70mm Film again available from Ilford

[RICHARD HUGHES]

How can I check if my Hasselblad 70mm back is still working?
I currently don't have cassettes nor films for this.
The notched button near the frame counter isn't moving.

1). If the "notched button" will not move when you try to turn it in a clockwise direction, then the counter wheel has seized on its support shaft; you should not try to force it as you might cause serious damage to the frame counting mechanism. The reason is most probably that the lubricating grease used by Hasselblad has become "glue like" through drying out over the years; the magazine will need taking apart, cleaning, lubricating and reassembling. I use watchmaker's oil rather than grease when I service my magazines.

2). Cassettes can be bought on ebay for example.

3) Out of date film may be purchased also on ebay.

4). Fresh film is available from Maco direct and via the Ilford ULF 2017 run. Film Ferrania have said they will make it available at some time in the (far?) future.

Where are you located?

Hope this helps you a little.

Cofion,

Richard Hughes.

 

[3dreal]

I would not cut 70mm film from both sides since it will leave uneven perforation marks which could damage the machines. instead, get from xkaes at aol dot com(fred) a one-blade version which will cut 8.5mm from one side. I have both versions. this procedure is wise to use when one cannot develop oneself.
70mm developping
three-reel-part-technique using 120/220-reels the wide way(see above) working with:
a) Jobo 2500 I am using Testtank 2820 with 500ml used in CPA2-rotating machine. I used also 2517-70mm-reel for 220 lenght-172cm approx. in this tank successfully also E-6, C-41 and b+w.
b) Paterson 4-system
Hasselblad 70mm back and 61.5mm film-longroll or stitched
We are working on shims for kodak 70mm cartridges(it has a filmclamp-linhof has a slit for 70mm film and reel is thicker) to use 61.5mm film in this back. Since Linhof reels are thicker we will offer two versions. Only must be tested of the slit to hold film will also work for 61.5mm. or if it must be taped.
The mentioned system is already working with Graflex RH-50 6x7/70mm-4x5-counter can be zeroed and for Hasselbald one must alter the cogwheel and o-ring added. i will let someone in europe make this.
someone already did this successfully.

 

[3dreal]

Handling 4.7m or 6.5m(depending film-thickness) is a mess. Jobo has a 5m-developping tank. i have it, not yet used. handling this lenght is a special task.
instead i exposed for 220-lenght and cut it then to mount in 2517_70mm jobo-reel. 172cm film can be loaded. Cutting at the right position needs planning. I know how much to cut at the end and in the darkroom is a ruler with 172cm lenght then.
Was using 70mm in Roundshot 65/70/220. 120 can also be used but a bad idea only slow rotation thanks to disturbing paper. the very same cam-one year older is on ebay now. if you are willing to carry around 6.5kg plus tripod and invest time and nerves get the cam it has 26mm shift up. 1/250- 4sec (0.9sec/16 min rotating time 1/8 is lacking) to shift down special u-shape must be contructed.

 

[mainoo]

i) A 220 sized rollfilm basically consists of three parts:
- a paper leader (of 120 paper sized width - x) and having length 'A'; followed by
- a length of film emulsion (of 120 film sized width - y) and having length 'B'; followed by
- a paper trailer (of 120 paper sized width - x) and having length 'C';
ii) The rollfilm is wound, during manufacture, onto a normal 120 sized spool in the order trailer - film - leader.
iii) One end of the length of film is adhered to the end of the paper leader and the other end of the length of film is adhered to the start of the paper trailer; this is usually accomplished by using a suitable length of adhesive tape; at both its ends, the film should overlap the paper leader/trailer by a few millimeters and be afixed to the inside radius of curvature of the paper so you have in effect a three layered sandwich over the short length where the film is fixed to the paper consisting of paper, film and tape as we go from the outside of the wound reel to the inside. The adhesive tape need not span the whole width of the paper leader but should have a width that is sufficient to ensure that the joint does not tear apart during the film winding operation. The non film ends of the leader/trailer papers may be shaped into tongues in order to engage with the slots in the reels.
iv) The film should be taped to leader/trailer papers such that it is centred and all lengthwise edges are parallel; as this has to be done in total darkness, some practice may be necessary - but it is not difficult.
v) Typical lengths are:
- 'A' 21 inches
- 'B' 60 inches
- 'C' 13 inches
- y 60.5 millimeteres
- x 61.5 millimetres
These lengths do exhibit some variations especially 'A', 'B' and 'C' but they work for me on Hasselblad A24/A32 backs. You may wish to experiment to determine what is best for your setup.
vi) In addition, there is the need for a "start mark" which is to be put on the outer surface of the leader paper; this usually consists of a thick line across the width of the leader paper; it should be positioned about 7.5 inches from the start of the film. This is used to align the film to film advance/counting mechanism in your film magazine.
vii) You can prepare, trailer and leader papers in daylight but clearly the taping of film and the winding onto the spool must be done in total darkness. That is basically it. I would strongly recommend you to acquire then sacrifice a 220 roll film and to take it apart; the above would then become clearer in your mind and you could practice remaking the film in daylight and then with a blindfold possibly before you start rolling your own.

