[MF3D.FORUM:369] Re: MF Ektachrome Infrared

[Paul Talbot <ptww@xxxxxxxxx>]

Tom Deering wrote:

Re:  [EIR]

> This looks interesting for sure.  If I did it, I might repackage it
> using 120 paper.  At $20 a roll, I'd hate to lose any of that
> emulsion to spacing problems.

I was thinking kind of the opposite.  It's only costing $2
extra to double the number of potential shots.  A 120 roll sets
you back $2.83 per shot.  You can afford to be super-conservative
on the 220 advance technique and still come out ahead.  In fact,
if you only get SEVEN shots on the 220, that seventh shot, at $2
for the film, is less than the cost of each of the 6 on the 120.
(You need to get more than one extra shot when factoring the cost
of processing, however.)

Let's see where is shakes out with processing included:

          Film   Processing    Total-A  Total-B
(120)     $17     $ 3 -  6       $20      $23
(220)     $19     $ 6 - 12       $25      $31

Total cost with 120 is $3.33 to $3.83.  With 220 it works out
like this:

# Shots:      7        8        9        10        11        12
Cost-A      $3.57    $3.125  $2.778    $2.50     $2.27     $2.08
Cost-B      $4.43    $3.875  $3.444    $3.10     $2.82     $2.58

So the benefit depends on your processing cost.  You only need
8 shots on the 220 roll to come out ahead if your processing is
cheap like Tom gets in NY.  If your processing is around what
I have to pay, you'll be slightly ahead at 9 shots per 220 roll.
Ten shots per 220 roll is pretty easy to obtain.

Now, two cautions for both approaches:  The EIR packaging
insists that the film must be handled in COMPLETE darkness,
even for *loading the camera*.  If you don't have a light-
tight darkroom, I'd say forget about trying to re-roll the
stuff with 120 paper.  I'd also be *very* careful about making
sure there's no light sneaking into your Sputnik, whether
through the door hinges, camera back joints, or the little
red advance window.

Paul Talbot