Better solution for running 35mm through a MF camera

steveo_mcg

steveo_mcg

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,319
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
I came across these adapters on ebay earlier, http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/281557017277?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT . Seller is apparently 3d printing the adapters which fit over a 35mm canister and clip into the guide bits of a MF seems likes a better method than a hacked up biro.

My previous attempt went like this, http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/its-not-lomo-is-it-queenferry-panos.476253/ , I've considered trying again but I'd really like a 220 back but they're very expensive.
 
Would all the 35mm roll spool onto a 120?? You'd have to wind it back in the dark somehow too I'd have thought.
 
srichards said:
Would all the 35mm roll spool onto a 120?? You'd have to wind it back in the dark somehow too I'd have thought.
Click to expand...

Yeah it all fits but you need a dark solution to get it back into the canister, the spacing is a bit hit or miss, on the RB it became very very wasteful towards the end if you just full cranked it.
 
There's probably a psychological factor involved. I'd think it wasteful to (say) to crop away most of the negative from a 6x7 to give me a panorama (or even worse a 5x4) when I'd not worry if I were using a Hasselblad XPan (which I've never had). Using 35mm film does avoid that.

On a more practical level, I find it's easy to buy 35mm film in shops, but rather harder to walk in anywhere and buy 120 (that said, I have a couple of local shops that sell it). So being able to produce a semi panoramic image with easily obtainable film is a plus point. Even apart from the unusal image with sprocket holes, which is probably very trendy :)
 
srichards said:
Hmm. I think I'll stick with 35mm in a 35mm and 120 in a 120 :D
Click to expand...

I'm not getting this as well...why would anyone use 35mm in a medium format camera, if it's for panos you could just use 120 film and stitch in Photoshop and get much better quality.
 
Thanks for the link, I've just bought one. At that price even if I only use the two rolls of 35mm left in the fridge it's worth it. Also have spare backs for the RZ67 means I won't be committing the camera solely to that technique.

I calculate that, after you crop off the sprocket holes, if you choose to do so, the aspect ratio is 6 : 17 or 1:2.875 (ie 69mm / 24mm)
 
I've only bothered once. I put some tape around the spindles, then simply moved the film from the 35mm cassette onto the spindles in a Lubitel via a film changing bag. My problem was to get a scan of the "35mm in a 120" image with sprocket holes, I couldn't hold the film flat with available masks.
 
steveo_mcg said:
Does the RZ back have a 220 option?
Click to expand...

Yes. But 220 may be harder to find, and there are conflicting ideas as to whether it's a good idea...
 
StephenM said:
Yes. But 220 may be harder to find, and there are conflicting ideas as to whether it's a good idea...
Click to expand...

Yeah I know, But for running 35mm through a 6x7 your focus is very slightly out with out the backing paper whilst with a 220 back you don't need to worry.
 
RZ 220 backs sell much cheaper than 120 backs because of the limited availability of film (you can get new Portra in 220 but its more than twice as expensive as 120), you might be able to get one for £30-40, but that's more expensive than a bit of paper.

My Yashicamat 124G is switchable from 120 to 220 so that's another option
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
On a more practical level, I find it's easy to buy 35mm film in shops, but rather harder to walk in anywhere and buy 120 (that said, I have a couple of local shops that sell it). So being able to produce a semi panoramic image with easily obtainable film is a plus point. Even apart from the unusal image with sprocket holes, which is probably very trendy :)
Click to expand...

While it's more practical to buy 135 film, which seems like a plus while travelling, it's quite unpractical to load and unload 135 films used in this fashion from medium format backs, so this takes away the advantage for me. The other problem is that I have no holder for scanning panoramic 135 so I can't get the film flat and the scan is prone to Newton ring issues.

srichards said:
Would all the 35mm roll spool onto a 120?? You'd have to wind it back in the dark somehow too I'd have thought.
Click to expand...

Yes, it fits. 135 film is about the same length of 220 film, which uses the same spools as 120.

steveo_mcg said:
Yeah it all fits but you need a dark solution to get it back into the canister, the spacing is a bit hit or miss, on the RB it became very very wasteful towards the end if you just full cranked it.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to frame spacing issues? I personally haven't experienced a problem with spacing using 135 in medium format backs. This sounds like it could be more of an issue with the back or the way that the film was loaded in the back than a problem with the 135 film.

excalibur2 said:
I'm not getting this as well...why would anyone use 35mm in a medium format camera, if it's for panos you could just use 120 film and stitch in Photoshop and get much better quality.
Click to expand...

