Fukkatsu

I have some of the Fukkatsu 110 black and white film.

 

I did notice that it says "Made in China", but it doesn't say anything

about suggested developers or times.

 

(Actually, it does say D-76, but no times, so it doesn't help much.)

This film is not yet listed on the Massive Development Chart, which provides good starting times for many film/developer combinations. If you have D76 on hand you could try 7 or 8 minutes at 68 degrees Fahrenheit as a starting point. Most films' times in stock D76 seem to range from 5 to 9 minutes, but your results may vary. Since this film is not cheap I don't know if you'd care to shoot a test roll or not. Maybe sacrifice a frame or two and do a test clip first.

Mike is right. The times, temperatures, and such for D-76 are usually somewhere around his suggestions. A small test strip wouldn't be a bad idea, but if you're feeling lucky (are you?)....

It's not rocket science, and if you are scanning to digital form, you can usually get it pretty close in "post"

What is the film speed (ISO)? Look up similar Kodak and Ilford films of the same type and film speed, take an average of the development times and start there. This is going to be trial and error to get a good time, shoot a few frames, develop, shoot a few more develop, etc. You should be able to get several tries from one sacrificial roll.

Mike is right. The times, temperatures, and such for D-76 are usually somewhere around his suggestions. A small test strip wouldn't be a bad idea, but if you're feeling lucky (are you?)....

It's not rocket science, and if you are scanning to digital form, you can usually get it pretty close in "post"

 

Based on some previous posts of his, it just might be Rocket Science. I think he's planning on sending this up in a camera mounted on a model rocket.

 

So I have a question about 110 film. Can it be removed from a camera mid roll and then later put back? Say you for example you took a few shots at the beach but later on you wanted to put in faster film to capture some moments out on the town in the evening.

 

In Glen's case that might come in handy. I don't know how many exposures he gets on that roll, but 24 or 36 successful flights of an Estes rocket could easily cost over $100 in engines. And that's assuming that something wouldn't go horribly wrong and the Astrocam gets lost or damaged. In my experience with Estes rockets, the chance of something going horribly wrong is always there and part of the fun.

 

Maybe he could get 15 pictures of flowers first. ;)

110 like the earlier 126 cartridge could be removed and replaced with the loss of one frame unless the exchange were made in total darkness. Even then you could lose a frame as the film advance might have to be cycled to allow a photo to be taken.

I brought a changing bag and a Pentax Auto 110.

 

And yes, unlike VP, this comes in 24 exposure rolls.

 

I moved the roll to the Auto 110 in the changing bag, but it seems that the winding system is weak,

as it tends not to go all the way to the next frame. Putting it against my coat and shooting in the dark

allowed more winding, but I only got a few shots that way.

 

I will have to see which other 110 cameras I have to use it in.

 

I suspect that there might be some light piping through the base, such that there might be

light leaks to the next frame over, unless they use gray base. Best to do it in the dark.

As for actual shots, the first day was cloudy, and the camera seems to expect ISO 200 film in sun.

 

So, ISO 100 and cloudy is probably underexposed. I might be able to push a stop or two, to improve

the chances.

 

The next day, it was a little brighter but still cloudy, but windy. With the wind, the rockets curve into

the wind (more side force on the fins), and doesn't go as high. The result, was ejection and exposure

very close to the ground. Fortunately, it didn't go into the ground before ejection.

 

In any case, the camera survived two shots, but they might not be any good.

 

I have Diafine, HC-110, and TMax developers.

 

VP gets a good speed boost with Diafine, but many newer films don't.

 

Since it is made in China, I am wondering if it is Lucky.

I think Diafine suggests EI 160 for Lucky.

 

I got four rolls for $28, including shipping. Not so bad a price.

About the price for ancient VP110-12 and hopefully less fog.

 

And yes, I don't have enough engines for 24 shots.

My impression has been that getting a good shot with an Astrocam involves a decent amount of luck. Since the camera is moving and I'm sure the shutter speed isn't all that high, I would think anything shot below a certain altitude is going to be blurry. If the camera is pointing straight down your going to get a picture of an empty field. So it sounds like some people have used engines with shorter ejection delays than the recommended in hopes of getting more horizon.

Shorter ones increases the chance of pictures of sky.

 

I am planning to build an Omega, using a D engine, and use that for the Astrocam 110.

 

It will take some tests to figure out the delay.

 

But really, the choices are C6-5 and C6-7, one might be to short, the other too long.

And there is tolerance on those of maybe 20%.

 

The shutter is pretty fast, though.

I did finish the roll, mostly with pictures around the UW campus. I think I will try cutting it in half, and developing the second half first.

 

I want to try about a two stop push, to increase the chances with the cloudy day shots.

 

Choices are Diafine, HC-110, and T-Max.

 

Since it says "Made in China", might it be Lucky?

