Century Graphic compatible Roll Film Backs

[chuckroast]

I have both a Century and an RB67. Either one will mount Graflex roll film holders (22, 23, RH-something) in 2x3 mount, and either one will mount RB67 roll backs (Pro, Pro-S, or Pro-SD). The interlocks for RB67 backs (double exposure, dark slide related) won't work with the Graflex backs mounted (so you can inadvertently expose and advance with the dark slide in place, or dismount the back with the dark slide out), but if you pay attention it works very well.

Horseman backs are well out of my price range, but if you don't already have one, a Graflex 23 or RH8 (if cleaned and checked) will do a fine job on that Century.

Good to know.

IMHO, though, THE reason to use a baby Graflex is to conveniently shoot 6x9. The RB backs would only give the OP 6x7.

Everyone's mileage varies, of course, but I find 6x9 approaching the quality of 4x5 in a much more convenient form factor for camera and lenses. Given that I am going to carry the same cameras and lenses, I never much found 6x7 appealing, so much so, that I peddled my one and only RH10 6x7 back. I do admit to having an RH20, though, to help me deplete my considerable stash of frozen 220 film.

OTOH, if someone wanted to give me an Mamiya 7, I wouldn't let my format bigotry get in the way ...

 

[Donald Qualls]

THE reason to use a baby Graflex is to conveniently shoot 6x9.

It is the most economical way to have interchangeable lenses and easily calibrated rangefinder (assuming a Kalart) with a 6x9. Ability to use other formats on the same camera is a bonus, one of the main ones that cause me to prefer the RB67 over a Bronica or Hasselblad (even if I could afford the latter).

 

[chuckroast]

It is the most economical way to have interchangeable lenses and easily calibrated rangefinder (assuming a Kalart) with a 6x9. Ability to use other formats on the same camera is a bonus, one of the main ones that cause me to prefer the RB67 over a Bronica or Hasselblad (even if I could afford the latter).

I seem to vaguely recall that Linhof made something portable in 6x9 as well, but I never had my mitts on one.

 

[abruzzi]

I seem to vaguely recall that Linhof made something portable in 6x9 as well, but I never had my mitts on one.

Linhof made a bunch--the 6x9 baby technika was made over several versions. Then there was Technika Press 70. It had a big viewfider above the body and in some cases it used lenses with large helicoids. The drawback of the Linhofs is they can only use Linhof Rollex or Super Rollex backs. The most cost effective after the 2x3 graphics is the Horseman VH-R. There are default Horseman made lenses with RF cams from 65ww to 180mm.

 

[Donald Qualls]

RF cams

Whereas the Kalart on the side of my Century doesn't need cams, just 10-20 minutes on a tripod with focus objects at around 4 feet, 12 feet, and the horizon (and a small screwdriver, plus a loupe to view the ground glass). And I can calibrate for any lens that will fit into the front standard (since the Kalart is the same as the ones on 4x5 and even 5x7 Speed Graphics that could use lenses up to 250+ mm).

 

[Chuck1]

And if you get RB67 roll backs, any generation (Pro, ProS, or ProSD) will have those rollers as well, plus will all be length-counting (so film thickness won't affect frame spacing) and lever advance. If you get an RB67 220 back, it's very easily converted to be able to correctly space 35 mm film fed from a standard cassette (though you'll generally have to unload in a darkroom or changing bag, as there's no rewind capability).

These will hold 35mm film flat (without a mask)?

 

[abruzzi]

Whereas the Kalart on the side of my Century doesn't need cams, just 10-20 minutes on a tripod with focus objects at around 4 feet, 12 feet, and the horizon (and a small screwdriver, plus a loupe to view the ground glass). And I can calibrate for any lens that will fit into the front standard (since the Kalart is the same as the ones on 4x5 and even 5x7 Speed Graphics that could use lenses up to 250+ mm).

I'll take a 30 second cam change over 10-20 minutes to change a lens.

 

[Chuckwade87]

The rb backs are able to rotate on the RB right, how about on the Century?

