35mm sheet film and holder.

baachitraka · May 16, 2011

Call me crazy...my entire weekend was ruined with an idea to design a holder which takes 35mm roll film cut into sheets.

I did not do enough research yet, whether such an idea has been materialized in the past.

Why 35mm sheets? You must be crazy...

Not really, for me it is not so convenient to shoot the entire roll and process it in the same way.

Hmm...there are plate cameras, why to re-invent again?

35mm SLRs are handy, lens choice are plenty, rolls are not so expensive and so are the development.

The most of the design will be inspired from the sheet film holder but my concern is

- how to modify the back of an SLR so that I can slide the sheet holder.

- Distance from the film to the lens(depends on the manufacturer)

What you guys think about it?

M.A.Longmore · May 16, 2011

.
Purchase a changing bag, expose a few frames of film.
Put camera, and developing tank in changing bag.
Cut film, and install exposed film into reel, and secure tank.
Reattach film, and repeat ...

Ron
.

Rol_Lei Nut · May 16, 2011

One basic comment: you'd be working at speeds where 35mm would give you no working advantage over mid- or large format. At that point you'd probably be much better off with a larger negative.

Sticking to 35mm, you could look into swapping out film as needed. Some cameras make that easier.
The classic Exaktas let you use a cassette as a take-up spool and even have a film cutter for quick daylight swaps.
The Rolleiflex SL2000F & 3003 have interchangeable film backs and you could, for example, carry 3 magazines around for -1, 0, & +1 exposed film, changing as needed.
Carry 3 bodies: your Olympus is small and the 2 extra bodies would probably still be more convenient that any 35mm sheet back.

baachitraka · May 16, 2011

M.A.Longmore said:
.
Purchase a changing bag, expose a few frames of film.
Put camera, and developing tank in changing bag.
Cut film, and install exposed film into reel, and secure tank.
Reattach film, and repeat ...

Ron
.

If I try to cut the film in the changing bag, how exactly I know where to cut it... :-(

M.A.Longmore · May 16, 2011

.
I would think that after your last exposure, you can advance two frames.
And then cut the film a wee bit past the shutter. I've never actually tried
the cut, and continue method. But I've had it in mind, being as I
sometimes have a stray roll of film sitting in the camera for a few months.
If you have an old roll of film experiment with it. With the camera back open,
advance the film through, at least five or six frames. Use a marker to indicate
the last exposed frame, I assume that if you advance two or three frames, that
should be enough to protect the exposed image from any damage as you cut,
and remove it from the camera. And I think you would at least expose five, or
six frames, anything less would be a bit troublesome to handle.
Run a test roll, and give us an update, I would be very interested in your results.

Ron
.

baachitraka · May 16, 2011

Rol_Lei Nut said:
One basic comment: you'd be working at speeds where 35mm would give you no working advantage over mid- or large format. At that point you'd probably be much better off with a larger negative.

Sticking to 35mm, you could look into swapping out film as needed. Some cameras make that easier.
The classic Exaktas let you use a cassette as a take-up spool and even have a film cutter for quick daylight swaps.
The Rolleiflex SL2000F & 3003 have interchangeable film backs and you could, for example, carry 3 magazines around for -1, 0, & +1 exposed film, changing as needed.
Carry 3 bodies: your Olympus is small and the 2 extra bodies would probably still be more convenient that any 35mm sheet back.

Yes, 3 body solution was suggested by someone during the discussion about zone system. It is sub-optimal but it works and requires no engineering at all.

My concern is not just 35mm alone, if I have a working slide holder for 35mm and it will be matter of time that I have for another formats too, except for large format.

I aware of the complexity and the required engineering...

Right now, I am trying to find little bit more about the design such as distance between the lens and the film.

Rol_Lei Nut · May 16, 2011

baachitraka said:
Y
I aware of the complexity and the required engineering...

Right now, I am trying to find little bit more about the design such as distance between the lens and the film.

If you are using an existing camera as a base, then your cut film would have to end up resting on the camera's own film guide/base anyway (unless you replace everyhing, but that requires a *great* machinist & the proper tools).