Errr... with that logic, why take any shot using 135 when you could shoot 120? At any rate, to stitch together a panoramic shot with a similar angle of view as the 135 film on 120 would require a much longer focal length and a lot more work.

You could, however, get the same view by just cropping the 120 shot, which is a much simpler solution than the one you suggest. The argument for using 135 in medium format cameras is that there is a greater variety and greater availability of films in 135 compared to 120 (e.g., Vista).

StephenM said:
Yes. But 220 may be harder to find, and there are conflicting ideas as to whether it's a good idea...
Click to expand...

220 backs are usually cheaper and more abundant than 120 backs for many medium format film cameras.
 
Kevin Allan said:
RZ 220 backs sell much cheaper than 120 backs because of the limited availability of film (you can get new Portra in 220 but its more than twice as expensive as 120), you might be able to get one for £30-40, but that's more expensive than a bit of paper.

My Yashicamat 124G is switchable from 120 to 220 so that's another option
Click to expand...

Thats weird RB 220 backs go for £50-£70, I honestly don't know who is buying them. I wasn't sure if the RZ back was switchable.

I think it would look better with a wider angle lens than the Yash but it'll be worth a go since you've bought the adaptor.
 
steveo_mcg said:
Yeah I know, But for running 35mm through a 6x7 your focus is very slightly out with out the backing paper whilst with a 220 back you don't need to worry.
Click to expand...

It could be quite a bit out as there is nothing to hold it in place.


Steve.
 
skysh4rk said:
Are you referring to frame spacing issues? I personally haven't experienced a problem with spacing using 135 in medium format backs. This sounds like it could be more of an issue with the back or the way that the film was loaded in the back than a problem with the 135 film.
Click to expand...

The first time I tried this I just cranked a full turn of the lever on the RB back, as the film moved on this pulled more and more film per frame. With some practice you'd learn how far on you were and give it less of a crank and you'd waste less film. So yes ultimately its the issue of the back rather than the medium but its still something to be aware of.
 
I was thinking of something like this for my Ensign (6x9 folder) but that's as far as I'd got. Bit put off by his description of it as untested though, you'd think he'd run through a couple of rolls before starting to sell them.
 
steveo_mcg said:
The first time I tried this I just cranked a full turn of the lever on the RB back, as the film moved on this pulled more and more film per frame. With some practice you'd learn how far on you were and give it less of a crank and you'd waste less film. So yes ultimately its the issue of the back rather than the medium but its still something to be aware of.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I wonder why it was pulling more of the film? Something to do with the differences in tension between the two types of film? Perhaps this problem would be alleviated with a 220 back?

I haven't had any problems with frame spacing in Bronica 120 or 220 backs with 135 film.
 
skysh4rk said:
Hmmm... I wonder why it was pulling more of the film? Something to do with the differences in tension between the two types of film? Perhaps this problem would be alleviated with a 220 back?

I haven't had any problems with frame spacing in Bronica 120 or 220 backs with 135 film.
Click to expand...

Really, I expected all the auto wind (apposed to red window) types would do this. Interesting. I thought it was to do with the varying diameter of the take up roll as it goes from empty to full but maybe its something else.

Any one know how an RB67 back detects the film has wound on enough?
 
It depends on where the film wind mechanism senses the movement. Most have a little wheel which turns as the film winds on and it stops the mechanism when enough has passed. If this coincides with the film position on the spool then spacing should be o.k. If it's at one end where there is no film, it will turn more than it needs to as the diameter of the spool is smaller than the diameter of the wound on film. It will rotate the same amount each time, but as the diameter increases with each frame wound on, the circumference increases - as does the wound on length.


Steve.
 
I'll probably give one a go tbh.
Bit of fun if nowt else.
I've often considered a 135 back for my etrs but given the prices of them, i'd sooner put towards 120 film!

One question, is there an easy way to calculate what in the viewfinder will actually record on the narrower film or do we do what i've always done when modfifying film........Guess! ??
 
Asha said:
I'll probably give one a go tbh.
Bit of fun if nowt else.
I've often considered a 135 back for my etrs but given the prices of them, i'd sooner put towards 120 film!

One question, is there an easy way to calculate what in the viewfinder will actually record on the narrower film or do we do what i've always done when modfifying film........Guess! ??
Click to expand...

Just take a piece of 135 film, trace it onto some cardboard, and cut that cardboard out to fit the shape of your focusing screen. No guess work involved.

