expenses [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >and that the rules that govern business don't apply. And for those, >failure will be the result, "trash" photos or fine art. But both applies. Artists should have to deal with the hassels of capitalism and simply contribute to the world but life isn't like that. My personal experience as a former studio owner is that you spend 90% of your time on BS that's not photo related. I have also seen year after year where studios owned by couples do the best, the man does the meat and potatos (shooting) and the wife does the other stuff and it seems to work out so well. >>>Is film still being used by pros? Of course, but only >>>when the quality that film produces is required or requested. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Well, I use everything from 35mm to 4x5, including digital. Whatever >fits the requirements of the job. I would have disagreed with you once. 35mm meant awful grain unless you shot with Panatomic-X or the 50asa ilford on a tripod but today the 35mm films are so good they are almost as sharp as the lenses. You can use an ASA400 film hand held (properly of course) and get good 8x10's that fill the specs. Some people think the drop in sales of 6x6/6x7 gear is because of digital but I thinks its because 35mm is so much better. I am amazed there hasn't been a mid-range, film about 45mm's wide shooting a 1-1:25 ration image on film from a cassette. >Although most of what I shoot is >film, 120 and 4x5, but I usually shoot digitals, too, if I can, for web >use (saves me from having to scan the film, which saves me time and my >client money) or quick proofing for the client. I'm retired (last week in fact) so my needs differ from yours. >Do I shoot less film than I did before digital? Yes, I do. If only >because, I don't need to shoot Polaroids anymore. Yup, its great for that as long as you can control the digital somehow. > I use digital >instead. And it saves me dollars. Quite a lot, in fact. At $3 a pop [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >can now do in about 15 minutes, while the client waits. What could be >better? I don't disagree with any of that but there was a bit of conventional wisdom from the 50's-60's about shooting weddings on 4x5 vs 120. As my mentor said "you can't be seen using a camera that some amature wedding guest is using, its bad for business. The that kinda switched to 6x7 vs 35mm and now film vs digital. There is not what we would call a "Professional Digital Camera" for things like location shots and all too often when they see you with a digital they can buy locally they may wonder "why should I pay him when my secretary can do the same thing?" Too many business people are visually illiterate and wouldn't know a good photo from a bad one and all too often their company magazine, annual report or even PR efforts turns into a show place on not what to do. >>>> Digital is actually creating an interest in real photography where >>>> none had existed before. Look at the interest in sheet film, look [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >until the next day with the pro lab, I can have in an hour from Costco >most of the time.) What I find interesting is when you put a high mag "Loop" to these prints there is a huge difference between what you see between an inkjet print and a digital to photo paper print. THOM > CD's unless they are kept in acid free paper envelopes have a limited > life (as I am finding out personally) and how much of any given towns > history is lost unless those images shot on digital are preserved > perminently? I know it is done for the prosumer market, but ... Is there a market for 'archival silver gelatin [and any another pomposity one can come up with*]' prints made from digital files for the narcissist mom & pop crowd. * * * * cellulose substrate [paper] titanium backed [TiO2 in the byarta] oxygen purged [went through developer] tempered [at 68F (or so, maybe)] p/h buffered [wash aid was used] desulfunated [was washed at all] passivated [a 10 second dip in the KRST] sealed silver (tm) [substitute polytoner for KRST] SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ > Yes it does sound like a pain. And I'm guessing the price per frame didn't > do much to incourage it either. The 70mm sounds kind of interesting though. > What types of emulsions are available in 70mm? I've only used Kodak 70mm films. The selection has gone down a lot, but you can still get quite a few varieties -- Kodak Infrared Aerographic is a 70mm version of HIE, there's also 70mm Panatomic-X which is beautiful for landscapes and portraits. Aerochrome II is color reversal film, if you want to shoot 6x6 slides. And several manufacturers still make 70mm portait negative films. Signaturejosh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam <http://www.phred.org/~josh/> Updated Infrared Photography Books List: <http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/irbooks.html> Bulk loading of 70 mm film in large magazines was common and is still possible. You have to dig to find the film, though. The problem with doing that is film scratching, which is significantly worse with 70 mm than with 35. I believe the Hasselblad and the Bronica sites have notes. The big problem with 120 is the backing paper. Kodak patented a really thin, opaque paper and it's almost impossible to reproduce. Most dark papers are so thick that with a normal size 120 spool, a 12 exposure chunk of film and the backing paper won't fit. |
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.