So I loaded a roll of film backwards

[mesasone]

So, the other day I un-wittingly loaded a roll of tri-x backwards when

filling a couple of canisters in the bulk loader(I spun the wind level

backwards). The end resault is of course a backwards loaded roll,

which I've decided to shoot and see what happens rather than wasting

it and just reloading.

 

And Thoughts on what will happen when I go to develope? I've read some

threads on people loading mf backwards in their cameras and those

being under exposed by approximately two stops, however this is 35mm

so I dont have the paper backing. Will the images just be backwards?

[basscheffers]

Not sure, but they may be slightly out of focus.

[pdumais]

probably the two stops comes from going through the anti-halation layer, not the paper (which is pretty much opaque). I'm guessing the same would apply for the 35 mm but I don't actually know that they are built the same.

[jim_appleyard]

The people in your photos will be backward, their right hands will become their left, they will learn to write from right to left and will speak in reverse and so on...

 

Seriously, this has happened to students of mine. The above advice is correct,

[nige_buddy]

I would open the cassettes (in the dark or change bag) and unroll, flip and re-roll the right way. I can't see any point doing what your suggesting due to the chances of incorrect exposure and out-of-focus negs compared against the time to shoot it and process it. Personally, I'd throw it before I used it inside-out (just my opinion)

[tgh]

If I'm reading your post correctly, unless you also placed the cassette in the loader upside-down or placed the bulk film spool in the loader upside-down, the emulsion (dull) side of the film should still be facing forward when loaded in the camera.

 

You don't say what kind of a bulk loader you use, but a Lloyd's loader for example, the film cassette will only fit in one way. Winding the crank backwards would spool the film emulsion side out on the spool, but it would still be emulsion side forward. Just that it would force the spool to unwind backwards. After it was fully extended, you should be able to rewind normally if this is the case. Might also require a little more force to advance the film in the camera.

[john_shriver]

There would be a high probability of scratching the film coming out of the cassette, as it will be taking a tight U-turn. If you have a changing bag, do pop the cassette and re-wind in the right direction.

[frank.schifano]

Yes, really. Do open the cassette and rewind it properly. When I first started using 4x5, I accidentally loaded a few film holders imporperly. I had the emulsion side in, which is exactly what you are describing. The resulting negatives were indeed reversed, somewhat uderexposed, and not sharp. I was able to salvage somewhat passable prints from these negatives, but only by keeping the enlargement down to 8x10 from a 4x5 negative. Trying to do the same with a 35mm negative would be just awful, unless of course you had some special effect in mind.

[mike dixon]

Another vote for going into the dark, unloading, and rerolling the film the right direction.

[mesasone]

Thanks for the answers, I've already started to shoot the roll so we'll what comes out. I'm not taking any "critical" images on this roll, just shooting a round a bit to see what would happen.

 

It would make sense that the paperbacking on mf wouldn't cause a two stop underexposure, otherwise bringing the roll, un-opened, into the light period would expose it. I have no expeirence in mf yet, so I really have little clue what I'm talking about.