reinhold_schable

Ron...

Keep it up!

Don't stop now!

We need an answer for those smug, smart*ss digidorks who ask: "what're ya gonna do

when you can't get film for that old contraption"

I shoot 8x20, and I can already visualize what a photo from a paper negative would look

like... yum...!

Go gettum.

Reinhold

Jukka,

The first thing you must decide is; will you be processing "in the dark", or must you make

light proof tanks? If you decide to spent those first few minutes (the developer phase) in

the dark, you will save yourself a lot of fuss trying to make a light proof tank, and can use

almost any easily available material that is chemical resistant and easy to fabricate.

A second issue is the depth of the tank since you plan to process a lot of rolls at one time.

The deeper the tank, the more you'll need to think about agitation when lifting the stack of

reels up and down. The potential is for uneven density at the sprocket holes and film

edges due to extended turbulence during lifting.

I have been using home made acrylic cylinders for processing film "in the dark" for the

past 30 years. My cylinders are 100mm diameter, 300mm long, with a simple piece of

100mm square acrylic cemented to the bottom as a base. They will acommodate 7

(135mm) or 4 (120) reels, and use about 1.7 liters of developer. These cylinders are so

cheap and easy to make that I made 6 of them, (one each for developer, stop, fix, rinse,

wash-aid, and final wash). I line them up in my sink, turn off the lights, and 8 minutes

later when I'm in the fix the lights are back on. I can process 4 "batches" (28 rolls) easily in

a typical evening. Another nice thing about clear acrylic: I can watch to make sure the film

isn't coming off of the reels during the "lights on" phase, especially when agitating in the

fix & wash cycles.

The reels are stacked onto a stainless steel welding rod. When agitating in the developer, I

lift the stack about 150mm 3 or 4 times each minute, and "jiggle" the stack to shake off

any bubbles that might hang up in the reels after lifting. You'll have to settle on your own

technique, just don't lift too fast, or you'll pull the film off of the reels.

Solution capacity is another issue you must consider... I pre-mix my one-shot developer in

3 or 4 liter jugs for each evening's session. After each batch of film, it takes only a few

seconds to dump and re-fill the developer tank. If you're processing a ...lot... of film, you

may want to make the secondary cylinders (stop, fix, etc.) 120mm or 150mm diameter so

you have more solution and capacity.

UFG is quite a developer... ultra fine grain, good contrast, tonality, and incredible shelf life.

But it's very, very active. Typical developing times are 5 minutes or less for some films. I

typically mix the one gallon size into 6 liters (one quart into 1.5 liters), and adjust

develoment time accordingly. For Ilford FP4 at 125 ISO, I use 7.5 minutes.

For years, I would use Ethol UFG Replenisher, which keeps the developer activity absolutely

consistant, even after developing the equivalent of 20 or more rolls of 120 film per liter.

Unfortunately, UFG Replenisher is hard to get these days (everbody except Lynn Jones

thinks replenisment is poor practice). I still have a few cans of replenisher left, but I'm not

sure what I'll do when it's gone, Ethol doesn't seem to have any advice on replenisment.

Jerry...

Here's a "cut & Paste" from a 29 July post about 220 film in Horseman backs.

(I can't figure out how to link the thread)...

Reinhold Schable , jul 29, 2003; 03:51 p.m.

Right on, Alan... it's amazing how that misconception about the paper backing

influencing the plane of focus never seems to go away.

Now... to the question: yes, it is possible to use 220 in a Horseman 120 roll

film back. I've run hundreds of 220 rolls thru my Horseman 6x12. You'll need

to do some experimenting to find the best starting mark, and create some

sort of a stick-on label at the advance lever to space the frames.

Sacrifice a roll of film.... You'll find that the starting mark should be in the left

bay, about 3/8 inch to the right of center. Put a sticky label in there to indicate

a starting point. Wind past frame #1, which is now considered "leader. The

actual film begins at frame #2. After the 6th frame, you'll need some marks on

the label to indicate where the advance lever must be stopped each time. By

marking on the sacrificial roll of film, you can figure out where to make

indexing marks on the label. You'll find that the marks get progressivly closer

with each frame.

I created a computer graphic for an avery label for the top of the holder, just

under the advance lever which gives me very good spacing. I also rigged up

a little couner to slip into the little film box holder to keep track of which frame

I'm on, so I don't mess up when advancing to the next frame.

