Talk:126 film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject History of photography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History of photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of History of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

old talk[edit]

Agfa also ceased production in 1999, so any Agfa cartridges for sale must be old stock.

-- Egil 13:59 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

The Instamatic page says that 50 million cameras were made, and the 126 film page says 10 million. (Perhaps the Instamatic page is referring to both 126 and 110 cameras? I always presumed that 126 was more popular than 110, but maybe I'm wrong...) Themeparkphoto 06:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


One part of the page says it's rare to process 126. Another part says it's widely common. Make up (y)our minds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

High end 126 cameras[edit]

Kodak made at least one model of SLR 126 camera, which was compatible with their high end Retina Reflex SLR lenses, though some of the Retina lens features didn't work with the 126 SLR. The 126 SLR's lenses also fit the Retina Reflex SLR. I saw one of the 126 SLR cameras at a thrift store, went home to search the web to see if the lens would fit my Retina but the camera was gone when I went back to the store. :( Contaflex and Rollei also made 126 SLR cameras. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talkcontribs) 07:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


I am changing the text for scanners because it points to a source for a single scanner. That scanner is currently the most popular scanner on Amazon, but the statements don't hold true for the second most popular scanner on Amazon as of today. Unless there's evidence that many scanners can deal easily with 126, the text should not make that claim. For slides, any scanner that holds a 35mm slide will hold a 126 slide. But top scanners such as the Epson V600 try to locate a rectangle in the location of each slide, and fail with 126 slides. Although the areas can be selected manually one at a time, "all that is needed" is not necessarily a piece of black paper for many top scanners. It should be doable with any scanner that can deal with 120 film and allows cropping, but it won't necessarily be easy. Hagrinas (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

C22 Processing[edit]

The reference to C-41 processing, although in a section titled 'Current Availability & Usage' is somewhat misleading as there's no specific reference regarding the film originally requiring C-22 processing, thus giving an incorrect implication that the much older film can be processed as C-41 [which it can not - at least not without significant modifications, especially to the temperature]. The statement that many film processing labs are 'unaware of this' is due to the fact that the original film CAN NOT be developed via C-41 processed. This should be corrected / updated so as to ensure people attempting to develop original film DO NOT insist or attempt to have the film processed as C-41 [which the article inadvertently suggests] clarifying specifically WHICH [of the more modern produced] 126 film[s] can be processed as C-41. For example [not knowing anything about the development of film] having found a Kodak Instamatic camera with cartridge still in it, the cartridge itself specifically states C-22 processing. In first reading this article [without having done additional research] I was under the mistaken impression it could be developed using a C-41 process as long as I [as the article recommends] inform the developing lab as they 'may not be aware'. Having done additional research & discovering standard C-41 would completely destroy my film & negatives [along with anything else being processed with it], I have also learned from various threads/forums such film should not be send to a C-41 specific development labs that claims it can develop C-22 film [using it's C-41 development].

Via various threads & forums apparently the best method for attempting to recover images from 126 film requiring C-22 processing [given the fragility of the older film and a combination of factors contributing to it being severely degraded even before processing is attempted is [even for color film] processing & scanning of the black & white negative [I don't know if I used the right words to explain that, hence my explanation here on the talk page & not in the page itself]. From what I understand, as there is only one opportunity to process the film, there is a higher probability of recovering any usable image [or a higher quality image] when processed as black & white. It is usually unlikely a usable 'positive' [film-based print photograph] can be obtained however scanning the developed B&W negative allows recoverable images to be manipulated [enhanced, corrected etc.] via software.

Regardless of the specifics, there doesn't seem to be mention/ acknowledgement that the film originally [or at some point in time] required C-22 processing and the information in the article which recommends insisting that a lab can process such film via C-41 is misleading and/or incorrect without specifically addressing the 126 format film was available using 2 different development techniques during it's production life-span and it is only the more modern version [produced after 19xx ? or specifically labeled C-41 ?] which can or should be developed via C-41 processing.

A harsh & firm warning that 126 format film specifically designated as C-22 processing CAN NOT and SHOULD NOT be attempted to be developed by a C-41, such film should only be handled by a lab with dedicated C-22 based services should be included in the article. As I don't see any reference to C-22 [the processing required when the film was first introduced] As someone who personally discovered a 126/C-22 cartridge in an old family camera, & not knowing much about film processing, I personally was initially misled by the statement [and lack of reference/acknowledgement to the C-22 development requirements of the original film]. It is only out of curiosity for vintage cameras / films / developing which led me to do additional research where I learned how very disappointed I'd have been had I insisted a C-41 lab attempt to develop my C-22 126 format film. DeziWright (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Check out Film Rescue to process your old film. Even if it could be processed as C-41, it's decades too old to give to the corner film processor. They take a while, but they do everything they can to recover images. There's even the possibility they can recover color, but it's not likely. - Denimadept (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The cartridge[edit]

Was it the first twin-chamber cartridge ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Interesting question. Reminds me of RAPID, where the film goes out from one cartridge similar to the usual 35mm cartridge, and into another one. But that might not count. Super8 uses a one pass system with two chambers inside the cartridge. You don't see them the same way as 126 and 110, but I don't know when it came out relative to 126. As for a commercially viable system, either 126 or Super8 would seem be the one. Gah4 (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)