Recently a mate and I saw some old bulk film popping up for sale cheap and grabbed it to have a play. When looking closer and receiving it, we found it was unperforated film – Ilford Micro-Neg Pan Film Type B. Unperforated immediately created an issue – most our cameras cannot wind it (without tearing film and potentially damaging cameras)… and the bulk winder also by default cannot work. All problems. Nothing that cannot be … well solution attempted.

Step one was the bulk winder. I first counted approximately winds to load a 36’ish shot can. Then I dismantled the winder, removing all sprocket components (and rendering the film counting unavailable). Taped over all the new light leak opportunities and put back together. Threading the bulk reel into the loader (in a dark bag) was the next challenge – a pre taped leader the eventual solution. And away loading up some reusable and old kept cans.

The next challenge was what will I shoot with and what ISO/ASA is this old film!?

Camera wise I settled on ,my great grandfathers Nettar 120film folding camera. I had some 120 – 35mm 3D printed adaptors in the collection and this would offer a ‘pano-like’ shooting experience. Like the bulk loader – I had to put in a dummy film and work out roughly how many turns to advance to the next frame. Over the course of the roll, it’s about 3/4 difference. I rounded to the closest 1/4 to make things easy – but the spacing is still a little all over the show.

So what about the ASA/ISO. Thats still a discovery in development if Im honest. The Micro-Neg Pan has some quite different sensitivity characterises between bright and dull subjects. By testing, I narrowed down to ISO 1/3/6 and ‘hand bracketed’ to test. I say hand as on the Nettar virtually all the exposures anything other than wide open are via ‘B’ – which is a little tricky when different exposures are on both sides of the 1 second mark. Currently I think I will try the next film on ISO6. Some of the experiments shown here were 6 and 3. It’s not 1. In some environments it might be 12… I have film to keep experimenting on.

A lot of these shots are messy. Marks on film that are not dust or development chemical. Its a look!

Might keep my eye out on a small handful of 35mm cameras that don’t need sprockets for winding to the next frame. A bit of mixed info out there on the web. Its all experimentation anyway!

Thats all for today. We have an incomming ex-cyclone pending to hit. so a weekend photowalk might be off.

Posted in

4 responses to “Film Experiments – Expired Ilford Micro-Neg Pan Type B”

  1. Adam Avatar
    Adam

    Awesome Experiment!

    1. hawkeyx Avatar

      Thanks. Pretty interesting shooting stuff to be used in the 60’s in completely different environments. If I can get something less manual for exposure I should be able to improve images – though I like the pano look this setup currently gives me!

  2. toddlay2014 Avatar

    looks good. Seems like a lot of thr images are fogged on the top part of thr frame. But not all. Do you think its light leak? (Camera, loader, or just film?)

    Assuming it wouldn’t be Development process if all these frames (the whole film) went in the same soup

    1. hawkeyx Avatar

      Thanks!
      My current conclusion film is very sensitive to ev difference across lighting conditions – perhaps worse/comparable to earlier digital sensors. Perhaps due to nature of its design intent (or simply age degradation) it cannot cope well with extremes. All the blowouts are from the strong light source (the sun) in each select image not fogging/uniformity of place in image (so not supporting leak assessment I dont believe). Look at the first 3 images posted to support this vs the rest which are 60/40 ground/sky split. The wooden lockers only have sky on far left – image otherwise ok. The bridge beams had sunlight from right flowing through. Just my assessment though. I think shots avoiding sky (or only sky) will give optimal possible results. More testing will tell…

Leave a reply to hawkeyx Cancel reply