Jerry... I really can get 14 frames if I'm real careful, but lately I'm inclined to

make a new graphic with a bit wider spacing for 13 frames.

Have fun...

Peder:

Take a look at the Cambo Wide too. The system is configured

around a 4x5 "frame" that accepts a Horseman 612 rollfilm

back with a 4x5 baseplate. On the other side of the Cambo

"Frame", any number of Cambo lens cones can be quickly

attached. Since it's basically a handheld 4x5 configuration, you

can use cut film holders or any Horseman rollfilm backs from

6x6, up to 6x12. I have even figured out how to run 220 film in the

Horseman 6x12 back, giving me 14 shots.

The very nice Cambo viefinder clips into a flash shoe on top, or, if

you want, a groundglass is available for use with cut film

holders.. You can even get a hood with an eyepiece.for the

ground glass. It has a hand grip on one side, with a "trigger

cable release" arrangement for hand holding if you want, altho I

use a tripod most of the time.

I happen to use a 75mm lens, but as I recall, it can be as short

as 45mm, or as long as 180mm (I think... I don't have the

information in front of me at the moment). I got mine from Jim at

Midwest Photo, Columbus, Ohio a few years ago. It's a nice,

compact system, tough as nails, and versatile, to boot.

This baloney about not having enough sales to warrant running

a production line is nicely answered by Konica and their K750

infrared film in 120 size. Once a year they change the coating

and slitting line from 35mm to 120, and make one years' worth of

film, which is gobbled up by those who love the stuff. (My freezer

bulges with it).

If Ilford is truly interested in serving the professionally oriented

segment of the market, they too would find a way to keep lower

volumn products available, even if it means some adjustments

by both Ilford and we who rely on the stuff.

Charles:

Yes, as soon as my 220 FP4+ is used up, I'll replace it with

Kodak Plus X. It's a perfecly capable film, every bit the equal of

FP4+. Obviously, I'll have to re-tune my processing, but I've used

Plus-X for years in the past, so we'll get along just fine...

I don't use much HP5, but when it's 400 speed time, it'll be Tri-X

time.

Kind of contradictory, isn't it... just recently Ilford announced a full

line-up of ultra-large film format avalibility. I also shoot an 8x20

Canham camera, and was tickled that Ilford would offer such a

seemingly low volumn product to such a small user base. It

raised my loyalty to Ilford index up a notch. And now this... a slap

at a considerably larger user base. My loyalty index slid down to

the basement.

Another benefit of 220 films is less time to develop lots of film. I

typically shoot 50 to 60 rolls of 220 on my Europe trips, and I can

tell you that I'd much rather develop 60 rolls of 220, than 120 rolls

of 120 film.

On these trips, I can just fit 10 or 12 Pro-packs (50 to 60 rolls) of

220 film in my camera case carry-on. Now Ilford tells me that I've

got to carry about 120 rolls, which makes my carry-on oversize.

Even if I bought film overseas (assuming I can find it in Lower

Slobbovia), I've got to have larger carry-on capacity for the

homeward trip.

Ilford claims lower useage and difficulty in manufacturing 220

film. Fooey. Kodak 220 films rewinds easier in my Mamiya M7's

than Ilford's FP4 220. About 2 years ago I suggested to Ilford that

their slitting was contributing to poor rewinding, which could

cause customer complaints and reduced sales. ( I happen to be

- very - knowledgable on the slitting of films and similar

materials. It's my profession.). In the intervening 2 years, I saw

no improvement in the way the film rewound, and kind of

expected this to happen.

So long, Ilford, It's been good to know ya...

A few years ago, I had a discussion with an Ilford Rep., who said

that Ilford had just recalled a large amount of film because the

supplier of the printed backing paper had used the wrong ink,

and it was causing "shadows" on the film.

I use mostly 220 film, which doesn't have the same potential

problem.

9 inch roll film is typically use in aerial cameras, and thus is

typically thinner than cut size film. (Check the Kodak spec sheets

on aero films). That may not be a problem if it is cut so that the

"curl" is supressed by the film guides in a 4x5 holder. That

means cutting it so that it would tend to curl into a 4 inch long

tube, not a 5 inch tube. That's the way you would naturally cut it

anyway.(2 four inch wide pieces, side-by-side). It's possible that

the strain dynamics under these conditions might make the film

lay very flat despite bein thinner.