The Rolleiflex magazines I mentioned earlier could be loaded with individual cut film frames (though I'd imagine it being a PITA to do so) and have their own dark slides as well. That could be a solution for you to experiment with, though the Rolleiflex bodies (and magazines) aren't cheap.

baachitraka · May 16, 2011

Rol_Lei Nut said:
If you are using an existing camera as a base, then your cut film would have to end up resting on the camera's own film guide/base anyway (unless you replace everyhing, but that requires a *great* machinist & the proper tools).

The Rolleiflex magazines I mentioned earlier could be loaded with individual cut film frames (though I'd imagine it being a PITA to do so) and have their own dark slides as well. That could be a solution for you to experiment with, though the Rolleiflex bodies (and magazines) aren't cheap.

Right now, I have no access to the camera and when I am at home I will try to slide the film through the guide. Then I will have a better idea

I presume, the film holder will be the size of a match box but slightly thinner. It should have groove for film to slide and an another for a metal slider for light seal.

Hope it won't pose any serious engineering problem...

Rol_Lei Nut · May 16, 2011

baachitraka said:
Right now, I have no access to the camera and when I am at home I will try to slide the film through the guide. Then I will have a better idea

I presume, the film holder will be the size of a match box but slightly thinner. It should have groove for film to slide and an another for a metal slider for light seal.

Hope it won't pose any serious engineering problem...

Not to discourage you, but your plan would require:
1) Your film holder would have to be attached to the camera so no light leaks through the joins.
2) You'd need a dark slide (light seal) which is light-tight and can be removed once the film holder is in place.
3) The film would have to move forward to rest on the camera's film guides once the dark slide is removed (a good spring system).
4) The spring system would also have to keep the film perfectly flat.
5) The film holder and/or camera would have to be machined so that the dark slide can be put back in without damaging or scratching the film.
6) Probably something else important & complicated I haven't thought about

IMHO, *not* an easy thing to actually build.
There's a reason why interchangeable film magazines & cameras tend to be very expensive!

Good luck!

brucemuir · May 16, 2011

why not roll yer own with say 6-7 shots.
Thats 2 scenes bracketed.

I guess this approach may waste too much for leader etc???

ArtTwisted · May 16, 2011

buy some bulk film and bulk load short rolls, (couple feet) which will give you a few shots. Wasting a bit of leader each time but the cost of bulk load is so cheap compared to any modification to a camera you would need to do. Carry around a couple 2 - 4 shot short rolls an maybe one long roll just incase and you would be good to go.

BobD · May 16, 2011

A normal 35mm frame is 24x36mm or 864 square millimeters.

That means a lens for 35mm format will cover a square field of at least 36x36mm
or 1296 square millimeters, an increase of 50%

Why not design your film back to accept a square format and cut your film sheets
from larger format films?

baachitraka · May 16, 2011

Rol_Lei Nut said:
Not to discourage you, but your plan would require:
1) Your film holder would have to be attached to the camera so no light leaks through the joins.
2) You'd need a dark slide (light seal) which is light-tight and can be removed once the film holder is in place.
3) The film would have to move forward to rest on the camera's film guides once the dark slide is removed (a good spring system).
4) The spring system would also have to keep the film perfectly flat.
5) The film holder and/or camera would have to be machined so that the dark slide can be put back in without damaging or scratching the film.
6) Probably something else important & complicated I haven't thought about

IMHO, *not* an easy thing to actually build.
There's a reason why interchangeable film magazines & cameras tend to be very expensive!

Good luck!

I have no great ambition at this moment, so there is no room for discouragement. ;-)

It was just a crazy idea, to put a match-box like a holder with magnetic to attach to the camera body.

Yeah, it requires completely remove the camera back and replace with custom back with a provision to open and shut the holder slide.

It needs lot of work...but I am so impressed with the engineering they put on my little olympus.

Unfortunately, my engineering degree taught only "Electro Magnetics" :-|

baachitraka · May 16, 2011

The simplest solution would be if film manufacturers have the film manufactured in a way that it can be teared into strips before development, so the zone system is also applicable to roll films. But, it will require to align the film between tears.