You just might want to make a note where the sprocket holes might appear so that they don't block anything critical in the shot.


Edit: Not mine, but someone has posted pictures of how to do it for a Bronica SQ:



 
Last edited:
I shot 35mm in my Ensign folder a while back but I just made two rolled up tubes of card and fitted them at each end of the roll. I used an old roll of 35mm film to work out how much I needed to wind on between shots.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevelloyd/sets/72157636159649635/

On the whole the shots weren't mind blowing with regards to results but I was guestimating exposure as well as focussing as I didn't have an external rangefinder. I did like this one though :0)

Ensign Selfix 20 - Model 1 by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr

The main benefit to me was the convenience of 35mm processing locally for a couple of £ in Asda.
 
Thanks for the help @ skysh4rk

Running a 35mm film through MF format kit isnt the norm for me, however sometimes a lack of inspiration means a décent roll of portra or similar sits in thé camera for an eterrnity waiting for a shot that is warranted.
Blasting a cheapo roll of film like vista or something OOD allows me to have some fun with the gear without feeling that i'm wasting good film on what are nothing more than snapshots of objects with little interrest.
 
Ive tried in a rb67 220 back, I had the spool made by someone else, but the tension was too high and it broke, looked like a low amount of fill.
Guess I could play about with it this afternoon, have ideas on how to help some of the issues. Its because of the rb67 magazine design, it binds itself up easily with 35mm
 
Kevin Allan said:
Thanks for the link, I've just bought one. At that price even if I only use the two rolls of 35mm left in the fridge it's worth it. Also have spare backs for the RZ67 means I won't be committing the camera solely to that technique.

I calculate that, after you crop off the sprocket holes, if you choose to do so, the aspect ratio is 6 : 17 or 1:2.875 (ie 69mm / 24mm)
Click to expand...

Has it arrived yet? What are the adapters like?
 
Hmmmm....

We built a 3D printer at work last year and I have just downloaded the files from here:

https://youmagine.com/designs/35mm-film-on-120-spool
https://www.youmagine.com/designs/120-takeup-spool-for-35mm-film

medium_120-Takeup-Spool-for-35mm-2-800.jpg


Watch this space...


Steve.
 
Last edited:
steveo_mcg said:
Has it arrived yet? What are the adapters like?
Click to expand...

Yes, the adaptors arrived and they look very much like those pictured by Steve Smith except (a) they are red and (b) there is no take up spool. I think you don't need a take up spool unless you've never previously used 120 fim.

At first I thought the 35mm spool + adaptors were too long to fit into the 120 slot, then I realised that the top and bottom pieces are not identical and I had them on the wrong way round. Once I swapped them over they fit fine; however I've not had a chance to run a film through yet. Will post resulting images once I do but when that will mostly depend on the weather !
 
Last edited:
Kevin Allan said:
I think you don't need a take up spool unless you've never previously used 120 fim
Click to expand...

I can see one advantage and one disadvantage with the take up spool:

The advantage is that it will gurantee that the film will wind on in the correct place and will stay horizontal along the centre of the frame.

The disadvantage is that if you are using it in a camera with the little wheel which senses how much film has passed, it will act as if the spool is always full so most shots will overlap with the spacing getting larger as the amount wound on gets closer to the spool's diameter.


Steve.
 
Well, it took a long while to get round to shooting film with the 35mm adaptor and then another while to have another 35mm film to share the developing tank, but I now have some results. The camera was a Mamiya RZ67 and the film was Poundland Agfa Vista. Just to make things a little more difficult I loaded the spool the wrong way round so that the film was redscaled. This made the film path a little more awkward which may have contributed to the wind-on process being very rough. After 6 frames out of a possible ten it wouldn't wind any further and I removed the film in the dark room. As mentioned above, a piece of backing paper was taped to the film insert to attempt to provide the same spacing as 120 film.

View attachment 37239 View attachment 37240

If you present the image including the sprockets, the ratio is approx 6 * 12.
If you crop out the sprockets the ratio is approx 6 * 17.
(these figures are for a camera designed for 6*7 images)

My preference is to leave the sprockets in the image, because if I was going to crop them out I might was well just shoot 120 film and crop the images after scanning, which would be more convenient, albeit incurring a higher film cost. It's not going to turn out as a fine art masterpiece anyway, so leaving the sprockets in adds to the fun/wacky experience.

I scanned with an Epson v700 with the negs lying directly on the scanner glass - ideally I would have flattened them first.

My next step is to try without redscaling and see what the resultant image quality is like.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top