Julio:

Interesting.... I just finished working with some polycarbonate

sheet, and it was definately softer that the acrylic sheet. So I

looked up the mechanical properties, and discoveed that

polycarbonate hardness can range from the low 60's up to about

123 on the Rockwell D scale. Acrylics can range from the mid

30's to about 95. I all depends on the specific resin formulated

by a specific manufacturer. Obviously, my materials were atypical

of the general rule.

So, you're right, and I've got to eat my words.

I agree that polycarbonates are the best choice where impact

resistance is important (rocks against a windshield). But if I

needed a quickie replacement for a ground glass, I'd pop into a

frame supply shop, buy a piece of acrylic, dust it with a sand

blaster or some emery paper (stay away from solvents, we agree

on that), and get on with taking pictures.

Regards.

I should add that I can get 14 full 6x12 frames, spaced about 3/8 inches apart

per roll of 220 film. But... my holder doesn't roll the film tight enough to

prevent some edge fogging on the last frame, so I tend to quit after frame

#13.

Also... I wish this BlinkkittyBlank response window was larger and had a spell

chekker. Grrrr.

Right on, Alan... it's amazing how that misconception about the

paper backing influencing the plane of focus never seems to go

away.

Now... to the question: yes, it is possible to use 220 in a

Horseman 120 roll film back. I've run hundreds of 220 rolls thru

my Horseman 6x12. You'll need to do some experimenting to

find the best starting mark, and create some sort of a stick-on

label at the advance lever to space the frames.

Sacrifice a roll of film.... You'll find that the starting mark should

be in the left bay, about 3/8 inch to the right of center. Put a sticky

label in there to indicate a starting point. Wind past frame #1,

which is now considered "leader. The actual film begins at frame

#2. After the 6th frame, you'll need some marlks on the label to

indicate where the advance lever must be stopped each time. By

marking on the sacrificial roll of film, you can make indexing

marks on the label. You'll find that the marks get progressivly

closer with each frame.

I created a computer graphic for an avery label for the top of the

holder, just under the advance lever which gives me very good

spacing. I also rigged up a little couner to slip into the little film

box holder to keep track of which frame I'm on, so I don't mess

up when advancing to the next frame.

A light sandblasting will also work. If you have access to a

sandblasting cabinet, use a fine grit, and take several light

passes. It's not too bad, quite like a traditional ground glass.

Acrylic is better than polycarbonate (lexan), because it's a harder

resin, and less prone to scratching. Polycarbonates are softer

(but tougher) resins, good for structural applicatins. Clear

styrenes are hard also, but too brittle. Acrylic is the best

all-around resin for this type of use, and readly availabe (picture

framing glazing, for example).

Bruce...

It's a little late now, but when you get back from your vacation,

make some out of 3mm (1/8") baltic birch plywood and some

clear pine or hemlock wood ripped to about 3/16" thick by 1" (or

so) wide. Like most ULF folks, you've got some basic

woodworking skills, so with a few hours and some reasonable

care, you can have 3 or 4 custom film boxes that'll serve you for

years to come.

Use ordainary wood glue, don't bother with nails. Make sure all

the wood pieces are straight. Leave a 1/4" flange aorund the top

and bottom so you can open them easily. Make the inside about

1" longer so you can get your fingers under the film to lift it out.

The trickiest part is making the top fit the bottom closely. To do

that, make the bottom first. Then use some shim spacers (chips

of cardboard from the back of a writing pad are about right) to

separate the bottom side rails from the top side rails.

Temporarily tape the top rails together, and glue the top sheet

onto the rails. Use a few weights to hold the top down while the

glue sets. Lift off the top, toss the shims away, paint the inside

flat black, and decorate the outside to your whim.

I've made 4 or 5 of them for 8x20 film, my first one had a double

rail light trap system, but I find that a 1" deep box, with a closely

fitting lid is totally light tight with single overlapping rails.

Have fun.

Reinhold

Ann...

I cut 20x24 film down to 8x20, using the vertical razor blade on a C&H mat

cutter. Zero dust and scratching problems. The details...

I clamp a straight edge onto the base as a film stop, so the cut size is

consistant. I use a new piece of matboard as a backing sheet, because my

cutter has a groove below the blade, and the film would depress into it without

the backing sheet. I carefully examine the hold-down bar to make sure there's

no debris that could scratch the film. I put a brand new blade into the cutter. I

make certain the cutter slides smoothly. I slit "emulsion up", only because my

workflow gives me better assurance of not bumping into something and

scuffing the emuslion. I place a few patches of glow tape at strategic places

so I know where the cutter is, etc. I do not press down hard on the hold-down

bar, it's natural weight keeps the film from slipping.