Looking at some films that seem similar in the Massive Developer Chart, in HC-110 (B), times like 6 or 7 or 8 minutes seem usual.

VP isn't in the chart anymore, but I have the data sheet for that, which says 8 minutes.

Lucky says 7 minutes, and Shanghai Pan says 8.

 

So, I might try 10 or 11, for about a two stops push.

Looking at some films that seem similar in the Massive Developer Chart, in HC-110 (B), times like 6 or 7 or 8 minutes seem usual.

VP isn't in the chart anymore, but I have the data sheet for that, which says 8 minutes.

Lucky says 7 minutes, and Shanghai Pan says 8.

 

So, I might try 10 or 11, for about a two stops push.

 

Good Luck !

OK, I developed it some time ago, but only got to scan it now.

 

The rocket picture didn't come out at all, as it was too cloudy.

 

I then put the film in a Pentax Auto 110, but it seems not to advance the whole frame,

such that exposures overlap. I then moved it to a cheaper 110 camera to finish the roll.

 

This is with the latter camera:

 

 

 

I had hoped for a one or two stop push, so did 10 minutes in T-Max at 68F.

As well as I can tell from the negatives, this is closer to the normal time, than

to a push time.

No need to do half the film to find a starting point development time. Just do a clip test in room light.

 

Take a small, end of reel clip of the film and dunk it in about an egg-cupful of developer that's at the correct temperature and dilution. Start your stopwatch. Dip'n'dunk the film every 30 seconds for agitation and when it looks dark grey on both sides, stop your stopwatch and rinse off the developer.

Then fix the clip of film.

 

A fully fogged and properly developed film should have a density of around 2.1 to 2.4, which is just about dark enough to read newsprint through with difficulty when held against it.

Lighter than this and you need more development, and darker than this and you need to cut the time.

 

It's a simple test that I've found to work very well. I used to experiment with novel developer formulations, without knowing for sure what development time was needed. The fully-fogged clip test was an excellent guide. Of course it helps if you have a proper densitometer, but the newspaper test is good enough for most purposes.

Edited July 20, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

The reason to half the film, which I didn't do, was to get times for a specific exposure.

That might have been a two or three or four stop push.

 

Nice to know about the fully fogged test, though. I didn't know about that one.

I put another roll of Fukkatsu film in the Astrocam 110 camera, but didn't put it on a rocket.

 

Instead I walked down the street with it, and took some pictures.

 

It was cloudy, sometimes with shadows, sometimes without, and about mid-afternoon.

Also, the camera is supposed to be designed for ISO 200 film.

 

Here is one picture, better than many on the roll.

 

 

I developed half in Diafine, but got pretty much no useful shots.

 

Then I developed the other half in T-Max for about 18 minutes, maybe enough for a

two stop push.

 

The only way I figured out to scan it is between two strips of 35mm film, which might have

scratches or dirt. Scratches and dust in the image likely came from those.

 

It seems that I need bright sun, and maybe also a one stop push.

As for actual shots, the first day was cloudy, and the camera seems to expect ISO 200 film in sun.

 

So, ISO 100 and cloudy is probably underexposed. I might be able to push a stop or two, to improve

the chances.

 

The next day, it was a little brighter but still cloudy, but windy. With the wind, the rockets curve into

the wind (more side force on the fins), and doesn't go as high. The result, was ejection and exposure

very close to the ground. Fortunately, it didn't go into the ground before ejection.

 

In any case, the camera survived two shots, but they might not be any good.

 

I have Diafine, HC-110, and TMax developers.

 

VP gets a good speed boost with Diafine, but many newer films don't.

 

Since it is made in China, I am wondering if it is Lucky.

I think Diafine suggests EI 160 for Lucky.

 

I got four rolls for $28, including shipping. Not so bad a price.

About the price for ancient VP110-12 and hopefully less fog.

 

And yes, I don't have enough engines for 24 shots.

 

I always called it "Do You Feel Lucky" film. "Did I shoot 23 frames of film, or did I shoot 24 frames of film."

IS it me or is this just crap? I dontmind spending money on film but I try to buy GOOD film! ha ha, that said, I did buy some expired Svema B&W film last year- and it was garbage- well at least the one roll I shot was. Still have a coupe rolls I should another one to see what IT looks like.

IS it me or is this just crap?

It's not just you.

 

IMO, a perfect example of how 'pushing' film has absolutely no effect on it's speed or ability to capture shadow detail. If the threshold exposure level isn't reached with a 7 minute development time, then a twenty minute development is equally pointless.

I’ve had no issues myself with the 110 b&w film. Seems to work just fine. The cartridges they used on some of the runs had the wrong tab...fooling some auto cameras to think it was a 400 speed film...thus the requirement to push the film...which despite some comments, works just fine. I process in ID11.