8x10 film holder for other than 8x10...

[PKM-25]

Hi LF gang, I need some help with something. I want to use 35mm film, sprocket holes and all in a 8x10 view camera.

The way it would work in an ideal world is that 6 rolls of 35mm film would run in a row into the special back to fill the 8x10 area. The film would dispense at the same time into the holder. I would like to keep it flat and close together so I think that the holder would be quite an engineering feat if it can be done.

I suppose a good thing would to advance the film and then flip a switch that would flatten it all with some mechanism with either glass or something else.

I am really trying to avoid cutting and splicing the film so hence the film loader / holder that shoots 6 rolls of film at the same time.

So think of this as a 8x10 roll film back that uses 6 rolls of 35mm film in a row...

 

[bdial]

How about something adapted from an 8x10 Aerial Camera?

 

[phfitz]

you could try adapting a clear plastic 'proofing' frame to the 8x10 holder, would give you the guide rails.

 

[keithwms]

I thought about making an insert for 35mm and for 120/220 films. I just haven't made it yet but the idea was to use a sheet of delrin. I also thought about using a film holder for a scanner to hold the film flat but that was too thick.

Another thought I had is simply to cut an 8x10 piece of transparency stock and tape the roll film to that. You could tape some film down directly into the holder, but beware that this often leaves a gummy residue for the tape on the backside of your holder.

 

[richard ide]

How about trying a removable double coated adhesive film on an 8 x 10 film holder? Would be really fun in the dark. A modified proofing frame would work but the holes and edges would be obscured. Another thought would be to make a mask of your desired setup and contact print it right on to the 8 x 10 negative before developing.

 

[PKM-25]

Thanks guys, so far, I think I am going to buy a 8 x 10 film holder and modify it. I am really trying to keep it in roll form for processing reasons...it's the one film in the world you can not soup your self..

 

[keithwms]

Richard (and PKM), the rollfilm is *very* curly, it takes quite some force to hold it flat- I am guessing that adhesive film won't do it. I tried various rather strong tapes etc. and nothing could hold the film firmly enough.... without also leaving gummy residue behind. What I suppose one might do is cut the film into strips and press it for some time to try to relieve some of the curl. But really, I tried stapling film fragments onto transparency stock and that works fine. Holds the film quite flat, really.

About contact printing to 8x10, this would be a good way to get the rollfilm sprocket effect, but then again, the only reason I was thinking about this was because the particular rollfilms that interested me are/were not available in LF... HIE, scala, digibase etc. PKM's motives may be different, of course.

Another thought would be to get a thin sheet of glass and shove the film underneath that.

Definitely explore this further and let us know how it works out!

 

[PKM-25]

PKM's motives may be different, of course.

Another thought would be to get a thin sheet of glass and shove the film underneath that.

Glass is the ticket I think....and to be entirely cryptic / anti-google magnet about my intentions, Theydon'tmakeKodachromein8x10sheets, so we do what we have to..

 

[John Kasaian]

The easy way: Photo shop!

 

[Maris]

Photoshop is the easy way to get pictures that look like they were shot on 35mm film in a 8x10 holder but that is the problem. P'shop only delivers pictures. Which is fine if all you want is pictures.

If you want photographs then Photoshop is no use at all. There is no alternative to exposing sensitive materials to light.

 

[keithwms]

Why did photoshop enter into this? Nobody is talking about photoshopping anything. The discussion is about how to load film in a novel way.

 

[archphoto]

Sinar had at one time holders that held the film as flat as posible using a sheet of double sided tape.
Very expensive though.
If you can find some of that sheet, verry sticky on one side (for the film holder) and the other side a bit less sticky, you could place it in a regular filmholder.

Don't use a changing bag THough !

Peter

 

[EASmithV]

The easy way: Photo shop!

I WILL KILL YOU!!!!!!!!


lol j/k

 

[SMBooth]

Depending on the amount of effort you want to go to, how about a vacuum holder like this. Except bigger.
http://www.deadbread.com/crumbs/vac.html

 

[jimgalli]

In my arsenal of junk labeled "future projects" I have a geodetic camera transport which was made for 9 1/2 inch aerial roll film. It rolls the film across a 9X9 platen like an aerial camera. Please contact me off line and buy this thing from me. It is sophisticated, electrical, has canon plugs, probably cost somebody a million dollars, is heavy, and would intimidate a guy who could run multiple Cirkut cameras at the same time. Still, since you started this post, I thought perhaps you'd be a perfect candidate! 7 contiguous pieces of 35mm film can span the 9.5 inches. You'd roll them up side by side on the supply reel and they would play across the platen to the take up reel. It doesn't incorporate vacuum so the pressure from supply to take up is what would hold them flat I suppose.

jimgalli at lnett dot com

L N E T T


ps, I have no idea if it works.

 

[sv@diycamerakit.com]

35 mm film was designed to be used with a pressure plate, so it won't stay flat by itself. If you don't want to use guides for every strip, which won't allow you to expose the edges of the film, I would use a glass plate between the film and the lens, to have something to press the film against, and then a large pressure plate on the back. Of course, since the emulsion would sit on the glass, one would have to make the pressure plate list during film transport, otherwise you will likely scratch the emulsion. I'm thinking there should be also a device that lifts the film off the glass completely during transport. Also, since the 35mm cassettes are wider then the film surface, they will have to be staggered so the film strips can be flush with another. If you didn't want to waste the first 10-12 inch of film, you would also have to load the thing in the dark.