Need to Process 828 format: Just found some exposed 828 Kodacolor C22, and Panatomic X from the '50's/early '60's which my dear deceased dad never had gotten around to process, what...

ELNikkor

Just found some exposed 828 Kodacolor C22, and Panatomic X from the '50's/early '60's which my dear deceased dad never had gotten around to process, what with having 6 boys in 10 years, working for Kodak etc. etc. I can do the darkroom work, but don't have the right size spools. Also, I'm willing to process the Kodacolor in HC-110, as I'm ok with B&W images from color film. It is mainly the family history value I'm curious about. Any ideas on how to process them without spools? Or where I might find the spools? Thanks! (The 828 Bantam is still in the box, good as new!)

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

There was a type of processing chemical for Kodak film that has gone out of production. I hope it wasn't for Kodacolor.

It seems that 828 is 35mm film without the sprocket holes. Wouldn't 35mm film spools work?

Something here might be helpful.

https://www.google.com/search?q=kodak+828+film&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS716US717&oq=kodak+828+film&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l4.4799j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

EDIT: It's look like your safe with the C-22.
http://www.thecamerashop.com/imagecenter/c22.html

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

Quoting from The Darkroom in San Clemente, CA, my goto film lab:

“If you send in C-22 film, it will be processed as black & white. The chemicals necessary for this color process were discontinued many years ago. We CANNOT develop any Kodachrome, Disc Film, Triple Print, AGFA Scala or 5247 Seattle Film Works film”

ELNikkor

Thanks for the tip about 828 being the same as 35 without the sprocket holes. The Panatomic X is 35mm (1 3/8") size, but the Kodacolor is larger (1 3/4"), so I'm looking for larger spools. I suppose I could dip it, holding the ends & alternating high and low...

hannaco Loc: People's Republic of California

I have a developing tank that has a plastic spool that adjusts for film width. That might be an option over the stainless steel reels.

rplain1 Loc: Dayton, Oh.

As hannaco mentioned - back in my film days my spool was adjustable for width. Could do 35mm or 120 or whatever with one spool. I would think they might still be available.

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

ELNikkor wrote:

Just found some exposed 828 Kodacolor C22, and Pan... (show quote)

I think 828 was the roll film equivalent of 35mm, 35mm spool should work, JOBO made an adjustable tank years ago, worst case you could not set the moving flange in a detent,

Papa Joe Loc: Midwest U.S.

Before I was ever able to buy, or was even aware that spools existed, (1948)....I learned to process film using the "see-saw'' method in a tray. The 828 isn't terribly long, (usually only 8 exposures), so you should be able to develop it that way. (Of course, if you have a 35mm spool, the 828 will feed into it nicely). Good luck. Keep us posted. Loved my little Kodak Bantam! (My first 'real' camera).

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

bobmcculloch wrote:

I think 828 was the roll film equivalent of 35mm, 35mm spool should work, JOBO made an adjustable tank years ago, worst case you could not set the moving flange in a detent,

828 was 35mm unperforated film. There is one “index hole” per frame, along one side of the roll. It has a paper backing, like 120.

You can develop 828 on 35mm reels.

chapjohn Loc: Tigard, Oregon

The one place out here by me that does only film is Blue Moon Camera and Machine. They have an extensive lab and know a lot about film.

https://bluemooncamera.com/

Bill P

If C22 you could be in a bind to get color, but if it's a more recent version, any pro lab that uses a dip 'n' dunk machine should be able to get it done.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Bill P wrote:

If C22 you could be in a bind to get color, but if it's a more recent version, any pro lab that uses a dip 'n' dunk machine should be able to get it done.

Right. C22 can be souped in black-and-white chemistry. There are some labs that specialize in processing old film. See above.

828 is the same width as 35mm film. It is much shorter, so after removing the paper backing, it can be spooled onto 35mm developing reels and processed in small tanks (Honeywell Nikor, Kindermann, Paterson, and various others).

Some of the B&W labs out there use Refrema dip 'n' dunk processors, which can be set up to process almost anything except Kodachrome.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

ELNikkor wrote:

Thanks for the tip about 828 being the same as 35 without the sprocket holes. The Panatomic X is 35mm (1 3/8") size, but the Kodacolor is larger (1 3/4"), so I'm looking for larger spools. I suppose I could dip it, holding the ends & alternating high and low...

I think you are thinking of size 127 film, which was 46mm film on a short spool. It's about 1.8" wide.

828 is un-perforated 35mm film, so it makes better use of the real estate available for images (but the cameras were mostly cheap boxes for amateurs).

More trivia:

Un-perforated 35mm, 46mm, and 70mm films were a staple of the portrait photography industry for many years. They were available in 100' (and some 200') long rolls at one point. We processed thousands of miles of it at the lab where I worked. School and "big box" store photographers used it.

Size 120 and 620 films are about 61.5mm wide, +/- 0.5mm, but the spools are different.

Kodak slit just a few film widths from their master rolls, but packaged it in many more ways. There were all sorts of "trial formats" over the years that basically went nowhere in the marketplace.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

ELNikkor wrote:

Thanks for the tip about 828 being the same as 35 without the sprocket holes. The Panatomic X is 35mm (1 3/8") size, but the Kodacolor is larger (1 3/4"), so I'm looking for larger spools. I suppose I could dip it, holding the ends & alternating high and low...

Google it. Someone has them.