Now to your question about "removing about 4.5 mm from each side..."

If you start with 70mm roll film you will see from the above that it is too wide - you need a film strip of width 60.5mm so you must remove a strip of about 9mm along one whole length of your 220 film strip to be; alternately, you could remove about 4.5mm from along both whole lengths of your 220 film strip to be. If you are starting from unperforated 70mm stock, the former would be sufficient; if your 70mm stock is perforated, then the latter is more elegant but you will still probably have some residual traces of perforation along the length of your 220 strip.
That is why unperforated film is more suitable for this job; of course you could remove the 9mm strip along one length of the 70mm strip and take the remaining perforations on the other length into account when photographing - these perforations might encroach into your image area.

You need to remove the excess film using a film slitter which can be bought over the web for about 30 US dollars.

Since the actual image area is typically 56mm by 56mm, there is scope to make your 220 film strip even narrower; this however may lead to further problems such as difficulty in centering the film strip relative to the trailer/leader backing papers and the fact that your strip may now be too narrow to be able to be held securely in a typical developing tank reel.

Is it practical? Yes of course it is; when you have rolled a few of your own, you will become proficient and enjoy the benefits of shooting longer rolls of film (if that is what you want to do).

Is it cost effective? That is impossible to answer because there is no longer any commercially produced 220 b/w film available with which to make a comparison. It has to be a subjective decision on your part. Personallly it is right for me and I have been doing it for years. Before this year's ULF run, I cut my own backing paper from 50 foot long, 25 inch wide rolls. I no longer have to do this and if Ilford were to offer in the future long rolls of standard 120 sized film (which they must have anyway) then the process becomes even easier.

Hope this helps,

Richard Hughes.

i'm on a similar quest - aim is to use motion picture 65mm film. I have a couple of questions and i'm hoping that you won't mind answering.

1. Am considering making a jig similar to the one you describe for slitting the film but rather than pulling the film through, having the razors glide (hopefully) through the film. As I am likely to be cutting through perforations on both sides i wondered which method would work better. I realise that a moving slitter is a more complicated assembly but as i will be short on space and not always certain of having a clean environment, having the film stationary in its 'sterile' corridor seems to be a necessity. That way i can use the whole assembly in any relatively clean space.

2. You mention the possibility of dispensing with the backing paper completely and (un)loding film in total darkness. Presumably the film would still need to be anchored to the spools and wound on. This would entail wasting a certain amount of film, would it not? Then there's the additional problem of knowing where to wind to before closing the back and starting the camera's counter. Are my assumptions correct?

3. i am also considering cutting out the sprocket holes completely (if i can do so without impinging on the image area). I note the 2 problems you anticipate with this approach - centering the film strip (which i believe i can overcome) and ensuring that the film will still sit comfortably in a developing reel (something i'll have to check with my reels once i know the actual dimensions) - are you aware of any others?

Thanks very much in advance.

 

[RICHARD HUGHES]

i'm on a similar quest - aim is to use motion picture 65mm film. I have a couple of questions and i'm hoping that you won't mind answering.

