Conventions for indicating which film holders have film?

[el_37]

I cannot believe there is 4 pages on the "convention" of indicating the exposure status of a double sided cut film holder. It hasn't been that long since digital took over!

Since the 1950's it was always silver/white is unexposed and black is exposed. This was standard practice all over the world. Look at every post 1950 (or even post WWII) double sided cut film holder and one side is always silver or white and the other is black. Linhof, Toyo, Riteway, Fidelity, Sinar, MPP, Graflex, etc all followed this convention. If I remember correctly Rittreck and some other Japan made holders used red instead of white to indicate unexposed film.

You were taught this if you went to school for photography or when you started as an assistant. I also believe this was mentioned in "The Camera" by Ansel Adams (Edit- just checked. It is on page 40 of the 2003 edition) and possibly even the film data guides. I am also quite sure it is mentioned in the various LF technique books that camera companies such as Sinar and Linhof used to put out.

The bumps were also another indicator. Most had them on the unexposed side- but I think Linhof was reversed. This was so you knew in the dark how to orient them when loading, and if unloading to make sure you were only unloading exposed film.

Riteway, Lisco, Regal and Fidelity were certainly sold in European countries- they weren't making 9x12, 13x18 and 18x24 holders to sell in the USA.

You NEVER mix empty and loaded holders in the field, nor would they be anywhere near a camera when in the studio. You would have at the least gotten yelled at as an assistant back in the day and at worst- fired for doing so. Empty holders stay far away from anywhere that they could be confused for loaded holders. If you find it necessary to carry them in the field- they should be clearly marked and in a separate bag/case- or left in the car.

There are blank white areas on most cut film holders where the manufacturer intended you to write what film was in it with a pencil. "Convention" was to put white tape on the holder and write "EPP, TRI-X, EVS, etc" on it. You would then also write any sequence numbers, processing or exposure notes on the tape- i.e "N+1, +1/2, hold" After the job was done you ripped the tape off. Linhof holders were numbered, and some of the Linhof holders even would expose that number onto the rebate of the film.

The locks are exactly that- locks to keep the slides in place. Some studios/photographers used to pull them out because they usually had a tendency to get stuck at the worst time and then the excessive pulling would move the camera.....

 

[AgX]

I cannot believe there is 4 pages on the "convention" of indicating the exposure status of a double sided cut film holder. It hasn't been that long since digital took over!

Since the 1950's it was always silver/white is unexposed and black is exposed. This was standard practice all over the world. Look at every post 1950 (or even post WWII) double sided cut film holder and one side is always silver or white and the other is black.

Why did you not read these 4 pages before posting?

 

[el_37]

Why did you not read these 4 pages before posting?

I did. My posting is more out of surprise than anything else. I did rehash some info that was already posted- but I also put some of my own experiences having worked as both an assistant and a photographer both in the USA and Europe working almost exclusively with LF cameras from the mid 1990's to the mid 2000's.

Albeit, I don't shoot much anymore and have been away from the forums for years- I am still rather shocked that this knowledge seems to have been somewhat lost in the intervening years. I figured enough people were shooting LF as hobbyists that something that has been standardized at least 70 years ago wouldn't be questioned by as many people as I have seen on this thread.

 

[Nitroplait]

I am still rather shocked that this knowledge seems to have been somewhat lost in the intervening years. I figured enough people were shooting LF as hobbyists that something that has been standardized at least 70 years ago wouldn't be questioned by as many people as I have seen on this thread.

The advent of digital photography appears to have introduced a disconnect, it seems - and on the internet all voices caries the same weight.

Actually, young unexperienced film photographers set themselves up as experts without substance on youtube and elsewhere, and as they are more savvy when it comes to click-bait presentations, they are seen by more people than great experienced educators such as John Sexton or others.

 

[Don_ih]

I am still rather shocked that this knowledge seems to have been somewhat lost in the intervening years.