In the past, I tried a taditional guillotine office cutter, but holding the film from

sliding around was tricky. Worse yet, if the film was indexed up against the

upper squaring edge, it was too close to where the blade started its' cut, and

tended to push the film out of the slitting nip, skewing the film, and...worse

yet... created a poor cut for the first couple of inches. This is a universal

characteristic of office type guillotine cutters. The shear angle is too vertical

back at the "throat" of the cutter. The piece of film resting on the baseboard

was ok. but the edge of the cut-off piece was not clean and smooth.

If you use a rotary trimmer, make sure that the blade doesn't overlap the bed

knife too far, or slit quality will be "less than ideal" on the cut-off piece, since

the film must be displaced vertically by the blade. A 1/8 inch overlap should

be about maximum if you're fussy about emulsion dust and edge cracking.

Vertical displacement is the problem when shear slitting coated materials,

which is why the guillotine cutter has a similar slit edge appearance.

The surgically sharp razor on a mat cutter eliminates these problems.

Oh... and wear anti-static gloves.

Have fun.

Reinhold Schable

Buy a can of 3M #6065 Spray Mount Artist's Adhesive, and spray

a light mist onto your easel (your easel is a sheet of formica

covered particle board, right?).

3M's artist adhesive is specifically formulated for temporary

paste-up work when doing layouts, etc. It'll hold that

cantankerous roll of photo paper flat, but lets go of it easily when

it's time to take it off.

Between printing sessions, lay a sheet of polyethylene film (a

piece of a plastic "drop cloth, for example) over the easel to

prevent dust from acumulating and reducing the adhesives grip.

Have a machine shop lathe turn a shallow spiral around the PVC

pipe. The groove should be about 1mm wider than the film, and

about 2 or 3 mm deep. Remember to re-calculate the new

circumference of the groove.

Grady:

The formula I gave above does indeed use Phenidone, not

metol. I mix it myself and can vouch for it.

Pat Gainer introduced us to vitamin C developers about ten

years ago, you can read his original article at The Unblinking

Eye: http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/VitC/vitc.html

You'll note that mixing the tiny amounts of Phenidone is tricky,

that's why some of the recent variants on his concoctions

suggest metol instead. (It takes about 10 times as much metol

to do the same thing that Phenidone does). Since I have a

laboratory balance, I can measure out 0.3 g of the stuff easily. I

also observed that 0.3 g amounts to about 1/8 teaspoon, so I

mentioned that, in case you don't have a precision balance.

(Remember, you've got to mix it yourself, you can't buy it down at

the local photo shop)

About 2 years ago, Pat introduced us to a divided version, using

Phenidone, and shortly thereafter, a metol version, for the

reasons just mentioned. I happen to have at least a 50 year

supply of Phenidone, and choose to use the original version, as

related above.

As others have suggested above, you definately need to get as

far away from metol as quickly as you can.

Cheers...

The problem may be a sudden drop in cold water pressure (the

wife turns on the cold water to rinse a head of lettuce), the

pressure drops, and upsets your hot/cold settings. You must

have some "backflow" check valves in both hot and cold lines to

prevent a pressure reversal in your mixing system.

In fact... a building inspector would insist that they be installed to

prevent "siphoning" because someone next door flushed a toilet.

The check valves should be installed in font of (the supply side)

of your mixing faucets.

I should add that Phenidone was championed by Ilford as an

alternate to Kodak's Metol. Ilford claimed a significant reduction

of contact dermatitis reactions with Phenidone compared to

metol, which is known to be a major irritant in the dermatitis

game.

Of course, you can't be certain that metol is the culprit... a doctor

would have to detremine the exact cause (or causes). That's

one of the nice things about mixing your own... you have total

control of the ingredients. You ...know... what's in there!

As Mark says: the problem should be taken seriously. Every

exposure will increase your sensitivity and the severity of the

reaction. It could get so bad that you may not even be able to

walk into your darkroom.

Consider using Pat Gainers' vitamin C developers, especially

the variant that uses phenidone. Super simple, minimum

chemistry, and some vitamins, to boot:

Part A is 0.3g of Phenidone (prox. 1/8 teaspoon) dissolved in

about 25 ml methanol, + 20g ascorbic acid (Not sodium

ascorbate) + 500 ml water. Part B is 95g of sodium metaborate

(Kodalk) in 1000 ml water. Try 50 ml part A + 100 ml part B, +

1000ml water.