And if you get RB67 roll backs, any generation (Pro, ProS, or ProSD) will have those rollers as well, plus will all be length-counting (so film thickness won't affect frame spacing) and lever advance. If you get an RB67 220 back, it's very easily converted to be able to correctly space 35 mm film fed from a standard cassette (though you'll generally have to unload in a darkroom or changing bag, as there's no rewind capability).

So what if you fed the 35mm film into another 35mm cassette?

I might stick with the Graflex RH 8 and pick up a Mamiya rb67 6x4.5

 

[Besk]

Mercurycamera.com makes kits to convert RB67 backs to use 35mm film. The one I have is the panoramic format (24x67) but they also make one that uses a 645 back for 24x40mm images.

 

[Dan Fromm]

The rb backs are able to rotate on the RB right, how about on the Century?

Oh, dear, you've bought the common misconception that "back" means "film holder." The back of the RB rotates. The Century's back does not rotate. As has been pointed out already, most roll holders that can be attached to the RB's back can be attached to the Century's back.

 

[Donald Qualls]

These will hold 35mm film flat (without a mask)?

I've only shot 35 mm with mine once, but it seemed flat enough for my needs. The film is still against the pressure plate all the way across the gate, so curl between the perf rows is the only worry, and I haven't seen that as a problem with 35 mm in any camera.

I'll take a 30 second cam change over 10-20 minutes to change a lens.

That's if the lens you want is available with a matched cam...

So what if you fed the 35mm film into another 35mm cassette?

The big issue with this is that your last frame will get fogged when you unload. I've considered bulk rolling with a length of projection leader on each end to allow daylight film changes. Ideally, I'd like to see a retrofit film cutter (like an Exakta Varex) so when the advance locks, I just cut the film and wind it into the takeup cassette.

Mercurycamera.com makes kits to convert RB67 backs to use 35mm film. The one I have is the panoramic format (24x67) but they also make one that uses a 645 back for 24x40mm images.

I need to look at those -- both formats. I presume they require replacing the gate mask (ten or so tiny screws and the fly-away spring in the dark slide latch). I tried to 3D print one, but I think I had the scale off by 1% or so and it wouldn't fit. I don't think the 6x4.5 back was made for 220, though -- it'll freewheel after 16 frames, which is about half a 36 exposure roll. Just bulk load shorties?

 

[abruzzi]

That's if the lens you want is available with a matched cam...

Fortunately they all are. If I want to use a non horseman lens I don’t really use the Horseman, I use a Arca Swiss F-classic 6x9.

 

[Chuckwade87]

When your using the different format backs, are you using the rangefinder or Ground Glass to focus ? If your using ground glass, do you put marks on the ground glass to indicate the edge of the frame? What's the easiest way? Do you use the optical finder as well?

My Century doesn't have the rangefinder, and I don't think I'm going to buy one until I'm more familiar and know I need it.

 

[Dan Fromm]

When your using the different format backs, are you using the rangefinder or Ground Glass to focus ? If your using ground glass, do you put marks on the ground glass to indicate the edge of the frame? What's the easiest way? Do you use the optical finder as well?

My Century doesn't have the rangefinder, and I don't think I'm going to buy one until I'm more familiar and know I need it.

First question, does your Century have a focusing panel?

If you're shooting 6x6 or 6x7, marks on the GG aid composing.

The tubular view finder can be used with 2 1/4 x 2 1/4, 2 1/4 x 2 3/4, and 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 and a variety of focal lengths. There are masks for many combinations that slip in to the finder. There is also a supplemental lens for use with 65 mm lenses that slips into the finder.

Good luck finding a Kalart. They're not common. If you find one quickly, good for you and thank me for invoking Murphy's law in your favor.

 

[Chuckwade87]

I should be looking for one now...

Yes the Century Graphic has a ground glass back with a grid.