Because it is a convention, it has been mostly interpersonally passed on. So, with film falling out of photography courses, not many people are learning or working with large format. Hobbyists, for the most part, learn on their own. And while it is mentioned in books (I cited one up above), it is mostly mentioned in passing and many hobbyists would skip over it since it's about loading film in holders, which they would find obvious.

 

[AgX]

I did. My posting is more out of surprise than anything else. I did rehash some info that was already posted- but I also put some of my own experiences having worked as both an assistant and a photographer both in the USA and Europe working almost exclusively with LF cameras from the mid 1990's to the mid 2000's.

Albeit, I don't shoot much anymore and have been away from the forums for years- I am still rather shocked that this knowledge seems to have been somewhat lost in the intervening years. I figured enough people were shooting LF as hobbyists that something that has been standardized at least 70 years ago wouldn't be questioned by as many people as I have seen on this thread.

You are speaking out of experience, but not referring to a convention.

"I figured enough people were shooting LF as hobbyists that something that has been standardized at least 70 years ago wouldn't be questioned."
Then please show me this standard.
What hobbyists were shooting LF? You cannot take US amateurs for the world.

 

[Don_ih]

Then please show me this standard.

There is no question that there is a convention. What are you asking him? He said he figured that even though most of the work previously done by large format is now done by digital, enough amateur photography would have been happening to preserve the conventional understanding of the sides of the film holder.

It's a convention because people understand the silver/white/bumpy side to mean "Loaded and unexposed" without there being any necessary reason it means that. "Convention" = agreed understanding.
He doesn't need to talk about the world. He only needs to talk about where people use these film holders. If no one in Germany uses these film holders, there will obviously be no convention as to their use there.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I cannot believe there is 4 pages on the "convention" of indicating the exposure status of a double sided cut film holder. It hasn't been that long since digital took over!

Since the 1950's it was always silver/white is unexposed and black is exposed. This was standard practice all over the world. Look at every post 1950 (or even post WWII) double sided cut film holder and one side is always silver or white and the other is black. Linhof, Toyo, Riteway, Fidelity, Sinar, MPP, Graflex, etc all followed this convention. If I remember correctly Rittreck and some other Japan made holders used red instead of white to indicate unexposed film.

You were taught this if you went to school for photography or when you started as an assistant. I also believe this was mentioned in "The Camera" by Ansel Adams (Edit- just checked. It is on page 40 of the 2003 edition) and possibly even the film data guides. I am also quite sure it is mentioned in the various LF technique books that camera companies such as Sinar and Linhof used to put out.

The bumps were also another indicator. Most had them on the unexposed side- but I think Linhof was reversed. This was so you knew in the dark how to orient them when loading, and if unloading to make sure you were only unloading exposed film.

Riteway, Lisco, Regal and Fidelity were certainly sold in European countries- they weren't making 9x12, 13x18 and 18x24 holders to sell in the USA.

You NEVER mix empty and loaded holders in the field, nor would they be anywhere near a camera when in the studio. You would have at the least gotten yelled at as an assistant back in the day and at worst- fired for doing so. Empty holders stay far away from anywhere that they could be confused for loaded holders. If you find it necessary to carry them in the field- they should be clearly marked and in a separate bag/case- or left in the car.

There are blank white areas on most cut film holders where the manufacturer intended you to write what film was in it with a pencil. "Convention" was to put white tape on the holder and write "EPP, TRI-X, EVS, etc" on it. You would then also write any sequence numbers, processing or exposure notes on the tape- i.e "N+1, +1/2, hold" After the job was done you ripped the tape off. Linhof holders were numbered, and some of the Linhof holders even would expose that number onto the rebate of the film.

The locks are exactly that- locks to keep the slides in place. Some studios/photographers used to pull them out because they usually had a tendency to get stuck at the worst time and then the excessive pulling would move the camera.....

Thanks for the summary. I'm new to LF photography having bought a 4x5 about two years ago. I use the white meaning unexposed film which apparently is convention.