1. Am considering making a jig similar to the one you describe for slitting the film but rather than pulling the film through, having the razors glide (hopefully) through the film. As I am likely to be cutting through perforations on both sides i wondered which method would work better. I realise that a moving slitter is a more complicated assembly but as i will be short on space and not always certain of having a clean environment, having the film stationary in its 'sterile' corridor seems to be a necessity. That way i can use the whole assembly in any relatively clean space.

2. You mention the possibility of dispensing with the backing paper completely and (un)loding film in total darkness. Presumably the film would still need to be anchored to the spools and wound on. This would entail wasting a certain amount of film, would it not? Then there's the additional problem of knowing where to wind to before closing the back and starting the camera's counter. Are my assumptions correct?

3. i am also considering cutting out the sprocket holes completely (if i can do so without impinging on the image area). I note the 2 problems you anticipate with this approach - centering the film strip (which i believe i can overcome) and ensuring that the film will still sit comfortably in a developing reel (something i'll have to check with my reels once i know the actual dimensions) - are you aware of any others?

Thanks very much in advance.

Thank you for your questions:
1. Using your proposed method would require a 'sterile corridor' of some length (around 1.6 metres) and if you cannot guarantee a clean environment then I would be reluctant to start; clearly the method can work although I would prefer a shorter film 'guide' and to wind the cut film onto a spool that has already been been prepared with the trailer paper. You need to minimize film handling as film is quite fragile and to degrade the film in any way defeats the purpose of the whole exercise. Use surgical gloves so no fat is transferred from hand to emulsion.
2. True but the wastage can be minimized in that when you have taped the film end to the take up spool you can close the magazine immediately and start shooting - the film counter will synchronize eventually giving you 28 or 29 frames on your '220' strip. (I am describing only Hasselblad).
3. Yes you could but as a general principle the less the film is handled the better so the removal of one side of perforations is a 'gentler' approach. You need to remove a strip of width 4.5mm along the entire length but not more if you want to avoid problems with your developing tank spools. you should perhaps measure all the critical widths on both magazine and tank spools using accurate calipers and you may find that you can get away with removing 3.5mm.

Please let me know how you get on.

Cofion,

Richard Hughes.

 

[3dreal]

I told nokton24(hope its right now) to send holgamods the drawing for his joba-adapter in order to be able developping 70mm films. he has now found a simpler method by using a 35mm cartridge, bent the right way to stop one spiral from moving. havent tried myself.
I could imagine in 2018 when Washi-film will bring its correx-system for Jobo and Paterson one could possibly develop also 70mm films but i wouldnt trust in this since its for 35 and 120 films only. it will definitively not work in old correx tanks since they are too small then. already with 120 one must be very cautious. i have saved the exact informations. I could test loading 70mm film(120 lenght only). Jobo-70mm-method using additional pressing spriral is simplest method. here it is:
Left: 3-Reel- Jobo 2500 method. working also for Paterson. Rigth: Jobo 2517 70mm(172cm/220 lenght)-reel.
I used Jobo 2820 testdrum with 2517 but 3-reel-combo can also be mounted. 500mml C-41 chemicals used in CPA2.

 

[mainoo]

Thank you for your questions:
1. Using your proposed method would require a 'sterile corridor' of some length (around 1.6 metres) and if you cannot guarantee a clean environment then I would be reluctant to start; clearly the method can work although I would prefer a shorter film 'guide' and to wind the cut film onto a spool that has already been been prepared with the trailer paper. You need to minimize film handling as film is quite fragile and to degrade the film in any way defeats the purpose of the whole exercise. Use surgical gloves so no fat is transferred from hand to emulsion.
2. True but the wastage can be minimized in that when you have taped the film end to the take up spool you can close the magazine immediately and start shooting - the film counter will synchronize eventually giving you 28 or 29 frames on your '220' strip. (I am describing only Hasselblad).
3. Yes you could but as a general principle the less the film is handled the better so the removal of one side of perforations is a 'gentler' approach. You need to remove a strip of width 4.5mm along the entire length but not more if you want to avoid problems with your developing tank spools. you should perhaps measure all the critical widths on both magazine and tank spools using accurate calipers and you may find that you can get away with removing 3.5mm.

