70mm Film FUN up ahead

[Nokton48]

Here is a modern "Handy" type of camera from China. Very similar to mine in many respects. Seeing this has given me a few ideas. It utilizes the same viewfinder as my camera.

4x5 Handy type camera from China by Nokton48, on Flickr

Handy type camera from China 3 by Nokton48, on Flickr

 

[Calzone]

Thanks! May take me a while to organise some film and a back, but a processing tank is a good start. 70mm backs are still some of the more affordable Hasselblad types, so it's probably a good excuse to begin keeping an eye out for one, I already have the camera body and a few lenses. I lost track of this discussion for a while after the first couple of pages so I'll have to go back and educate myself more about the 70mm format. The thread's certainly got legs, I'm surprised, (but pleased), to see so much interest in 70mm.
Cheers,
Brett

Brett,

Getting a 15 foot reel and a daylight tank is not so easy. Consider yourself lucky.

I have three 15 foot reels: two are the stainless steel reels that Dan dipicted that have spokes like wagon wheels; and one is like yours.

The single reel tank I have is a Nikor non daylight tank that resembles a small stainless steel hat or cake box. I think I can cut down a JOBO Expert 3063 tank so I can create a three reel daylight inversion tank.

I shot some Rollie 400S in 120 over the weekend and processed it using Diafine. The reason I am shooting Rollie 400S in 120 is for short roll testing, as Rollie 400S is available for less than a dollar a foot in 70mm and it is fresh film.

In another thread I found out that the 400S film speed is greatly exaggerated by MACO and it really is a 80-100 ISO film. I researched this film a bit and it kinda is high contrast, where it kinda has a natural "S" curve kinda built in, so moderating contrast is required if one is going to try and use this film for full tonal range.

With Diafine, a compensating developer that moderates contrast, I had some good encouraging results. The good is that this film in Diafine is fine grained. I was able to get full tonality with a nice midrange by doing a list of tricks to effectively "pull" the film with a pushing developer.

Here's what I did. I shot off of an eight story building's rooftop around 9:30 AM under a blue cloudless sky. The lighting was mucho high key of low rise in the foreground and UES highrise in the distance. I was shooting a Plaubel 69W with a 47/5.6 with a 21mm FOV stopped down to F11.

I developed in a 500ml stainless steel daylight tank, but I used a Hewes 220 reel to resemble the tighter spacing that resembles one of my 15 foot reels. This reel fits snuggly and has absolutely no "piston" factor when inverting. Know that this is important because with Diafine I tend to underdevelop by only doing two gentle inversions per minute instead of the recommended three inversions per minute. With other films like Tri-X and FP4 I extend the development from 3+3 to 4+4, so this is what I did with this first test roll.

So here is the bad. My best negatives suggest perhaps 50-80 ISO, so effectively I'm pulling the film to get nice midrange, but sacrificing film speed. I think my next test will be in a 1 liter tank because I see traces of Bromide Drag in the sky on some negatives. Just a trace, most noticable when the negatives are wet, but I believe with just a tad of "piston" play during an inversion is enough to increase the circulation enough to avoid the Bromide Drag I see from the 500ml tank. With Rollie 400S it seems I made the negatives a bit too thin by going 4+4, and next time I will do 3+3. Know I am trying to optimize my negatives for wet printing so I want more density that for scanning.

Understand that Diafine is a two part developer. Part "A" only soaks into the emulsion, no real development takes place during this soaking, and it is really only when Part "B" is in the tank that the real development takes place.

I found that by minimizing aggitation that it makes for smaller grain, wher Tri-X is almost as fine grained as Acros.

I found that the recommended ISO's for Diafine are way aggressive. The highlights kinda get a stand development treatment, the shadow detail is inately enhanced, but the mids are controlled by ISO. I think if I cut the development to 3+3 I might get an honest 80 ISO.