 

[beemermark]

In the research I did of the camera prior to buying it, it was clear that the original 6x9 back wasn't that good at keeping the film flat,

My 2 cents, shoot a roll of film. Do your own research. Then determine if the rollback isn't holding the film flat (hint, middle of the film won't be s sharp as the corners, or visa versa)

 

[Chuckwade87]

True,

My 2 cents, shoot a roll of film. Do your own research. Then determine if the rollback isn't holding the film flat (hint, middle of the film won't be s sharp as the corners, or visa versa)

True, it'd be great to be able to research it on my own.
However, film isn't being given away at the Fotomat down in the plaza at the mall...and my own time available to experiment is extremely limited. I'd rather not waste time shooting and developing, or money in film and developing chemicals.

 

[beemermark]

True,


True, it'd be great to be able to research it on my own.
However, film isn't being given away at the Fotomat down in the plaza at the mall...and my own time available to experiment is extremely limited. I'd rather not waste time shooting and developing, or money in film and developing chemicals.

So you think it's cheaper to buy another back and based on internet experts "think" it's better than what you already own. Also thinking the Polaroid lens (and I've owned more than a few Polaroid lenses and backs) are better than what you own??? Buy a 4x5 and shoot sheet film.

 

[chuckroast]

So you think it's cheaper to buy another back and based on internet experts "think" it's better than what you already own. Also thinking the Polaroid lens (and I've owned more than a few Polaroid lenses and backs) are better than what you own??? Buy a 4x5 and shoot sheet film.

A bit snide, no? I would suggest a spirit of helpfulness would be ... more helpful. But what do I know?

 

[reddesert]

It may have been a little rough, but the reality is (which I tried to express earlier in the thread), people raise a lot of hypothetical concerns on the internet about topics like film flatness in rolll film holders, that get amplified through repetition. It would be a good idea for the OP to shoot a roll of film to get used to the camera and see if you actually have any issues attributable to film flatness, or if there are other bugs in your use of a new camera that are important to work out first.

This goes even more so if one is thinking about buying a roll film holder that might not even fit (some of the Horsemans) or if the OP has a lever wind Graflex holder - the lever wind holders are not that much different from an RB67 back anyway.

 

[Chuckwade87]

So you think it's cheaper to buy another back and based on internet experts "think" it's better than what you already own. Also thinking the Polaroid lens (and I've owned more than a few Polaroid lenses and backs) are better than what you own??? Buy a 4x5 and shoot sheet film.

Well, considering this forum and website in general is to spread knowledge of equipment and techniques, from a wide swath of different photographers, yes more than a few here I would call photography experts, if I didn't think their experience was relevant I wouldn't have asked for the input.

Perhaps I failed to make it clear, but the reason I have invested in a Century Graphic, is it's portability, and it's exceptional modularity, in that it will readily accept other film backs, particularly the 6x4.5, which not only provide a different aspect ratio, but also makes shooting more cost effective.

I never said the Polaroid lens was good or bad, I've never shot with it and it's exceedingly difficult to find example shots taken with it, so I do wonder how versatile the 127mm lens will be in actual use.

I have a Linhof Technika, so yeah maybe I will shoot 4x5 one day, but then again, I'd have to invest in more developing equipment which I don't really want to do.

If you want your two cents back, bring your receipt.

It may have been a little rough, but the reality is (which I tried to express earlier in the thread), people raise a lot of hypothetical concerns on the internet about topics like film flatness in rolll film holders, that get amplified through repetition. It would be a good idea for the OP to shoot a roll of film to get used to the camera and see if you actually have any issues attributable to film flatness, or if there are other bugs in your use of a new camera that are important to work out first.

This goes even more so if one is thinking about buying a roll film holder that might not even fit (some of the Horsemans) or if the OP has a lever wind Graflex holder - the lever wind holders are not that much different from an RB67 back anyway.

Every time I click the shutter its important. I don't like wasting anything if I can help it.

You are correct most people learn by doing, which I plan on doing extensively. I also don't want to lose a shot due to inadequate equipment which could have been mitigated prior to shooting.

I have seen some example photos taken with the original knob version which seem alright. It's not particularly useful to judge images uploaded to the Internet. So as I said earlier in this Thread, I would like to compare the lever and the knob version to see if the film flatness is discernible.

Also, I'd like to thank everyone who helped me in this thread, especially Donald Qualls and Dan From and chuckroast, you all have been a great help.