Very fine grain, good contrast, beautiful tonality, & cheap. (In fact,

it's almost unbelievable how little chemistry is needed to develop

a piece of film. I develope about 6 sheets of 8x20" HP5 in 3 liters

of this stuff. The actual amount of phenidone, vitamine C, and

Kodalk consumed is ---miniscule---. I'm still amazed at it all.

Jorge:

You're right, cutting film is tricky, as you know. I find that a true

mat cutter, with a pivoting hold-down bar and a sliding blade

holder keeps the film from shifting. ( I have a C&H cutter). I fix a

metal straight edge to the base at exactly 8.0" from the cut line,

slide the film against the stop, lower the clamping bar down onto

the film, and hold it down with gentle pressure. (I also make

darn sure there's a clean piece of matboard as a supporting

surface under the film). The film stays put, guaranteed.

The sliding blade holder keeps the razor blade precisely located,

and is totally safe in the dark. It takes only one pass, and the cut

is clean and smooth, with no emulsion chipping such as

happens with a traditional lever type paper trimmer.

I use anti-static gloves that are thin, smooth, and let me feel the

film easily without making me nervous about static, dust, cat

hairs, etc.

For notching the film, I made a hand held doo-dad that fits over

the edge of the film, and limits the size of the "bite" that the

triangular paper punch takes. It keeps the notch size and

location consistant.

Have fun...

I just found a source for Ilford HP5+ film at very reasonable

prices, off the shelf, with no minimum order.

Call Jeff, at William Paul & Associates, White Plains, NY, at

800-962-4050. He stocks HP5+ in sizes up to 20x24 , as well as

cuts to special sizes on order. Jeff says they cater to the graphic

arts industry as well as schools. (And, as of now--- at least one

ULF photographer)

Since I'm shooting 8x20, I'll buy a box of 25 sheets of 20x24 at

$265.00 and cut them into 75 sheets of 8x20 for a cost of

$3.533333 per sheet. Wow!!! 400 speed film at $3.53 each.

Wow!!! HP5+, at that. Wow!!!

I cut film to size using my mat cutter with an accurately placed

stop, so handling is minimized and accuracy is "right on". To

notch the film, I use a simple triangle shaped paper punch from

Office Depot. Works great.

For those who are uncomfortable cutting film, I've been informed

by the local Ilford salesman that HP5+ (25 sheets 8x20) is

available from their warehouse as a limited stock item under

their part # 1786024. Your local Ilford dealer/photo shop should

be able to get it .

Here's my method...

All negatives get an alpha-numeric number, such as ACAQ 154,

(Aircraft, Antique... neg. # 154) or BUAB 356, (Buildings,

Abandoned... neg. # 356), or SEBC 93 (Seats, Benches, &

Chairs... neg. #93).

I keep a Filemaker database grouped by the alpha category, with

the sequential negative numbers, descriptions, date taken, film

size, etc listed for each "record" (the individually numbered

negative within the alpha category in the database)

This identifying number is written on each negative, then 2

proofs are made. One proof is enclosed with the negative in a

poly envelope (Plastines from Adorama, or Light Impressions)

and filed according to the alpha category. I use metal filing

cabinets for each format size (medium format, 4x5, 5x7, 8x20,

etc). The second proof is filed in a hanging file according to the

alpha category. For the 8x20 proofs, I make a digital "thumbnail"

size for ease of filing. (This is my quick access library,).

This system focuses on the TOPIC, rather than when or where

the photo was made. Since the system is on a database, I can

enter a seach word ("windmill", for example, and find every

instance where a description included a windmill, even if it's

alongside an abandoned building (in category BUAB, or GHTO).

The Identification number is also informative, that is: I have a

good idea of the subject. By glancing at GHTO, I know that the

subject is Ghost Towns. Let's see you do the with a cryptic

number such as: 2000-45-67-w8, or some other murky string of

digits.

This system has kept me in good order for the past 20 years,

and 30,000+ negatives. I can find anything using the database

and a few search words, or I can browse the hanging file,

looking for subjects according to a customers interest. ("Let me

see what youv'e got on: Ghost Towns...")

The longer you wait to get a system in place, the more chaotic

the job becomes, as you already know.

Have fun. Heh, heh...