I will be trying Microphen also, but instead of using the recommended 8 minutes stock and 4 inversions per minute I will try to get a compensating effect by halving the inversions to only 2 a minute and extending development to perhaps 11 minutes. Basically halve the inversions and extend development 30%. Basically I'm trying to flatten an "S" curve that is built into Rollie 400S. My thinking is if I can get 160 ISO with Microphen then I can use Rollie 400S as my medium speed film.

For a slow speed film I expect Rollie 400S in Diafine "pulled" for 50-80 ISO. These negatives are like no grain and highly detailed. Particularly great for landscape because there is an extended IR range that cuts through the filth, pollution and haze of NYC.

So far Rollie 400S is looking mighty good. I figure about $2.50 per 120 equiv plus bonus exposures when shooting 15 foot lengths.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

This 70mm spilled into another thread.

Check out my last post on the Rollie 400S and Rodinal thread in the Bill Pierce section.

Seems like I had to unwind some confusion about Diafine and my Rollie 400S testing.

I feel really good that Rollie 400S looks to be great as a 50 ISO film pulled.
I think Diafine 3+3 with two inversions will really nail it.

My hope is that I can get Rollie 400S to do 160 ISO with Microphen.

This would allow 50 ISO and 160 ISO shooting mucho cheap.

Cal

 

[Nokton48]

Cal,

I'm thinking about ACUFINE and ACUFINE Replenisher due to the film volume. I already have a gallon kit of Diafine, a gallon of Acufine, and Acufine Replenisher from B&H. That should be enough to fill my Kindermann 70mm tank. This is a lot of film stock so for me replenisher makes the only real sense.
As far as I know Acufine is the only developer I have ever used that has honestly boosted shadow detail. It really does raise film speed. Seems like a good match to Rollei 400S.

"Not sure how to unwind the VAT since I'm in the U.S". You insist that they deduct the VAT (about 18%) because you are NOT in the European Union.
We pay personal Income Tax, not VAT. Actually their website should make the deduction for foreign purchases, but it's not that sophisticated. SO Rollei 400S is about $80 per roll plus USA shipping

I figured it's really around 100 ISO give or take. I've read that Diafine Part A dosen't easily absorb into the emulsion of 400S, so it is good news it is working for you

 

[Nokton48]

I like this tonality a lot. This is Rollei A74/D74. A previous post here by Fotohuis:

Here an example of Retro 400S E.I. 200 in D74 1+15. Retro 80S and Retro 400S are Agfa Gevaert aviation type films and they need a semi-compensating or a bit lower contrast working type developer. HC-110 is building up quickly a higher contrast.

It is a scan from a fiber print on Fomabrom Variant 111.

 

[Calzone]

Cal,

I'm thinking about ACUFINE and ACUFINE Replenisher due to the film volume. I already have a gallon kit of Diafine, a gallon of Acufine, and Acufine Replenisher from B&H. That should be enough to fill my Kindermann 70mm tank. This is a lot of film stock so for me replenisher makes the only real sense.
As far as I know Acufine is the only developer I have ever used that has honestly boosted shadow detail. It really does raise film speed. Seems like a good match to Rollei 400S.

"Not sure how to unwind the VAT since I'm in the U.S". You insist that they deduct the VAT (about 18%) because you are NOT in the European Union.
We pay personal Income Tax, not VAT. Actually their website should make the deduction for foreign purchases, but it's not that sophisticated. SO Rollei 400S is about $80 per roll plus USA shipping

I figured it's really around 100 ISO give or take. I've read that Diafine Part A dosen't easily absorb into the emulsion of 400S, so it is good news it is working for you

Dan,

$80.00 for 100 feet of 400S is no money. The shipping is not bad either if you bulk up and place a huge order.

Acufine is a strong developer so you can expect small grain and short times.

Diafine not only gets reused, needs no replenishment, and actually gets better with usage. I figure it takes about 25 rolls to get "seasoned," and this is when the contrast moderates a bit and the mids really expand.

