Graflex.org

[clnfrd]

Us country boys in Southern Illinois used to develop the flimsy film from film packs in a tray...immerse one sheet at a time and then shuffle from the top to the bottom 'til the timer went off. (It paid to keep the fingernails trimmed close, so no scratches.) If we were in a hurry, we'd do it in Dektol..use photo-flo...squeegee'em off...enlarge'em wet to Kodabromide F3 and develop the paper in the same tray of Dektol. A little grainy, but with the old newspaper engravings, no problem.

[t.r.sanford]

Did you pluck the wet negatives from the fixer and thrust them into a glassless negative carrier for immediate printing? We did...and, from time to time, we even cleaned the dried fixer off the rear element of the enlarger lens.

Tray development of cut films, thick or thin, is pleasant enough if you're doing no more than four (maybe five) sheets. With sixteen sheets, it becomes rather hectic.

[clnfrd]

As has been previously stated, it was possible to remove just the exposed sheets from the film pack for processing, thereby limiting the number I shuffled in the tray. And also previously stated....photo-flo...squeegee....enlarge while still wet. I used a Kodak Cold Light Enlarger. I did 2-1/4X3-1/4 shot with a Century Graphic with the Trioptar lens. The enlarger was the economical Kodak Hobbyist with the f/6.3 Ektanon lens. And, believe it or not, all the photos were surprisngly good. I sold a lot of them to the local newspaper and did the group photos for the school yearbook with this set-up. My primitive Strobe Light with the heavy case and wet-cell batteries helped make great photos of sporting events. I don't remember the manufacturer of the strobe...but the thing used a Ford Model T spark coil to generate the high voltage to charge the caps and two wetcell batteries. It was in a leather case. The flash itself was a head that looked like a Strobonar on a metal tube with bracket to attach to the strip on the Kalart RF. Ah, yes...those were the days. Fred.

[lovebitn]

Well, this will be interesting. I just got my Super Speed and I found the ebay add and ordered 4 packs and one holder. I was okay with it being out of date because I've got boxes of Tri-X that a friend gave to me that expired in '87-'89. But, now I'm wonder how in the world I'm going to process this stuff. I didn't realize it was roll film and flimsy to boot. I've got a tank that does 6 sheet films. It's a Combina HP Combi 4x5 Sheet film tank. I thought maybe if I cut the roll, but after reading this, that might not work 'cause it's flimsy. So, I'm wondering if there's a lab that will develop this for me?

_________________
Barbara
www.ptfoto.com

[Baker]

[t.r.sanford]

I got my "Combi-Plan" tank long after filmpack was discontinued, but it looks to me as though it ought to work with a thin film base.

Again, the idea is to agitate by rocking the tank so that the wave action is parallel to the film, not at right angles to it. That is, with the "Combi-Plan" tank on the counter in front of you, turn it so that the narrow end faces you, and tilt it (rather gently) toward and away from you for the recommended agitation time per minute -- I like 5 seconds per 30 seconds throughout the development process, but opinions vary.

Incidentally, I don't know whether Kodak "Anti-Fog" is still available, but benzotriazole surely is. This might be indicated when developing 20-year-old film.

[stuebben]

My recommendation for pack film -- avoid it (I wouldn't use it if you gave it to me for free).

Haven't processed any in 25 years but remember it well. You can't process it in the usual 4x5 stainless steel Kodak film hanger because it is of a slightly different size. You can process it in a Yankee cut film tank, but because the film is so thin, it will have a tendency to bow out and touch the adjacent sheet of film. You can always process it in a tray one sheet of time if you have unlimited time (one 16 exp. pack takes an entire day that way).

A much more satisfactory arrangement is to stock up on Grafmatics that you load with standard sheet film. The extra time you spend loading them in a darkroom will pay huge dividends in the time and aggravation saved during processing.

[Rangemaster]

Well there are a great many of us that do choose to shoot pack films, so hence this partucular thread has had many informative posts in it, I have shot it for years with no problems at all.

Dave

[t.r.sanford]

I, too, never experienced any problems developing pack films. Perhaps this was because of my ignorance; it I'd known how difficult the thing was supposed to be, I probably would have screwed it up!

It never was clear to me why Kodak did not make color materials available in filmpacks. When filmpacks disappeared, I sort of ascribed it to the decline of B&W, and the lack of color film alternatives.

"Grafmatics" are excellent backs, but two of them will hold 12 sheets of film, in a volume about three times as thick as a filmpack adapter holding a 16-shot pack, and much heavier to boot. Filmpack also could be advanced at least twice as fast.

[camz]

Does this NOS pack film have 16 exposures in it?
The reason I ask is that my Speed manual mentions a 12-exposure film pack holder. So now I'm wondering if there are 12- and 16-exposure film pack holders? Chris

[Micah in NC]

Chris,

"Does this NOS pack film have 16 exposures in it?" you asked.

Yes, mine do. I think they began with 12 and were increased to 16 later, in the same size holder used for twelve (though other Graflexers should know for sure).

I think a film pack holder is a film pack holder, and that they are not differentiated between 12 or 16 exposures.

--Micah in NC

[t.r.sanford]

By the time I started using filmpack, it came in 16-sheet packs. My guess is that Kodak went from 12 to 16 exposures as it became easier to produce thin film bases (this was one of the success stories in the miniature-camera world of half a century ago; you may recall that Ilford made a thin-base 72-exposure B&W roll for 35mm.cameras that had counters able to deal with it).

I suppose it was like cornflakes: by the time you've covered the cost of the box and its graphics, the liner bag, the production line, the fill/seal equipment and the labor, it costs you very little more to make the box larger and offer the consumer a better value at a higher price.

Filmpack was an expensive medium, labor-intensive to manufacture, which doubtless contributed to its demise.

[camz]

Now, has anyone shot with this NOS pack film?
I'd like to know what your results were, how
you processed it, and how easy it was to use.
Chris

[graywolf]

[Micah in NC]

Graywolf,

Hi again. I have shot some of my Film Pack (Tri-X) recently and will develop it soon. I'll be sure to let y'all know how it turns out.

Maybe even post a link to pics!

--Micah in NC