I'm trying a lot of different films. So I use these removable self-stick plastic tags that I write the film type on and stick them on the holder on each side. I don't mix film in the same holder.

I use a changing tent to remove and install the film. I first remove them in the first step. Then I prepare the holders and install the new film in a second step. But I break it down in two additional moves by first doing BW films. Then I do chromes. Just to prevent confusion.

So I've hadn't had a need to check the bumps for orientation because the dark slides are half in place before I go into the tent to start loading the film.

I don't separate the holders by film type or by exposed/unexposed in the field since they're all clearly marked.

Any suggestions?

 

[el_37]

You are speaking out of experience, but not referring to a convention.

"I figured enough people were shooting LF as hobbyists that something that has been standardized at least 70 years ago wouldn't be questioned."
Then please show me this standard.
What hobbyists were shooting LF? You cannot take US amateurs for the world.

You are taking the stance that since you personally didn’t know about this convention, that this must only be a USA convention/standard- and not used in Germany or anywhere else for that matter. Which is far from the truth.

I worked with both German photographers and assistants back when I was in that line of work- and guess what knowledge we all possessed?

I also worked with French, Swiss, Indian, Greek, Finnish, English, Irish and Japanese photographers and assistants both in the USA and in Europe- and guess what knowledge we all possessed.

White/Silver for unexposed and black for exposed has been a standard among LF professionals since at least post WW2.

Even Linhof which always insisted on doing things their own way- still made the color on the numbered side of the tab on the darkslide silver and the reverse side of the darkskide tab black on their own holders. Obviously the numbered side was meant to indicate unexposed (and their brochures, instruction manuals AND the textbook they put out Linhof Praxis indicates such) and their own literature clearly states to REVERSE the dark slide after exposure to indicate that the film was exposed.

Lisco/Regal/Riteway/Fidelity style holders were sold all over the world and are probably the most common post WW2 double sided cut film holder in the world.

I have both owned and worked with Sinar and Plaubel branded versions of these holders- and I doubt either company was only selling those in the USA. Especially since I have worked with the CM versions of those holders.

Many German pros who shot LF in the film days are still shooting. If you ask any of them what side of the dark slide means exposed- they are going to tell you black.

If my experiences still don’t convince you- then either ask around in former LF pro circles in Germany- or just keep the opinion that I made it up.

 

[AgX]

He doesn't need to talk about the world.

He explicitely had it about the world.

 

[AgX]

You are taking the stance that since you personally didn’t know about this convention, that this must only be a USA convention/standard- and not used in Germany or anywhere else for that matter.

A convention is something different than common use.

A convention is something commonly explicitely stated. Be it in textbooks, in courses or by masters telling their assistants.

 

[AgX]

Lisco/Regal/Riteway/Fidelity style holders were sold all over the world and are probably the most common post WW2 double sided cut film holder in the world.

In got catalogs by west-german wholesalers going over decades. Even catalogs just listing items for professional photographers only. No trace of Regal or Riteway holders. I say this as there was a Riteway manual shown in this thread.

 

[Don_ih]

A convention is something commonly explicitely stated. Be it in textbooks, in courses or by masters telling their assistants.

See my post #14 for explicit statement of silver meaning unexposed on a film holder instruction sheet. See my post #51 for an explicit statement of the same thing from a well-established text-book. See the posts made by @el_37 for explicit statements made by someone who was told in person by the photographer he was working for. Or are all those to be ignored?

 

[AgX]

Don, I got a huge library of photo technical/ photo engineering textbooks, catalogs etc. Including the Linhof books (which actually got myself fascinated by LF photography as a teenager). Film holders are hardly even mentioned, and our topic not at all. Seemingly I am lacking just the textbook you refer to.
Concerning el_37, he did not say that he was told to follow a certain way of loading holders, but that his way of doing was the same way as all others did. That is why I differenciated between common use and convention.

And I do not expect such being tought at any academy or so over here. All lecturers from such institutions I met so far were most ignorant on anything technical.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

As a newcomer to LF, I appreciate conventions because I'd be lost without them. It quickly answers questions about regular day-to-day stuff I don't have to think about anymore.

