Jump to content


Photo

Bought a used camera-- full of film! What do I do?


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Derek Van Gorder

Derek Van Gorder
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 September 2011 - 07:32 PM

Hello!

I recently purchased a used Eclair ACL on eBay. It came with two 200' magazines and one 400' magazine (the English one, which I hear is a bit dodgy). To my surprise, both 200' magazines are full of film! The first one appears to be halfway spent, there's film over the pressure plate. The second mag I opened in a darkened room-- the take-up side is empty, but the other side has what I'm guessing is 160' of unexposed Double-X (the magazine is labeled with a piece of tape, "160' 7222"). From what I could tell in the dark, there's indeed a good amount of film on a core, not a daylight spool, and it hasn't been threaded through to the take-up side.

The seller mentioned nothing about any included film, only that the camera had been unused for four years. And I've heard no answer from him about the film...

So, I assume there's a decent chance this is simply trash film, good for practice loading. But I also figure there's a chance the half-spent roll is shot but undeveloped. Is there any way I can tell? Should I bring it to the lab for processing? Should I attempt to shoot the remaining half, or would it be safer to just wind it through?

As for the 7222, I have no clue what condition it's in. I'm assuming there is no chance it is exposed/undeveloped, and I'd be best off just junking it and using it to practice loading-- then once I have the basics of the camera figured out, I can get around to dealing with the half-shot mag. Is this a sensible plan?

Anyway, what would you do in this situation? This is my first 16mm camera. I plan to spend a good long while practicing loading and basic operation, shoot a test roll, then get it serviced, then shoot more test rolls...
  • 0

#2 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 14 September 2011 - 07:35 PM

Honestly, I'd use it as waste. That's just me. Scratch testing and the like. You could get a lab to do a clip test of the un-exposed film, and or process the exposed film, but lord only knows how long it's been in there and how it's been stored ect. Better, in my opinion, to save the money you'd spend on processing and transferr for someone else's film and just order 400' of your own.
  • 0

#3 Charles MacDonald

Charles MacDonald
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1157 posts
  • Other
  • Stittsville Ontario Canada

Posted 14 September 2011 - 07:43 PM

Honestly, I'd use it as waste. That's just me. Scratch testing and the like. You could get a lab to do a clip test of the un-exposed film, and or process the exposed film, but lord only knows how long it's been in there and how it's been stored ect.


if it is double x, and you had a still film darkroom, you could do a dip test , but 4 years at room temperature is likely to not be a good thing.

There is a bit of curiosity of course over the exposed film, maybe it is a long lost missing link, or maybe it is someones idea of porn.
  • 0

#4 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 14 September 2011 - 07:50 PM

It's the last bit I'd worry about.....
  • 0

#5 Tom Hepburn

Tom Hepburn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 341 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago-land

Posted 15 September 2011 - 10:52 AM

Wow, my curiosity is really beating. Probably nothing (or too old), but you never know. I love a good garage sale though- so consider the source.

Tom
  • 0

#6 Charles MacDonald

Charles MacDonald
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1157 posts
  • Other
  • Stittsville Ontario Canada

Posted 15 September 2011 - 12:44 PM

It's the last bit I'd worry about.....


Yes.
  • 0

#7 Derek Van Gorder

Derek Van Gorder
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Other

Posted 17 September 2011 - 12:06 PM

Thanks for the replies! I decided to junk the 160' and practice with it, but my curiosity is getting the better of me with the left-over film and I just might have to process it. What can I say, I'm a sucker for the unknown. If I come up with anything interesting I'll be sure to post it!
  • 0

#8 Ron Varga

Ron Varga

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Electrician
  • New York City.

Posted 17 September 2011 - 02:08 PM

I'd get the camera checked too. See if there's any buildup in the pressure plate and check the ground glass. Sound like the seller had it chucked somewhere in their house and didn't bother with it.
  • 0

#9 Philip Kral

Philip Kral
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 17 September 2011 - 10:51 PM

Thanks for the replies! I decided to junk the 160' and practice with it, but my curiosity is getting the better of me with the left-over film and I just might have to process it. What can I say, I'm a sucker for the unknown. If I come up with anything interesting I'll be sure to post it!


It's funny I remember the 8mm forums years ago used to be filled with people who used to swear up and down to try and save/ develop the film they found in used cameras. Mabye 16mm shooters being more business then hobby oriented aren't curious for that kind of stuff? Or mabye it's the fact that it's a good chunk of change that might be spent on nothing :P. ::shrugs:: Just a thought... tell me how it turns out!
  • 0

#10 Tom Hepburn

Tom Hepburn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 341 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago-land

Posted 20 September 2011 - 09:29 AM

Thanks for the replies! I decided to junk the 160' and practice with it, but my curiosity is getting the better of me with the left-over film and I just might have to process it. What can I say, I'm a sucker for the unknown. If I come up with anything interesting I'll be sure to post it!


It'll probably be footage of the "staging" of the moon landing :D

Definitely post if something comes out.
  • 0

#11 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 20 September 2011 - 09:45 AM

It's kinda creepy, Tom, that I was just reading about that this morning....
  • 0

#12 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 01 October 2011 - 03:54 PM

if it is double x, and you had a still film darkroom, you could do a dip test , but 4 years at room temperature is likely to not be a good thing.

There is a bit of curiosity of course over the exposed film, maybe it is a long lost missing link, or maybe it is someones idea of porn.


Yeah Given it's B&W, I'd process it myself! Cut a bit off, enough to cram into a 35mm developing tank if you have one and then just develop it as B&W neg. The Chemicals are cheap enough. If you get pictures they could be fun for some experiment, if you don't it might be blank and you can shoot your own experiment and camera test on it!

I think it would be fun. Taking it anywhere near a proper lab would be crazy tho! :)

love

Freya
  • 0


Abel Cine

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Opal

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

The Slider

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

CineLab

FJS International, LLC