What is the “thinnest” BW Film?

[Ambro51]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’m curious if it possible given the right cassette and right film stock to get way more than 5 1/2 feet of film in?  I just bought a Bell and Howell Foton, the thing can rip through film at Five frames a second, in up to 17 shots in a series.   

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited February 2, 2019 by Ambro51

[Richardgb]

35mm film has a relatively thick base, compared to roll-film.

Photographers wanting more than 36 or so exposures swapped the standard back of their camera for a bulk-film magazine; this held enough film for 250 exposures.

If you managed to find a 35mm film with a thin(ner) base, I wonder how the sprocket holes would withstand the strain, and what about the frame counter on your camera?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[harryzet]

the thinnest was kodak technical pan

[pico]

17 minutes ago, harryzet said:

the thinnest was kodak technical pan

It sure was, and it was tough, too. Not so good for general photography, though.

 

[pgk]

Kodak used polyester as the base for Tech Pan hence why it was tough. I think that it was used for other films requiring a dimensionally stable base too. It was great developed in HC110 as a continuous tone film but very slow. We used to ask first year students to load tech pan into processing reels in the days when film was usually cut with scissors to load onto the reel in the dar. Except that we'd 'forget' to supply the scissors. The bad language emanating from the darkroom as they tried to tear it instead was shocking! Nothing worked, not even teeth.

[Keith (M)]

The thinnest I have used of late is Fomapan 100 - considerably thinner than my usual films (Tri-X, HP5+, Acros 100). No longer possess a micrometer though!

[Michael Geschlecht]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Everybody,

years ago, back in the 20th Century, there were some films available for a while on an Estar base. These films allowed the manufacture of 72 exposure rolls that fit in the same cartridge that held a traditional 36 exposure roll.

Best Regards,

Michael

Edited February 2, 2019 by Michael Geschlecht

[pgk]

Estar = Polyester - https://www.kodak.com/us/en/corp/industrial-materials/estar-pet-films/default.htm

[pico]

4 minutes ago, pgk said:

Estar = Polyester - https://www.kodak.com/us/en/corp/industrial-materials/estar-pet-films/default.htm

Once we conquer Estar's tendency to curl, it is very good.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

The Film Photography Project spools all kinds of weird stuff. I have a few rolls of Svema and Tasma, from Ukraine and Svema (I think it was, I've only shot one roll and the rest are in the deep freezer) was so thin I had problems getting it onto the spiral, something I don't often have trouble doing. It has some kind of cult status over there so I had to try it. Contact them and see if they'll spool 'as much as would go into a cassette' and give you a price. They might be game. Please report back.

[Martin B]

From my experience the Ilford films (Pan F+, FP4+, HP5+) are much thinner than Kodak films. I personally like the thinner ones since they dry much faster and curl up less which makes scanning much easier. Since I roll films myself from a 100' roll, the thinner the better - I can roll more frames on a single roll. I get up to 44 frames safely in one roll of 35 mm film. 

Edited February 3, 2019 by Martin B

[fotomas]

In the 1980ties Ilford offered the HP5 in a special version with polyester base and 72 exposures per roll. They also offered a special developing tank that can handle such a long film. Guess it was only in the market for few years.

[Narsuitus]

The thinnest black & white film I ever used was the now discontinued H&W Control VTE film. "VTE" stood for "very thin emulsion."

[pico]

Perhaps someone remembers the thin film without an anti-halation layer. My friend stuck some reflective foil on his pressure plate and made profound  'glow'.

 

 

[ianman]

Rollei Retro 400s seems very thin to me.

[pico]

9 minutes ago, ianman said:

Rollei Retro 400s seems very thin to me.

Beware of any Rollei film. We cannot tell what it really is. Rollei can package the worst sh*t in any wrapper they think is attractive.

[Ko.Fe.]

Polypan F (gone now) was very thin.

Few weeks ago I received as the gift film from one man show in Moscow. This is even more thin than Polypan F was. Not only film, but emulsion layer. 

Every time I load more than 36 frames I regret. Regular metal reel has no capacity for it, if I'm not mistaken. Plastic takes it, but with hassle.

[adan]

Generically, microfilm is usually the thinnest. Tech Pan verged on being a microfilm. As was the H&W Control VTE mentioned above (OMG, it has been 47 years since I shot a roll of that! Pretty film - sky-blue emulsion, dark royal blue on the base side.)

Microfilm is the basis for the current ultra-low-speed (ISO 20-25) B&W films, e.g. Adox CMS II 20 (which comes in 100-foot rolls) Requires special developer to reduce the high contrast. It's also an ortho film (not red sensitive) so reds will photograph darker than normal.

[Martin B]

9 hours ago, Ko.Fe. said:

Every time I load more than 36 frames I regret. Regular metal reel has no capacity for it, if I'm not mistaken. Plastic takes it, but with hassle.

Why regretting it? I always use plastic cartridges - the only issue I have is that 44 frames reach my bathroom floor when drying the long film strip

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Ko.Fe.]

32 minutes ago, Martin B said:

Why regretting it? I always use plastic cartridges - the only issue I have is that 44 frames reach my bathroom floor when drying the long film strip

My plastic reels after hundreds of rolls and many ECN2 films (remjet) are not so easy to load after 36 frames.

Plus, bulk of film lasts much longer if I'm loading 20+ frames. :).