 

[AgX]

Well, conventions can give a hold in ambiguous situations. As I explained in post #3 trying to deduce a rule for oneself can lead to ambivalence itself.

 

[el_37]

A convention is something different than common use.

A convention is something commonly explicitely stated. Be it in textbooks, in courses or by masters telling their assistants.

Don, I got a huge library of photo technical/ photo engineering textbooks, catalogs etc. Including the Linhof books (which actually got myself fascinated by LF photography). Film holders are hardly even mentioned, and our topic not at all. Seemingly I am lacking just the textbook you refer to.
Concerning el_37, he did not say that he was told to follow a certain way of loading holders a certain way, but that his way of doing was the same way as all others did. That is why I differenciated between common use and convention.

And I do not expect such being tought at any academy or so over here. All lecturers from such institutions I met so far were most ignorant on anything technical.

Where did you come up with your definition of “convention”?

“Explicitly stated” has nothing to do with the definition of the word. The definition of the word in the context as it is used in this thread is- common and accepted way of doing something.

I.E- the majority does it that way.

Many examples have been held up- both in print and in practice. Yet because YOU didn’t know it- you are immediately dismissing it.

Which seems to be a common thought pattern in your threads.

I was 16 years old working for a still life photographer in NYC when I was taught by him how to load and unload 4x5 and 8x10 holders. White/Silver was unexposed and Black was exposed.

When I was 17 I worked at a post production house in NYC where we did dupes, printing, hand retouching, internegs, etc. There it was the same thing- White/Silver unexposed Black Exposed.

When I was 18 I started freelance assisting in NYC. Worked with photographers from all over the world doing everything from fashion to still life to architecture. White/Silver was unexposed and Black exposed.

When I was 20 I decided for some reason to peruse a degree in photography. I went to the Fashion Institute of Technology in NYC part time and had to take a View Camera Basics course. We were taught in the class White/Silver was unexposed and Black exposed. The teacher started working in 1958 at a catalog house in NYC shooting on an 11x14 Deardorff.

When I was 21 I started getting freelance architectural photography assignments. Any assistant I hired regardless of nationality loaded the film holders with the white/silver side out to indicate unexposed and realized black meant exposed.

I then got some assignments in Europe and temporarily lived in France. I also paid bills by freelance assisting photographers from all over Europe and Asia over there and in Switzerland. When I loaded film holders- they were White/Silver to indicate unexposed and black to indicate exposed.

My assistants in France- loaded film holders the same way- and I did not have to instruct them.

Until I changed careers- I probably loaded cut film holders thousands of times over. Every time and everyone I worked for on 2 continents- knew that white/silver meant unexposed and black meant exposed.

But I guess we were all doing things arbitrarily.

Did you work in photography professionally loading cut film holders?

If so please enlighten us to the standards you had to adhere to.

Texts have been mentioned in this thread that do EXPLICITLY state dark slide orientation. But I guess the wording was changed in your copies?

 

[Pieter12]

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but I have (after a few screw-ups) a system in place: white artist's tape. A short piece on the dark slide indicates the holder is loaded and unexposed. I remove the tape before inserting the holder, turn the holder so the black side is facing out and replace it after the exposure. The the tape goes back, this time taping the dark slide to the holder so it cannot be easily removed. After both sides of the holder have been shot, it goes into a separate bag or is rubber-banded with other exposed holders. I can write notes on the white tape, too.

 

[Bob S]

In got catalogs by west-german wholesalers going over decades. Even catalogs just listing items for professional photographers only. No trace of Regal or Riteway holders. I say this as there was a Riteway manual shown in this thread.

At their end, and for the last decade or two of their existence, Lisco, Fidelity and Riteway were owned by Calumet USA and were all made in the same factory in California.

 

[AgX]

el_37, you are most typical of those Americans who, from their limited view, tell me or other germans what I ought to know. But when asked for proof of how I or others could have known you lack proof.