I'm not so sure Acufine is the best for an innately contrasty film like Rollie 400S. Then again I'm considering Microphen, but as a one-shot. I figure any boost in film speed will only add contrast.

I was excited to use Rodinal for convenience, and it initially made sense to use high dilutions and long times to get a compensating effect, but it does seem like Diafine offers already great results. Rodinal would of been cheap as a one-shot.

I'll be doing another test using 3+3 (less development). I'll do 50, 80, and 100 ISO with my only two inversions per minute. I'll also do some exposures that are not so high key in lighting to see how it handles diffused light. I find that I can bypass flat negatives in diffused lighting by adding a little bit more exposure. For example with Tri-X instead of 800 ISO I use 640 ISO. Perhaps I'll get an honest 80 ISO and under diffused or overcast conditions I can just add some exposure by using 50 ISO. Already I'm really validating with this test an expected 80 ISO and see if 400S responds to added exposure like other films.

With Diafine when in doubt overexpose.

Once I get this nailed down, if you want you could mail me an exposed 120 roll and I can process it for you. With Diafine the cost of development is only a few pennies worth of fixer.

Cal

 

[Stefan Wood]

4 rolls of Fujichrome film purchased. Found a place that has a pair of extra film cassettes. Now to find a reel to develop in. Or an aerial photo place that still does film.

 

[Nokton48]

4 rolls of Fujichrome film purchased. Found a place that has a pair of extra film cassettes. Now to find a reel to develop in. Or an aerial photo place that still does film.

Stefan,

Good Going. What kind of Fujichrome is it? 😀

Are you going to cross-process it, or use it as E6?

 

[Nokton48]

Cal,

"Acufine is a strong developer so you can expect small grain and short times."

Digital Truth says seventeen minutes at 20C for Acufine with Agfa Aviphot 200 at 200-400 ISO (same film as Rollei 400S; I have a hundred feet of it). So this type of timing goes the other way. No replenisher for Microphen, so not interested. Too expensive to use without replenisher. It will be interesting to see how Rollei 400S responds to extended Acufine development. Acufine and I go way back, all the way to the 70s when doing award winning scholastic press photography. It's an old friend. Replenishment is something new with that stuff, in Ohio we only had quarts available. B&H has gallons, and the replenisher. Something new to me. Takes a lot of soup to cover those big reels.

Diafine and I have gotten along OK in the past; Having a gallon is something new. Again a nod to B&H

 

[Stefan Wood]

Duplicating Film (Color Reversal E-6). Reading some old threads I should shoot at 10-25asa and cross process it. Also using a yellow filter.


QUOTE=Nokton48;2740842]Stefan,

Good Going. What kind of Fujichrome is it? 😀

Are you going to cross-process it, or use it as E6?[/QUOTE]

 

[Nokton48]

It was said that this one was push-processed one stop at least which helped to raise the film speed and probably increased the contrast a tiny bit. Lovely soft colors and composition in this one.

fuji cdu iso 25 C41 by Nokton48, on Flickr

 

[Calzone]

Cal,

"Acufine is a strong developer so you can expect small grain and short times."

Digital Truth says seventeen minutes at 20C for Acufine with Agfa Aviphot 200 at 200-400 ISO (same film as Rollei 400S; I have a hundred feet of it). So this type of timing goes the other way. No replenisher for Microphen, so not interested. Too expensive to use without replenisher. It will be interesting to see how Rollei 400S responds to extended Acufine development. Acufine and I go way back, all the way to the 70s when doing award winning scholastic press photography. It's an old friend. Replenishment is something new with that stuff, in Ohio we only had quarts available. B&H has gallons, and the replenisher. Something new to me. Takes a lot of soup to cover those big reels.

Diafine and I have gotten along OK in the past; Having a gallon is something new. Again a nod to B&H

Dan,

Good point about Microphen not being economical due to inability to replenish. I will proceed with my testing Microphen as a one shot.