Please let me know how you get on.

Cofion,

Richard Hughes.

Hi Richard

Thank you very much for your considered response. My apologies for the delay in replying - I was caught up in the throes of designing a solution.

To clarify, when i say I cannot guarantee a clean environment, i was referring to the area outside my sterile corridor into which I would have been pulling film from the slitter. My preference is for a limited area which i can try to guarantee is dust free. I am considering blowing filtered air through it to create a positive pressure chamber. Ideally, I would like to be able to transport the rig to any darkroom and get to work with relative ease.

I didn't really understand your reference to a shorter film guide - would you mind explaining?

My proposed system minimises film handling. I plan to have the original film reel on a system that can travel the length of the corridor. I will move the reel to one end then clamp the film at the start position and then spool film off the reel as I move the reel back. Once I am sure I have arrived at the other end a 'safe' guillotine will be used to slice the film after it has been clamped. Once the film has been laid down, the reel is moved further down the track and out of the way.

The slitter is then run along the corridor. I am, at the moment, planning to slit from both sides, which will result in a partially perforated border and i do worry about the possibility of the film snarling up when i try to insert it on to development reels.

At each end a prepared piece of backing paper is slid under the film and taped to the film (the necessary precautions will be taken to ensure that the film is centred on the backing paper and that the area of backing paper under the film is correct and consistently the same.

The film is then wound onto a spool using a manual crank. Ideally I would do this just once getting the tensioning right by weighting the whole spool at one end but if i need to i might have to spool it the wrong way round and then put it in a camera or a back that allows winding of the film (I'm assuming mamiya 220 backs allow this without being attached to the camera).

Issues:
1. Cost - i'm not a diy person so this will have to be made for me. If it is too expensive, the project will die.
2. Dust - As I say above, if i need to i will make a tent over the sterile corridor.
3. Film curl when laying down the film from the reel. The plan is to do the whole thing without touching the film except possibly for a very small area at either end - if the film is threatening to curl away, this might make it difficult.
4. Ensuring that the corridor is smooth and does not damage or cause the spool to catch. I'm considering lining the corridor in a soft fleece like material but I must also avoid the risk of generating static electricity which would attract dust particles - (of which there should be none, hmmm)
5. Backing paper - I understand that commercial grade backing paper can be purchased from Ilford via their annual ULF program but I also hear that it is quite costly so I am interested in possible alternatives. I was given to believe that there really weren't any that meet the stringent requirements of effectively shutting out light and not reacting to the film. But you mention that you have used an alternative in the past. What was your experience with it and would you mind sharing its source? I am thinking that since the emulsion is only briefly in contact with the backing paper (including when wound on the spool), the stringent requirements might be more easily met with 220 film.

Thank you for the clarity of what you have written on this thread - it played a big part in convincing me that this is doable.

mainoo

 

[3dreal]

on the net there are instructions how to produce 220. why not get a slitter or two(one blade to cut only one side of perforations) or two blades to cut inbetween 70mm-perforations.
then mounting to 220-paper- there is a solution how to use 120-paper. get the slitter from Joe of xkaes at aol dot com made in china exclusively for Joe. any slitter can be made.

 

[3dreal]

Want to warn you cutting perforations on both sides of 70mm film- only cut them on ONE SIDE. get Xkaes-slitter. perforations are needed for the cogwheeel which is calculating spacing,avoiding overlapping.
true for all magazines. on photrio i have seen insights of my findings since i have two Mamya RB67/70 backs one integrated partly in a 40mm pinhole-cam. Pls read what i have found out. using 120/220 longroll(cut 70mm aka 61.5mm film). when 70mm film is used counterproblem is gone. i will verify again since the new back(70/120/220 longroll 61.5mm-conversion) seems to need overhaul. counter not working. need to check of true also for 70mm film. using unperforated 61.5mm film inside Mamya RB67/70 seems to work incl. working counter. only have to doublecheck since it need special procedure of no perforations is there. pls read in phototrio my newest findings. also 3dreal there.