 

[fiddle]

Unexposed white part of slide facing out, exposed black part of slide facing out. I have a long hair scruchy thing on each holder holding the slides on. No scrunchy means no film. Has worked for me so far.

 

[el_37]

el_37, you are most typical of those Americans who, from their limited view, tell me or other germans what I ought to know. But when asked for proof of how I or others could have known you lack proof.

Are you blind? Or do you just skim the text?

I am not telling you what to think- you can use whatever system you want. You would then be UN-CONVENTIONAL in your usage of dark slides to indicate exposed/unexposed film.

I mentioned Linhof Praxis and The Camera by Ansel Adams several times to back up what I am saying and also mention my own personal experiences working on 2 continents in the pre digital days of professional photography.

You have ignored this every time.
You keep telling me I am the one who isn’t showing examples- where are yours to prove I am wrong?

Instead you just start calling me a American as if its supposed to insult me.

 

[MattKing]

Everybody, cool this down a bit.
Does anyone else see how ludicrous this "discussion" is becoming?
There is nothing in this world more variable than a conventional use, particularly when the convention reflects a relatively arbitrary choice.
This is because such conventions inevitably reflect the community that arrives at them. And different communities - differing because of time, geography, context, vocation, connections with other communities - will frequently arrive at different conventions.
On an issue like this, I guarantee you will be able to find a smaller community whose conventions are diametrically opposite to the convention arrived at by larger communities.
I have no doubt that el_37, as an example, is a member of a fairly large community, with many interconnections with other communities, all of whom have settled on the same convention, to the mutual benefit of all of them. His experience would be an excellent one to follow if you need something to follow.
But that doesn't mean that everyone in that large group can authoritatively say that the choice made by them must be the choice made by others.
All it takes is one influential but fiercely independent photographer in an area, with a bunch of followers in that area, and you can end up with a community that uses a convention that is different from other communities.
I have had a fair bit of experience over the years with two types of groups that one might refer to as iconoclasts: technical photographers at universities, and art photographers. In my experience, both groups tend to do things their own ways.
All of which is to say that with respect to the subject of this thread, tell us about the convention you use, and about the size and nature of the community who shares the same convention.
But don't presume that the other participants to the thread have the same experience, or come from the same or even a similar community.
And definitely don't argue about other people's experiences!

As a non-LF shooter, who only worked with medium format and 35mm film when I worked in a lab, I'll ask the question - why don't film holders have specific labels on the dark sides - "Exposed" and "Unexposed", with a separate flag saying empty?

 

[tom williams]

As a newcomer to LF, I appreciate conventions because I'd be lost without them. It quickly answers questions about regular day-to-day stuff I don't have to think about anymore.

... but then you have to remember the convention properly, and apply it properly, and remember that you did in fact apply it. As I have failed routinely to remember to turn the dark side of the slide outward after an exposure, and/or failed to recall with certainty that I did or didn't turn it out, I rely on the written record that I keep for every shot. Akin to the methods Vaughn (post #66) and Doremus (post #33) use. Each of my holders is numbered on both sides, and that number is recorded in a shooting log every time a negative is exposed. Beforehand, when the holders are loaded, their number and film type are also recorded on a separate page in my shooting log. The record of exposed/unexposed holders is always in my hand or pocket, and because I've taken the time to write loading and exposure information down I am 'cued' to recall/consult it. It's a method that fits my high memory buffer dump rate.

 

[Craig]

I'll ask the question - why don't film holders have specific labels on the dark sides - "Exposed" and "Unexposed", with a separate flag saying empty?

I think it's because LF cameras were never intended for the instamatic crowd, they were intended for specialist practitioners who knew what they were doing. Those who needed to know which way the darkslides went, already knew because there was a common convention.

I liken it to the factory shop manuals for a car - they are not aimed at shadetree mechanics they are aimed at professional, factory trained mechanics. The manual doesn't say how to tighten a bolt, that's assumed knowledege.