0

I've been shooting with Ilford HP5 Plus (B&W) 120 film with my Hasselblad 500CM. As far as I know this specific camera and model only shoot 12 shots. However, the reel extends to what appears to be 18-19 shots (so, I'm wasting ~7 film exposures).

Why is that? Also, are there different film carriages which can accommodate for this numbers of shots? See images below for more context:

enter image description here enter image description here enter image description here

scottbb
  • 32,685
  • 12
  • 104
  • 188
nate
  • 103
  • 3
  • Where is the part of the film strip that has not been exposed at all? It looks like you've used the full length of the the film. Your very light negatives are severely underexposed. Your very dark negatives are significantly overexposed. – Michael C Apr 24 '23 at 06:38
  • @MichaelC, The marks on some of those "severely underexposed" frames have got me asking "W.T.Hell?" Notice that similar dark marks appear outside the bounds of the actual frames—going off the edges of the film. Can creasing a film strip cause dark marks to appear during development? 'cause that's what those marks remind me of. IDK what it was, but I think that something bad happened during handling/development of that film strip. – Solomon Slow Apr 25 '23 at 00:52
  • @SolomonSlow Unexposed film has no "actual frames." It's all one long strip of light sensitive film. Frames are created by the unexposed parts of the film that are never inside the film gate during an exposure. For example, 135 film exposes 36mm of film. Each advance of the film is supposed to move it 38mm, so there's a 2mm gap that doesn't get exposed in the previous frame nor the next one. Notice that the numbers on the film in the OP aren't at the same part of each frame. They're intended for 645 instead of 60x60 (actually 56x56 mm). – Michael C Apr 25 '23 at 05:42
  • @SolomonSlow It looks to me like the frames on either end look longer than they are wide due to geometric distortion of the lens that took the photo of the long film strip (I'm guessing a wide angle phone lens or other lens that is very wide angle for the format it's being used with). The further one moves from the center of the image, the less square the frames appear to be. This is a classic sign of pincushion distortion. – Michael C Apr 25 '23 at 05:48
  • @MichaelC, I wasn't commenting on the shape of the frames or, on the frame numbers. Something (a light leak?) exposed the very edges of that film strip in a few small places. It's more evident on the numbered edge than on the edge that identifies the film type. – Solomon Slow Apr 25 '23 at 10:38

1 Answers1

4

120 film produces 12 exposures in cameras that (nominally) shoot 6x6 images, such as your Hasselblad. Other cameras shoot different formats; a camera that shoots 645 format for example will get 16 images out of a roll of 120 film, and a camera that shoots 617 format will get only 4 images out of the roll. Your camera is not wasting any of the roll of film – at least, there's nothing you can do about it.

220 film used to be produced. It was essentially twice as long as 120 film, but fit around the same spool by dispensing with most of the backing paper. It is no longer produced, though might still be available on eBay, etc. It would have allowed you to make 24 6x6 images from a roll of 220 film, but it required a different A24 film back. Your current A12 back is only compatible with 120 film.

osullic
  • 12,093
  • 1
  • 23
  • 47
  • 2
    Just to be a little pedantic, the Pentax 645 shoots 15 pictures on a roll of 120, not 16. The extra space between images makes handling a roll through the 645 feel like pleasure – Bob Macaroni McStevens Apr 21 '23 at 16:06
  • FWIW: Some cameras (especially inexpensive cameras) that were made for 120 film, but not compatible with 220 film, were burdened by the fact that they had red plastic windows in the back that allowed you to see frame numbers that were printed on the paper backing strip. The backing strip itself was sufficiently opaque that the amount of light that "leaked" in through the red window was not enough to expose the film. Those cameras were incompatible with 220 film primarily because there was no paper backing behind a 220 film strip. – Solomon Slow Apr 25 '23 at 00:59
  • @SolomonSlow Unless one covered the window with paint or other light-proof substance... – Michael C Apr 25 '23 at 05:51
  • @MichaelC, I guess you could do that. Other problems you might have to overcome; a frame counter that only goes half as high as you would like ,* and a pressure plate that scratches the film because its designer thought it would only ever touch paper. [* On some cameras and backs, it might be easy to reset the counter when half way through the roll, and on most, I'd reckon you could just ignore it and keep shooting.] – Solomon Slow Apr 25 '23 at 10:19
  • That's all basically moot - 220 is so rare now anyway. – osullic Apr 25 '23 at 11:15
  • @osullic It is now, but back in the day it wasn't that uncommon for someone to paint over the little window. – Michael C Apr 26 '23 at 08:54