Keep us posted on the Acufine results. Some film speed would be great. I would be happy with 160-200 ISO.

Cal

 

[Nokton48]

Well now we are getting somewhere. The lens arrived from KEH and it's a beauty. Very sharp on the groundglass, and WOW it's wide on 4x5". I dug out my Norma-Era Sinar Reflex Viewfinder and I can see the whole screen edge to edge and it looks great to me!

The optical viewfinder is on it's way from China and then I will start to use the camera. This will be a blast............

I loaded the roll of Italian Kodak 70mm respooled 2402 Aerographic into a Graphic wind-knob 6x9cm back and I'm going to shoot it in this camera. Should be a total hoot. 🙂

Norma Handy with lens! by Nokton48, on Flickr

 

[Calzone]

Well now we are getting somewhere. The lens arrived from KEH and it's a beauty. Very sharp on the groundglass, and WOW it's wide on 4x5". I dug out my Norma-Era Sinar Reflex Viewfinder and I can see the whole screen edge to edge and it looks great to me!

The optical viewfinder is on it's way from China and then I will start to use the camera. This will be a blast............

I loaded the roll of Italian Kodak 70mm respooled 2402 Aerographic into a Graphic wind-knob 6x9cm back and I'm going to shoot it in this camera. Should be a total hoot. 🙂

Norma Handy with lens! by Nokton48, on Flickr

Dan,

65mm Super Augulon and by going only 6x9 means using the sweet spot. FOV should be like maybe a 35mm, but on 4x5 mucho wide.

I'm looking for a Linhof Super Rolliex that's 6x9. With my 53/4.0 Zeiss Biogon I figure a 28mm FOV in 6x7, but in 6x9 I leap over into ultrawide with a 24mm FOV but limited to 120 film. 28mm FOV is great for street here in NYC, but for landscape 24mm is very useful.

Dark slides allow me to change backs for the different FOV's instead of a lens change. 28mm FOV and 35mm FOV via 70 mm CINE is big firepower.

To do 645 I have to install the mask and change the insert, and I will take out of service Super Rolliex 6x7. I figure the 53/4.0 Biogon in 645 provides a 35mm FOV which is mucho useful and offers over 120 exposures on 15 feet of film.

So with one legendary great lens I got 24, 28, and 35mm FOV's by changing formats with only one lens.

Imagine shooting an event like the Mermaid Parade, or Gay Pride all day and only having to reload once or twice. Many less missed shots.

Interesting to note that the Biogon is a lens designed with ariel shooting in mind with even illumination and super low distortion. With Rollie 400S basically I'm shooting a rebranded Ariel film.

Cal

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Dan,

65mm Super Augulon and by going only 6x9 means using the sweet spot. FOV should be like maybe a 35mm, but on 4x5 mucho wide.

I'm looking for a Linhof Super Rolliex that's 6x9. With my 53/4.0 Zeiss Biogon I figure a 28mm FOV in 6x7, but in 6x9 I leap over into ultrawide with a 24mm FOV but limited to 120 film. 28mm FOV is great for street here in NYC, but for landscape 24mm is very useful.

Dark slides allow me to change backs for the different FOV's instead of a lens change. 28mm FOV and 35mm FOV via 70 mm CINE is big firepower.

To do 645 I have to install the mask and change the insert, and I will take out of service Super Rolliex 6x7. I figure the 53/4.0 Biogon in 645 provides a 35mm FOV which is mucho useful and offers over 120 exposures on 15 feet of film.

So with one legendary great lens I got 24, 28, and 35mm FOV's by changing formats with only one lens.

Imagine shooting an event like the Mermaid Parade, or Gay Pride all day and only having to reload once or twice. Many less missed shots.

Interesting to note that the Biogon is a lens designed with ariel shooting in mind with even illumination and super low distortion. With Rollie 400S basically I'm shooting a rebranded Ariel film.