BrianL · May 29, 2011

Pick up a Bronica ETR series camera and its 35mm backs. These are relatively inexpensive and have great lenses to boot. I have the ETRS and a couple of 35mm backs and when I go awalking keep one loaded with color or transparency film and the other with black and white. I also have several 645 backs and load them with various ISO and types of film. One thing I like about the 35mm back is that it reverses the roll of the film I think aiding in keeping it flatter than with most 35mm cameras.

I usually use 24 frame 35mm film but then I do not shoot as much as I used to.

2F/2F · May 29, 2011

Hi,

You don't necessarily need a sliding holder. You can have a hinged plate instead. It would probably be easier to design and make.

But, honestly, I would not bother to do this myself. For things I shoot in which I want to shoot individual sheets, I also don't want to shoot 35mm. In other words, there is no crossover between the subject matter for which I use individual sheets and the subject matter for which I shoot 35mm.

ic-racer · May 29, 2011

My thought on the Rollei magazine is to get a camera that is busted and no longer advances the film and tape a little film strip to the magazine insert and load that in to the magazine. This way you can use the Rollei magazine darkslide and the moving pressure plate to advance the film forward to contact the rails after removing the pressure plate. So, you mini sheet film holder is the Rollei magazine.

The other nice solution out there is 6x9cm (2x3in) sheet film.

Bill Burk · May 29, 2011

Wonder if something like this harebrained scheme would work:

Get an infrared viewer
Shoot in groups of 4-5 shots of the same "N" number.
One shot per group is an index card "N-1" or whatever your N number is.
Advance a couple blank frames between groups
Develop to the shortest N- number by time and temperature and then inspect.
Cut and stop the finished group(s) and continue developing to the next time
Repeat until you get into the groups of N+2 and above.
These you can finish whenever they look right by inspection.

Nicholas Lindan · May 29, 2011

35mm glass plates:
http://wallout.com/ultimate_gadget_1930s_jaeger_lecoultre_compass

- Or -

35mm removable backs
http://www.earlyphotography.co.uk/site/entry_C341.html

- Or -

Cut off the film as you take the picture [1/2 way down...]
http://camarasclassicas.blogspot.com/2010/11/exakta-varex-iia.html

- Or -
Load your own film - in 1-shot cartridges
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps%20how%20load%20bulk.html

baachitraka · May 30, 2011

Well, if there is a mechanism which allow to puncture holes across the film on every advancement of the film lever then I can cut the film across the holes and develop individually.

Hope there will be an optimum solution. I don't know...I still do not want to give up my 35mm...

2F/2F · May 30, 2011

Bodies are cheap. Not much more than medium format backs, and sometimes less. Olympus bodies are nice and compact too. I'd just use three bodies if you are intent on using the Zone System with 35mm. Swapping your lens onto another body is not much more hassle than large format photographers go through when changing film holders, or than medium format photographers go through when changing film backs.

Rick A · May 30, 2011

Depending on how long your film strip is(presuming pano vs single frame),a piece of 1/4" ply sixed to fit back of LF camera, with a hole cut out the length required by width of film(inside sprockket holes) . Then tape as many matchboxes together as needed, attach to plywood to cover hole and trim to open to match (sic) hole. Now, its up to you to figure out how to incorporate a dark slide.

David A. Goldfarb · May 30, 2011

While it can be interesting to find ways to use the zone system with 35mm, there are reasons not to do it aside from the practical ones. Expansion development generally produces a grainier negative, which isn't so much of a problem with large format, but can be with 35mm.

It might be best to use two bodies, one for n-1, and one for n development, and implement any further contrast control at the printing stage.

35mm sheet film and holder.

baachitraka

M.A.Longmore

Rol_Lei Nut

baachitraka

M.A.Longmore

baachitraka

Rol_Lei Nut

baachitraka

Rol_Lei Nut

brucemuir

ArtTwisted

BobD

baachitraka

baachitraka

Attachments

BrianL

2F/2F

ic-racer

Bill Burk

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser

baachitraka

2F/2F

Rick A

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

35mm sheet film and holder.

Attachments

Advertiser

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency