noah_bolanowski Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 <p>I um, stupidly loaded two rolls of 120 film backwards in my mamiya rz67proII (the side with the paper was exposed) is it possible to retrive these two rolls?</p> <p>Im not sure if i gave enough info, if i didn't just yell at me- please help!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martin_dake Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 If you actually ran the film through the camera a took pictures; then no you will not be able to use again as the film will have received some exposure through the paper, but probably not enough to record a usable image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sunley Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 <p>Yes, you just need a DARK room and spool the film from one spool to another. You have to do it by hand as the film is only taped to the backing paper at the starting end, not the trailing end. Have fun. :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 <p>I've done that :) My film came out completely blank. If I had noticed I figure I could have respooled it in a dark bag and shot it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_bolanowski Posted January 8, 2011 Author Share Posted January 8, 2011 <p>Its not worth the $5 in film, i'll just move on... Im so sad though- it was my first roll with it and the test polaroids came out AMAZING..</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuart_richardson Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 <p>Don't feel too bad. I did this with my first roll in a hasselblad too. I took a number of shots I would have really liked to have seen, and of course, nothing came out because the backing paper came first. Just take it as a learning experience and move on. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul ron Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 <p>Hate it when that happens!</p> <p> </p> The more you say, the less people listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_s Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 <p>Common mistake with RB/RZ and Graphic-style rollfilm holders. It is one of the few blunders I haven't made. Yet.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj8281 Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 <p>It is actually easy to do. If you try it you will have to unstick and restick the tape that holds the film to the backing paper is all, it moves it about 3/8 to 1/2 inch is all. I would do it because I hate wasting film.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iangillett Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 <p>I would advise against it as the emulsion surface could have been scratched, albeit slightly, by passing over the rollers and across the pressure plate.<br> Ian</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 <blockquote> <p>"the film will have received some exposure through the paper"</p> </blockquote> <p>Nope! It shouldn't have done because the backing paper is totally opaque and meant to keep light from fogging the film - that's the very reason it's there in the first place.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 But it's wrapped around the film a couple of turns in those situations it is exposed to light normally. And it's not uncommon to have frame numbers printed on the backing paper 'magically' appear on film due to light coming through red windows on old cameras.<br /><br />So i don't share your confidence in the light stopping power of that backing paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_marvin Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 <p>I think Ian's point, about the emulsion possibly having been scratched, is the most persuasive reason not to re-use it. However, all is not lost; a couple of ruined "dummy" rolls, to use for practice load, are pretty valuable. Just re-wind the spoiled film onto the original spool and practice loading your camera over and over, until it becomes second nature. That will make it unlikely that you'll spoil more film.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sunley Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 <p>A constant "stream of light" thru a red window is a lot more than a normal exposure from the shutter. Also, the emulsion never touches the pressure plate, only the frame rails on the sides, and maybe the rollers at the ends of the frame. Use one roll to practice rewinding in light to see how it's done and try the second one in the dark. You have to keep it tight, or you will find the paper or film buckling when you get to the taped end of the film.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ondebanks Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 <p>Made the same mistake the first time I loaded a 6x6 camera - a Minolta Autocord borrowed from a friend, several years ago.</p> <p>I would salvage those two rolls, but not for re-shooting pictures. I would keep them for "mechanical" things like testing film flatness, frame spacing, winding problems etc. I've used "dud" films for such things in the past.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sallymack Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 <p>Hi, Noah, Clay's right, it's easy to do. I did it after I first purchased a Hasselblad. Not realizing the film was loaded backwards, I shot the roll and had it developed and printed. The pictures of wetlands came out with an orange end-of-the-world look. I'd need to check to see if it was 120 or 220 film. --Sally</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sallymack Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I'd used 220 film so the results may not be the same with 120 but here's one of the pictures from the roll. --Sally<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iangillett Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 <p>Dear Sally,<br> The results would have been different; 120 has backing paper throught the roll, 220 has a paper lead-in and paper lead-out but in the middle it is "bare" film.<br> Ian</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj8281 Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 <p>This is sometimes called redscale film or lomo color. I have done it on purpose before and the effects can sometimes be pretty cool.<br> Here is one that I have on my <a href=" page</a></p> <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj8281 Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 <p>This redscale barn has similar colors as your shot Sally.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_ogara4 Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 <p>i still subscribe to the theory that "film is cheap"... today you just have to add, relative to the price of ????<br> actually you can save the rolls, whip them out to show to people who have had a vague idea of what film is.<br> unroll it and explain that "now it's been exposed to light and it's no good!"<br> people are alternately fascinated, shocked, confused, amazed... thinking "he must be rich, eccentric, wonderful" to do something like that! <br> good for the ego and a conversation starter.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now