Cal

Cal,
my Super Technika III came with an earlier knob wind Linhof Rollex 6x9 back (Graflex fit for 4x5). As it doesn't compensate for change in spool diameter it will result in some overlap with modern films, as a few references on the web suggest. I confirmed this for myself by sending a scrap roll of Acros through it a few times and marking the emulsion side at each end of the gate. You can, indeed, get a couple of millimetres or so overlap on some frames. I then wound a turn of garden-variety silver duct tape around the take up spool, and re-tested. Three turns seems to be the sweet spot. I've shot a few rolls of Ilford since and the frame spacing has been good: no overlap.

Rollex knob wind backs are quite a bit cheaper than later Super Rollex types, but with the steps outlined above, they are still quite usable. I keep half a dozen pre-wrapped spools in my Linhof case, and I'm always good to go. The only complication (and it's a minor one) is that with the slot in the take up spool covered by the tape, it is obviously not possible to slip the tongue of the leader in, so, it's easiest to peel up the end of the duct tape a few millimetres, and just slip the end of the leader under it to hold it in place.

I also replaced the felt in the dark slide slot and cleaned and lubricated the rollers and wind system as I noted a few small metal particles resulting from metal to metal contact near the inner boss of the knob. No other issues at all, apart from than that. I can't see why the earlier 2x3 backs would be any different to the 4x5 ones...
Cheers,
Brett

 

[Calzone]

Cal,
my Super Technika III came with an earlier knob wind Linhof Rollex 6x9 back (Graflex fit for 4x5). As it doesn't compensate for change in spool diameter it will result in some overlap with modern films, as a few references on the web suggest. I confirmed this for myself by sending a scrap roll of Acros through it a few times and marking the emulsion side at each end of the gate. You can, indeed, get a couple of millimetres or so overlap on some frames. I then wound a turn of garden-variety silver duct tape around the take up spool, and re-tested. Three turns seems to be the sweet spot. I've shot a few rolls of Ilford since and the frame spacing has been good: no overlap.

Rollex knob wind backs are quite a bit cheaper than later Super Rollex types, but with the steps outlined above, they are still quite usable. I keep half a dozen pre-wrapped spools in my Linhof case, and I'm always good to go. The only complication (and it's a minor one) is that with the slot in the take up spool covered by the tape, it is obviously not possible to slip the tongue of the leader in, so, it's easiest to peel up the end of the duct tape a few millimetres, and just slip the end of the leader under it to hold it in place.

I also replaced the felt in the dark slide slot and cleaned and lubricated the rollers and wind system as I noted a few small metal particles resulting from metal to metal contact near the inner boss of the knob. No other issues at all, apart from than that. I can't see why the earlier 2x3 backs would be any different to the 4x5 ones...
Cheers,
Brett

Brett,

This is very helpful. Mucho thanks. It seems I have been looking at a knob wind Rolliex, but I was warned by my Linhof Consultant that the frame spacing can be wonky.

There are benefits to the early wind knob Rolliex's: lower price; smaller; and lighter. Seems like an easy fix and workaround. Thanks for the tip.

I have a Plaubel 69W with a 47/5.6 Super Augulon and shifts so I know how ultra-wide loves 6x9. This 120/220 camera has rise or shift (can only use one movement at a time) and is a 21 FOV. Having 24mm FOV in 6x9 capabilities is very useful. BTW the only limitation of the Plaubel is it has no rangefinder, but the VF'er shifts and periscopes with any of the two movements for accurate framing.

Linhof's are cult cameras. It seems there is little information available, almost like a closely guarded secrete. It takes a lot of stubborn and obsessive thinking to mine the data and put things together.

I had a plan "B" of buying 6.5X9 cut sheet film that is available for $23.95 a box for 25 sheets of cold stored FP4, but Roll film is just so much easier and less expensive. I might just buy a box or two to have fun, but for cost and practical reasons roll film is best for me.