I'll update this thread once I test things out.

 

[Donald Qualls]

the lever wind holders are not that much different from an RB67 back anyway.

The biggest functional difference is that the RH8 etc. and knob-wind Graflex roll film holders count turns of the takeup spool to space frames, and therefore may give different spacing if something (like using 35 mm film) causes the film to build up on the spool faster or slower than standard 120 (or 220). RB67 roll holders all use length counter driven by the first large turnaround roller (supply end).

 

[Dan Fromm]

Perhaps I failed to make it clear, but the reason I have invested in a Century Graphic, is it's portability, and it's exceptional modularity, in that it will readily accept other film backs, particularly the 6x4.5, which not only provide a different aspect ratio, but also makes shooting more cost effective.

I never said the Polaroid lens was good or bad, I've never shot with it and it's exceedingly difficult to find example shots taken with it, so I do wonder how versatile the 127mm lens will be in actual use.

Every time I click the shutter its important. I don't like wasting anything if I can help it.

You are correct most people learn by doing, which I plan on doing extensively. I also don't want to lose a shot due to inadequate equipment which could have been mitigated prior to shooting.

I have seen some example photos taken with the original knob version which seem alright. It's not particularly useful to judge images uploaded to the Internet. So as I said earlier in this Thread, I would like to compare the lever and the knob version to see if the film flatness is discernible.

Hmm. The 2x3 Crown/Century is not the only 2x3 press/technical camera with a Graflok back.

I'm not aware of 6x4.5 roll holders that fit 2x3 Graflok backs. I don't know everything, so please educate me by naming a few.

I don't know which of the lenses fitted to various models of the Pathfinder you have. Please tell us. I'm suspicious of Tessar type Raptars (that's what was on 110 and 110A Pathfinders) because many years ago in a discussion of the merits of them and Tessar type Ektars the most authoritative person in the discussion (not me) remarked that Raptars were two stops behind equivalent Ektars. I know nothing about R'stock's Ysarex lenses, also Tessar clones.

You're going to waste film no matter how careful you are. If cost is a consideration, sell the Century and go digital.

Re inadequate equipment, I've tried out many lenses on my little Graphics. Nearly the first thing I learned was that although there are poor lenses, the first thing to check for when testing was operator error. That's me, and will be you.

The last series of Graflex' roll holders' shells (badges RH)were made for lever wind inserts, sometime turn up with knob wind inserts. Note, the inserts fit old- and new-style shells. RH shells have a pin roller, to improve film flatness, at each end of the gate; their gates are shorter than the gates of old-style shells to accommodate the rollers.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'm not aware of 6x4.5 roll holders that fit 2x3 Graflok backs.

Mamiya sold a 6x4.5 back for the RB67 which works as well on a standard 2x3 Graflok mount as on the RB67 -- I have one and have used it on my Century.

 

[chuckroast]

Hmm. The 2x3 Crown/Century is not the only 2x3 press/technical camera with a Graflok back.

I have used the Mamiya Super 23, Mamiya Universal w/G back, and several variations of 2x3 Graflex cameras. I believe the Graflex XL also had this back.

The thing that commends the Baby Speed or Century Graphics to me is the breadth of lenses available. Both the Mamiya and Graflex XL had very limited range of choices. In fairness, the Mamiya, at least, had much better options for long lenses give the limited bellows draw of the Baby Speed and Centuries. Then again, the weight of the longer Mamiya lenses (not to mention the bodies) is daunting.

I'm not aware of 6x4.5 roll holders that fit 2x3 Graflok backs. I don't know everything, so please educate me by naming a few.

So far as I am aware, the following rollfilm holders for a Graflok back were:

RH12 - 6x6 (Older model is called RH22)
RH10 - 6x7
RH20 - 6x7 / 220 film
RH8 - 6x9

They never made a 645 format back. However the 645 back for the RB67 has been adapted by some people so it fits the Graflok system. I personally am unenthusiastic about this because you have to rotate the camera 90 degrees to get a horizontal composition (unlike the RB, which
has a rotating back system in place).