B&W 110 format film?

I'm aware that Walmart & B&H carries Kodak colour neg 110 format

film, but does any one know of B&W 110 format film?

 

A Canadian source would be even better.

 

I may just end up trying to cross-process the stuff myself.

Do you mean 120 or 110, 110 format is tiny, in fact I'm not sure it they still make it...although I did notice some Kodak 110 a few months ago...

Assuming you mean 110, a tiny, obsolete format, and assuming you want B&W, then what do you mean by cross-processing?

You may reload your used cartridges with 16mm BW film

 

look here:

http://www.subclub.org/darkroom/roll110.htm

Dominic . , jul 21, 2004; 04:00 p.m.

Do you mean 120 or 110, 110 format is tiny, in fact I'm not sure it they still make it...although I did notice some Kodak 110 a few months ago...

 

Yes Dominic, 110 format, and I've already seen it in Walmart, but I'm looking for B&W.

 

Art Haykin , jul 21, 2004; 04:04 p.m.

Assuming you mean 110, a tiny, obsolete format, and assuming you want B&W, then what do you mean by cross-processing?

 

Cross-processing is processing C41 in B&W chemistry. I've done it before with some old film and Rodinal.

 

Pablo Coronel , jul 21, 2004; 04:06 p.m.

You may reload your used cartridges with 16mm BW film

look here: http://www.subclub.org/darkroom/roll110.htm

 

That sounds like another possible option, but then I'll have to find myself some 16mm BW film :)

Kodak's motion picture division still sells Plus-X Reversal, Plus-X Negative, Double-X, and Tri-X Reversal in 16 mm single perf (more or less suitable for reloading 110). Since most 110 cameras depend on one perforation per frame to stop film advance, you'll need to find a way to disable this feature, reuse original backing paper, and advance by the numbers on the paper (annoying, but not impossible). The speeds given by Kodak, BTW, are reputed to be low for negative process in common B&W chemistry; Plus-X Negative and Tri-X Reversal are close in speed to the still photography emulsions of the same name when processed in D-76, HC-110, etc.

110 cartridges had a notch to key in film speed. The 400 ISO materials keyed in at ISO 250 (perfect for reloading 16mm Double X since it is rated at ISO 250 daylight). Other cartridges key in at ISO 64 (to be spot on for Kodachrome 64). The Plus-x negative (ISO 80) is a close match.

Now if you could get hold of Ilford SFX in 16mm...Hmm.

 

Good luck

Mike

Thanks for the good suggestions... I'll probably end up buying a few rolls of c41 110, shooting them up, and then re-using the cartridges. 16mm film seems like too much of a bother to find, I'll probably cut down HP5 from my 35mm bulk roll.

If you're going to slit film anyway, consider slitting 120 -- you can get four usable strips from a single 120 roll, each strip long enough to make two 20 exposure 110 films. Hard to argue with the economics. Yes, the strips are only 15 mm wide -- no, your camera won't be able to tell the difference.

Donald Qualls , jul 22, 2004; 11:34 a.m.

If you're going to slit film anyway, consider slitting 120 -- you can get four usable strips from a single 120 roll.

 

That's a good idea, the price difference doesn't seem to be much, only a few cents per foot, but I'm wasting most of a 35mm frame when I cut, unless I also get a Minox.

Well, let's see -- you get eight films from one roll of 120, which costs between $2 and $5, depending on the emulsion, which means between 25 and 60+ cents per 110 film load; starting with 35 mm, even from bulk, you'll pay at least $25 for 100 feet, which will give a little over 60 loads of 110 (as you say, one strip from a 35 mm) or about 40+ cents per roll, minimum. So, 120 will cost a bit less, and there's something to be said for no waste.

 

I'd suggest starting with T-Max 100 in 120 for around $3/roll; the same emulsion in 35 mm is over $40 for a bulk roll (USA pricing), which makes the 120 cost about 25% less than slitting from 35 mm.

Here in Toronto, FP4 & HP5 are a little less than CDN$4- a roll for 120, bulk rolls of 35mm for the same are CDN$43-, and I'm starting to get comfortable with Ilford, so I'll stick to that... besides, Kodak TMax film is a good 25% more expensive, but their chemicals are cheaper. Also considering that I already have FP4 & HP5 in bulk 35 & 120 makes it a very easy decision :).

 

The absolute cheapest here is Agfa APX, 30% cheaper than Ilford, only CDN$30- for bulk 35mm, and CDN$3- for 120. But I have to get the bulk 35mm from Montreal.

What a waste of time shooting b&w on 110 film

E.R., the b&w forums exist to discuss methods and techniques for solving problems, not to dismiss as irrelevant something in which you have no interest. Please reserve the flippant and dismissive remarks for other forums. The Philosophy of Photography (or, as I call it, the Flippancy of Photography) forum is a good place for that sort of thing.

Lex.................Thank you for posting on my birthday! I will

always cherrish your response.

Guys;

 

Just a side note.

 

Cross processing any color film in a B&W process will lead to a large loss in sharpness. Much of the sharpness derives from the edge effects induced by DIR couplers which are inactive in B&W developers.

 

Cross processing a C41 B&W film may have the same effect.

 

In addition, grain is controlled by the DIR coupler and developer ingredients which are absent in B&W developers, or present in the wrong proportions.

 

Lots of luck.

 

Ron Mowrey