Cal

 

[Nokton48]

As it doesn't compensate for change in spool diameter it will result in some overlap with modern films, as a few references on the web suggest. I confirmed this for myself by sending a scrap roll of Acros through it a few times and marking the emulsion side at each end of the gate. You can, indeed, get a couple of millimetres or so overlap on some frames. I then wound a turn of garden-variety silver duct tape around the take up spool, and re-tested. Three turns seems to be the sweet spot. I've shot a few rolls of Ilford since and the frame spacing has been good: no overlap.

Hi Brett,

That IS great info. I have a 4x5 wind knob Rollex, and a second insert for it. I will try taping the film spool with duct tape, and then test it with a dummy roll and sharpie marker.

Lots of good info being shared here. 🙂

 

[Calzone]

Dan,

I was looking at my 645 CINE last night. On the feed spindle there is only one sprocket, and there are two sprockets on the take-up side. Since I have extra spindles the thought came to mind of using one of spares that has a single sprocket to replace the double sprocket on the take-up side to make for the ability to maybe use single perf film.

The perferations would have to be on the inside to work. I know my Linhof Consultant mentioned he bought some Porta, but quickly learned he made a mistake because it was single perf.

I have extra double sprocket spindles if you need a pair to mod. Since I own two CINE's one has the single and a double, and the other a double twice. There is a single drift pin that mounts it to the shaft with the cone tapered end.

This can really open up the film choices if the perferations are on the correct side.

Cal

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Hi Brett,

That IS great info. I have a 4x5 wind knob Rollex, and a second insert for it. I will try taping the film spool with duct tape, and then test it with a dummy roll and sharpie marker.

Lots of good info being shared here. 🙂

Very glad it's useful. A 6x7 Super Rollex lever wind back also came with the camera, but I quite like 6x9, it's like giant 35mm, so, although I read the spacing can be an issue with the knob wind backs, I wasn't about to give up on using the Rollex without looking for a fix first.

I did some research, and spotted a reference somewhere to shimming the spool diameter with bits of backing paper (photonet, perhaps?) but that sort of malarkey seemed too much like hard work. The tape works fine, though.

I had an old roll of Acros I use mainly for testing Rolleiflex film wind, and used that to do a few spacing checks, I used a Sharpie marker myself, actually, to mark the emulsion side at the gate. That's how I initially settled on three turns of duct tape around a spool, two was close, but three gave no overlap on any frame. I haven't actually shot a roll of Acros through that back yet. But having used a roll of it to establish the adjustment, it should be fine, of course, and, the same setting also worked well for Ilford HP5+ and should be OK for other Ilford films too. Kodak spacing may or may not need a little fine tuning, but I'm sure it shouldn't be a major issue for the following reasons.

I haven't shot a roll through the back for a few months (I've been enjoying trying out 4x5" for the first time, lately). But as I recall, the good thing was that getting the last frame onto the end of a roll of HP5+ wasn't any problem and there was still some space left. So, although I haven't tested it with Eg the Kodak TMAX or Tri-x films, if it was needed, I reckon an extra half a turn or maybe even a whole turn of duct tape would probably still be OK. If it was really necessary, you could always line up the first frame just shy of the marker and grab a few more millimetres at the start, but I reckon it probably wouldn't be needed.

The above is all for 6x9, of course, but you'd expect that finding a viable adjustment for other formats like 6x7 or even a 6x6 Rollex should also be straightforward.
Cheers,
Brett

 

[Nokton48]

Brett,

I dug out my wind knob back, and ran a dummy roll through, using the duct taped spool. The result is eight evenly spaced frames. I am pleased.
I gave it four winds of duct tape, figuring that would do it.

Next I am going to try this method with my old old Plaubel Makina backs. Those are notorious for uneven frame spacing. It should work!

-Dan

DSC05849 by Nokton48, on Flickr