[rollei_list] Re: 220, it worked!

From: CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:27:55 -0300
I'd like to add that the film paper back makes a lot of difference for
the film feeler rollers. If you open the back f.e. at the frame 6 with
120 film and you close it again, the counter advances to the number 1
again because they are feeling the film paper back in spite of its
very minimal thickness, with 220 film the film counter does not engage
again because the rollers are not perceiving the film paper back, it
happened to me with the 2.8C and 3.5F. Perhaps, as Richard K
suggested, with a different rollers adjustment they could perceive the
220 film without paper advancing the counter up to the frame 1 after
the frame 12, but this no standard adjustment could cause some problem
for 120 film.

Carlos

2010/4/16 CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>:
> Hi John:
>              If I avoid the film feeler rollers putting the film on
> the lower main roller directly or if I "stop" them from the beginning,
> the frames counter never will be engaged, the film advances free up to
> its end. The wedge in the Rolleikin inner spool knob has no effect in
> the film transport mechanism, its purpose is to maintain fixed the
> inner knob. The film transport mechanism working is modified for the
> Rolleikin via the conjunction 35mm Counter knob/35mm film Guide
> Frame/35mm film take-up Spool.
>
> I made any kind of experiments to work with 220 film without the
> adaptation and it would be bored to comment about them, my conclusions
> are that there are only two main ways for the automat Rolleiflexes,
> one of them is using the additional tape at the right moment according
> I commented previously and the other is -looking it the best way- that
> one suggested by Dennis and explained below previously, it has the
> advantages you needn't a tape and you needn't a dark bag or darkness
> conditions, assuring the complete 24 exposures, anyway I did not try
> this way yet, I'll try it for the next 220 film.
> After to use the three rolls I still have in the freezer, I don't
> think to use 220 film often, perhaps the next time the format is no
> longer available, I hope it does not happen of course.
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
>
> 2010/4/16 John Wild <jwild@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> Hi Carlos,
>>
>> What about trying to wedge the rollers apart - with a narrow piece of
>> masking tape rolled around either end or strip of 'credit card' - when you
>> load the 220 film? If you did this, would the film actually have to go
>> through the rollers at all? I do not have a Rolleiflex in front of me as I'm
>> typing, so cannot actually see how the film would 'fit' if it was over the
>> top of the rollers.
>>
>> My reason for suggesting this is that with the Rolleikin kit, the cassette
>> holder has an arm with a wedge shaped end. This is put between the rollers,
>> I think, to fool the camera into registering that the film emulsion has just
>> started.
>>
>> If this is the case, the only thing that would be necessary would be to wind
>> the film to the start of the emulsion in the dark, close the back and wind
>> on one turn and the counter would be at '1' for the first exposure. After
>> '12' just open the back (in the dark) and close it again and carry on. ????
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> On 15/04/2010 05:45, "CarlosMFreaza" <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> A few minutes ago  Dennis Purdy has suggested me a method even simpler
>>> that works with the automat Rolleiflexes only, since the 220 film has
>>> paper at the start and at the end, after to take the frame 12 the film
>>> will advance free up to the end, you only need to  put the film loaded
>>> upper spool in the lower spool chamber and to start again as for a new
>>> roll, since the end paper is joined to the film with a tape too, it
>>> will work as the film start for the rollers, you take again the 12
>>> frames and you get the 24 frames finally, very easy really.
>>>
>>> Carlos
>>>
>>> 2010/4/15 CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>>> Yes Jerry, I think it is a solution if you use 220 film sometimes, BTW
>>>> if you use it regularly perhaps it would be better the 220 adaptation.
>>>>
>>>> Carlos
>>>>
>>>> 2010/4/15 Jerry Lehrer <glehrer@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>> Carlos,
>>>>>
>>>>> Good boy!  Smart thinking, indeed.  I did the same thing MANY years ago 
>>>>> when
>>>>> 220 film
>>>>> first came out.  I opened the back and stuck a 2 inch long piece of black
>>>>> slide binding tape
>>>>> to the back of the film just before the feeler rollers.  In a changing bag
>>>>> of course.  Worked
>>>>> every time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jerry
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> CarlosMFreaza wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did it, I rewound again the 220 film from the 'cord IV, I loaded it
>>>>>> in the 2.8C again, I shot with the lens cap on the lens up to the
>>>>>> frame 12, working with my hands within a dark bag I open the camera
>>>>>> back, the frames counter returned to zero, I found with my fingers the
>>>>>> roller and put the same tape that comes with films to stick the film
>>>>>> start to the paper on the film in the camera, to the part beside the
>>>>>> roller but before to pass between the rollers, I closed the camera and
>>>>>> turned the crank, I perceived the typical resistence when the rollers
>>>>>> "feel" the film start and after a short advance the number 1 appeared
>>>>>> in the window, the 2.8C it's ready to shoot the frame 13.
>>>>>> I comment these experiences because I think they could be useful for
>>>>>> some Rollei users, B&W 220 film is no longer available after TMY 320
>>>>>> was discontinued some months ago, but it is available for color
>>>>>> negative and slide films.-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carlos
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2010/4/14 CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was thinking about this issue, perhaps the solution is easy, I only
>>>>>>> need to add a tape to the film when I open the camera back, the frame
>>>>>>> 12 is in the film gate, if I add a tape after the frame 12 and close
>>>>>>> the back, the tape plus film will press the lower roller and the film
>>>>>>> counter will be engaged again, perhaps I'll rewind the film in the
>>>>>>> 'cord to try this solution with the 2.8C again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Carlos
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2010/4/14 CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After the success using 220 film with the Rolleicord IV, I commented I
>>>>>>>> had uploaded the 2.8C with the Tri-X  ISO 320, 220; I also commented
>>>>>>>> the automatic mechanism worked fine to advance the frames counter up
>>>>>>>> to the number 1. After to take the frame 12 and before to advance the
>>>>>>>> film, I open the camera back in the darkness and the frames counter
>>>>>>>> came back to zero, as you could expect. Problem was when I started to
>>>>>>>> advance the film again, the film advance mechanism worked as if the
>>>>>>>> film was already finished, the film advanced but it never engaged the
>>>>>>>> number 1, the automatic film feeler to advance to number 1 did not
>>>>>>>> work because there was film running  through it evidently. I rewound
>>>>>>>> the film in an empty spool and put it in the 'cord IV, I shot with the
>>>>>>>> lens cap on the lenses up to the frame 12 (this first part has the
>>>>>>>> images taken with the 2.8C) and repeated the procedure, it worked fine
>>>>>>>> again with the 'cord IV because this camera does not have the lower
>>>>>>>> film feeler mechanism, the film advanced up to the number 1 and the
>>>>>>>> camera is ready to shoot the real frame number 13, I'll have Xenotar
>>>>>>>> and Xenar shots in the same roll.-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Carlos
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Rollei List
>>>>>
>>>>> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>
>>>>> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the
>>>>> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>>>>
>>>>> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in 
>>>>> the
>>>>> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>>>>
>>>>> - Online, searchable archives are available at
>>>>> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---
>>> Rollei List
>>>
>>> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
>>> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>>
>>> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
>>> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>>
>>> - Online, searchable archives are available at
>>> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---
>> Rollei List
>>
>> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
>> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>
>> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
>> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>
>> - Online, searchable archives are available at
>> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>>
>>
>
---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
References:
- [rollei_list] Re: 220, it worked!
  - From: John Wild
- [rollei_list] Re: 220, it worked!
  - From: CarlosMFreaza
[rollei_list] Re: 220, it worked!

Other related posts:
