Happy new year to you all. I am looking for some A122 film to fit a Graflex 3A Automatic camera. Do you know of either any sources for this film size, or any solutions to adapt modern negative processing to this antique format? Should I find some, how well does the film hold up after 8 decades of storage? Any help you could offer would be appreciated.

I wouldn't trust any original film even if you could get it unwound. Dick Haviland of http://www.filmforclassics.com will be your best hope.

Les

According to one source I consulted, A122 film yields an image size of 3-1/4" x 5-1/2", which means that the film is a full 1" longer in the short dimension than 120 roll film. I think the chance of finding a source is extremely remote. These old, out-sized roll film formats were intended for contact printing. In a way it's a shame that the larger roll films have disappeared, because you could get a heck of a nice enlargement out of such a big negative without the hassle of sheet film.

The "A" in "A122" means that the film had a special backing to receive the markings made by the autographing stylus.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Henry on 2004-01-01 12:41 ]</font>

Aerial film. I think it's available in 9" wide rolls. Of course that means cutting it down to 5.5". Or if you can live with just 5" then 5" aerial film is out there to. The info I checked claimed Kodak made 122 film until 1971 so that makes it less then 25 years old. Potentially-))

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Nick on 2004-01-01 13:13 ]</font>

Hey, I've contacted Joan at filmforclassics.com and she has the 122 sized film that I'm looking for... Thanks to all for your feedback, never thought I would be able to use this anchient camera.

Has anyone had experience with these folks? How do they do with their processing / development?

nc

'ancient' not anchient. I'm stoopid, not stupid.

nc

Congratulations, you're in business, and I have to eat my words. I gotta say, though, in my own defense, that the Film for Classics web site is not at all clear about the availability of the 122 size. They list processing of 126, 127, 620, and 828 on their home page, and their order page lists the same films f-o-r s-a-l-e [censored******!], but list only "Processing Custom Spooled Film" for 101, 103, 116, 122, 124, and 616. Good thing you asked them!

I'm guessing that the wider film sizes must be cut down from aerial roll film, which does come in wide rolls. But aerial film, as I understand it, is different from the same-name emulsions, i.e., aerial Plus-X not the same as ordinary Plus-X. Makes me wonder what gives?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Henry on 2004-01-01 16:30 ]</font>

This Subject was discussed on eba_ photochat board as follows:

Obsolete film for STILL cameras
Maybe somebody has that question to, especially around this time of your when they are getting or giving old cameras as presents.
The basic source for this, as many of you probably know, is Film for Classics at http://www.filmforclassics.com/

What you may not realize is that there are a lot fewer sizes of film available from this source than there used to be. The problem for most rollfilm film sizes is backing paper. They made up a bunch of this in a number of standard sizes some years ago, and have been recycling it, as you sent back your film to them for processing.

BUT... some people process their own film, or have someone local do it. Others buy a roll or two from Fiulm for Classics, but never get around to actually sending it back for processing. And after the paper has gone through different cameras 5 or six times, it wears out. Over time, the backing paper for most of the popular sizes has vanished. So, the only sizes the company website currently offers are 126, 127, 620, and 103. The 103 is offered because they are not yet out of the backing paper they first produced. I'm not sure where they are getting the 126, 127 is still available from a couple of sources, and the 620 is respooled 120 film.


If they're still making 120 film and backing paper, the basic paper stock will be available on a continuing basis. Cutting and marking it for other formats would need to be done, of course. I wouldn't mind having a few sheets of that paper, and I'd be willing to cut and mark it myself, if need be.

The Backing Paper Problem
T his has always been the biggest problem for Film For Classics. And 120 paper works only for 620. Kodak is apparently unwilling to sell this stuff. In principle, you can cut down and re-mark paper for 127 and 828 film, or even 126 and 110, but the sizes that would probably be most in demand are 116 for 1A Kodaks, and 122 for 3A (Postcard) Kodaks. 116 and 616 share the same paper, just as 120 and 620 share paper, so all you need is one more kind of spool and you have 616 film too. The 116 negative is 2.5 inches wide and the 122 negative is 3.25 inches wide, so there is no way you can use 2.25 inch wide 120 backing paper for those film sizes. The paper strip also needs to be longer than the paper from a roll of 120 film, if you want 8-exposure rolls for those sizes.
Backing paper is complicated to make-- that thin, light-tight paper with the black backing is not used for anything else BUT roll film, and in small quantities if would cost a LOT to have it custom-made. After it is made, it has to be printed with numbers in the right place. You need to make huge sheets of it and cut them apart after printing. I think the big film companies either make their own or have exclusive contracts, and these days nobody is set up to make the oddball sizes any more. So you have to actually tool up to do that. Nothing else but real backing paper is light-tight enough to use as a substitute.

If I ever won the lottery BIG, I would get some backing paper made in 116,122, 828, and 127 sizes and sell it to Film For Classics real cheap. I could instead just buy the company, and retire to making old-sized film, except that if I had a big lottery win, I'd probably rather not hassle with doing that myself. But I would like to be able to run some film through my 1A and 3A Kodak Specials again! I might even want to replace the 3A Graflex I traded away long ago.

The Backing Paper Problem pt. 2
On rereading his post, I guess that ryek_hvek is thinking of just getting the big unprinted sheets and marking them up, maybe by hand, then cutting them apart. In principle that would work, IF you could get the big sheets.
Film For Classics has apparently either not been able to get big sheets, or has figured that you really can't sell film unless the numbers, etc. are printed on the paper, and has been unable to find somebody who can print the stuff for them at a reasonable price. Years ago they got this done once, but evidently doing it a second time has been a barrier. I don't work for or with them, so I can't tell you their exact problems. --Chris


Backing paper
10 or 15 years ago, I bought some roll film (Ferrania or Perutz, maybe?) that did not have the thin Kodak-type backing paper. It was thicker and had almost a fuzzy texture (like kid's art construction paper). I wonder if some company in Russia or Poland doesn't still make that stuff. It seemed to work OK with 120 film.


I'm sure backing paper is made in SRussia, and in a few other countries, too. But could you get it in big sheets? Big enough to allow 8 exposure rolls of 122 or 116? And who would print on the numbers, little hands, etc.? I'm certain this COULD be done, in principle, if somebody wanted to devote the time and money.n It would have to be a labor of love. I just don't think you could make a lot of money. The sizes to bring back would be 122 and 116. Down the road, there will be some demand for 110 and even 126, but those also require much more elaborate plastic fabrication. Right now, 110 film is still available anyway.
The film size nobody would want would be disc film!

_________________
While a picture may be worth a thousand words, a quality photograph is worth a million.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: 45PSS on 2004-01-01 18:13 ]</font>

116 will hopefully not be a problem soon. J&C lists it on the coming soon part of the website.

What I want to know is whats the problem with taking two 120 pieces of paper and taping them together? Trim off the excess. Or even tape three for something wider then 2x120. Hand number the stuff. Obviously not something that makes sense on a commerical front but all it would cost most of us is a little time. Assuming you've got the spools.

My understanding of aerial film is that it's designed to handle haze better.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Nick on 2004-01-01 18:50 ]</font>

It might be worth someone's while to look into the patent literature for information about the backing paper. My guess is that the artistry involves the printing, laying down the dense color on one surface and, perhaps, the matte black on the other, if the stock is not black to begin with.

It might be that starting with an 8-1/2-inch roll of plain copier/fax paper, one could cut strips of the appropriate width, then use an airbrush to apply the coatings. These might be artists' acrylic paint for the back side and India ink for the film side, or maybe acrylic for both. Acrylic dries to a dense, flexible film, and should withstand being rolled up.

I've always thought that the real trick is rolling the thing up. You have to start from the end opposite the tape that secures the film to the backing, and the film scoots forward when the roll meets the free trailing edge. So you have to put the tape on after you've rolled to the leading edge.

I had some correspondence with Kodak about this, a few years ago, and a young woman there explained that the key is to start with the film farther back, so the leading edge ends up where you want it when you've rolled to that point. (I should have thought of that, of course). It would require some experiment to determine just how far back to start.

They used to make a 90mm. film for long-roll "school" cameras. If this is still available, it might be trimmed down to 122 gauge without much trouble.

I quite agree that 122 rollfilm is a very useful size. A college friend had a 3A "Graflex" that used the format, and it was a formidable picture-taker. Kodak did offer 122 (and other obsolete formats) on special order, ten rolls, through the early 1970s.

There must be several cameras still kicking around that use 122 film. I have a Kodak Model 3A Folding Pocket Camera that uses 122. It's in very good condition, red bellows, shutter speeds from 1 to 1/100th, B & T, and lens openings marked 4, 8, 16, 32, and 64...and detailed info stamped on the shutter as what conditions to use the various settings for. If this is a pocket camera, the pocket would have to be quite large.

I think that the pockets were bigger in the early nineteen hundreds because their cell-phones were not as small as they are today.

One needs to approach this from the direction, "...compared to what?" Placed alongside the average dry plate magazine camera, these "pocket" folders presumably seemed very sleek and modern, even if you needed a horseman's coat if you actually wanted to put one in your pocket!

I got a used Kodak "3A Autographic" for a modest price when I was in college in the early '60s, and I was impressed by the quality of the pictures it took. It had not the versatility of my friend's postcard-format "Graflex," but it made very snappy, sharp photos.

116/616 is 2 3/4 in wide, within a hair of 70mm, so I have 100 ft of Tri-X and a Monitor 616 waiting to be put to use. 122 is 3 5/8 inch wide so slitting 9 1/2 aerial film seems to be the answer...I've inquired of the european producers via the US suppliers for slitting "real" film to no avail. Photo warehouse offers slit film but it's 7 mil thick, i.e.; sheet film, nasty to deal with on small diameter spools. If you care to invest in a roll of 4 mil thick aero film they will quote you a price to slit to your specified width. If only one could afford a stock roll of Tri-X or HP-5.
No 53 graflex film is another interesting case, as its width was 5 1/4 inch, the same width as used for the K-20, and again DOOM as current aero film is 5 inches. As for backing paper I have two projects. I'm saving my 120 papers and plan to try joining some by lapping edge-to-edge on a diagonal so that the seam won't "pile up" in one spot. The other is to use leaders of litho film and count winds for framing. I haven't braved the problem of square cutting the film end and taping it to the leader in total darkness.