High Volume 4x5? Advice needed.

[jstraw]

I was just curious and checked...be warned that the area exposed on a sheet of 4x5 film in a Grafmatic is 3mm narrower and 1mm shorter than in the Riteway that I grabbed for comparison.

 

[Curt]

A thought come to mine. Have you considered a 6X9 medium format camera for roll film? Did someone mention it already? Or roll film backs for the 4X5 if you have a graflok back. I have a half dozen grafmatic holders and the loading and unloading can be a chore after a while. The septums are a little delicate too. Fp4 in roll film with a 6X9 could be a way to get the quantity up and the weight down and developing time down.

Curt

 

[Campbell]

Possible solutions: (1) Switch to TMax 100, an outstanding film in its own right but more importantly for your purposes, available in Readyloads; (2) Grafmatic holders; (3) keep a changing bag in the truck; (4) buy a bigger back pack, carry more holders; (5) be more selective in what you photograph.

I think that covers all the available options. If none of them work then you're stuck.

 

[JohnArs]

I have 32 normal holders in a bag in my car and 2 grafmatic and also a quick or readyload für emergencys and I never go out of film in the car only on the way!
For shooting far away from my car I always take readyloads I only use the normal holders not far from my car and in my studio!
Its not heavy to take 40 readys on my back and this is enough for one day normaly!
Greetings Armin

 

[JBrunner]

Sam, Sam, Sam,

All this great advice, when it is you that is obviously the problem. You have become too darn adept at 4x5.

Anyone can see that an 8x10 or larger is now needed, to slow you down. It's for your own good.

 

[Sportera]

your absolutly right Jason!

 

[palewin]

>>while you get even development with 12 sheets loaded back to back, emulsion side out, fixing is another problem. Fixer apparently need to come in contact with both side of the film are it simply doesn't work.<<
Apologies in advance if I'm posting "the obvious", but when I used a CombiTank for 12 negs, I would put a 4x5 piece of nylon screening between each back-to-back pair, which apparantly allowed the chemicals to get to both sides of the film.

 

[Vaughn]

I have to admit I am a low-volume LF user...

Though I use an 8x10 now, even my 4x5 volume was low. I spent almost 6 months bicycling with a 4x5 in New Zealand and exposed about 75 sheets of film on the trip. I had 6 film holders. Lots of editiing happens before getting the camera out! I was very pleased with the portfolio that came out of that trip...about 20 prints with a tighter 12 print sub-set.

Road trips around the Western US I use to have about 20 loaded 4x5 holders in their own ice chest (w/o ice!). With the 8x10's, I have about 15 holders, and can usually be on the road for a week without running out. Though I have extra film with me just in case...and have used it. I have an ice chest in which the 8x10 holders fit in vertically perfectly.

You need to "hide" a few loaded holders from yourself for the late afternoon! That's one of the advantages of age -- it gets easier to hide stuff from oneself!LOL!

Vaughn

 

[Ted Harris]

I am a real Quickload/Readyload fan. I do use regular holders when I need special film not available in Quick/Readyloads. The convenicence and dustproofness of the QL/RL film offsets the additional cost. The fact that Ilford doesn't make any packet film has nevr bothered me since I have never been a fan of any Ilford films except Pan F.

For development I use three 3006 Expert tanks. I will load 'em all up and then just run through them on my ATL 2300. When I hacve a huge load of film to process I will fill both lines with the same developer.

 

[mjs]

I used to have that problem and I solved it by buying more film holders, mostly off E-bay. I usually pay between $5-$8 each for them, $5 for older wooden holders, the higher price for more modern plastic ones. Now I have 30 and haven't run out of film lately.

I process in trays, up to 12 sheets at a time (which is the capacity of my home-made film washer.) I use TMX and TMY, which are more modern films with harder emulsions and I rarely scratch anything (knock on wood!) It's just practice.

mjs

 

[jstraw]

Readlyloads sound so appealing but I could never see my way clear to pay $2.50 for a $1.00 sheet of film.

 

[Vaughn]

I agree...

Readlyloads sound so appealing but I could never see my way clear to pay $2.50 for a $1.00 sheet of film.

And now that they are only single sheet, that is a lot of packaging to haul around -- at least I can re-use the film boxes. If space is an issue, ready-loads really don't save much, if any.

And I miss the typical shape of the image taken with a standard film holder...as silly as that is.

But if I was on the road on my bicycle with my little 4x5 camera for a long period of time again, ready-loads would get serious consideration.

Vaughn

 

[Ted Harris]

I often travel by plane with a 4x5. I can take 20-30 sheets of ready/quickload film as carryon ... can't do that with holders.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I often travel by plane with a 4x5. I can take 20-30 sheets of ready/quickload film as carryon ... can't do that with holders.

Can with Grafmatics and/or Kinematics.

 

[jstraw]

Can with Grafmatics and/or Kinematics.

I break into a cold sweat at the thought of asking for a hand-inspection of my Grafmatics and watching them being opened up.

I have no idea how I could ever fly with sheet film. How do they hand inspect a sealed box of sheet film? Holders, which they won't recognize as "film?" Same for Grafmatics....

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I just put everything through the X-ray. I worry more about inspectors touching my lenses than X-rays. I also have a little case for all the little things that seem to catch the X-ray inspectors' interest--cable releases, small tools, Linhof cams, etc.--and I put it in my checked luggage. Usually I get through without further inspection.

If I do get asked for an additional check, most of the time, it's just an explosive residue swab, so no opening of film or anything.

If they really want to go through my bag by hand--hasn't happened for a couple of years--I'm just vigilant and explain that film can't be opened, and I make sure that film boxes are taped and rubber banded, so I have a moment to intervene before anything gets opened accidentally. Worst case, they might ask to X-ray the boxes again separately, but I haven't experienced any X-ray fog from this.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I break into a cold sweat at the thought of asking for a hand-inspection of my Grafmatics and watching them being opened up.

I have no idea how I could ever fly with sheet film. How do they hand inspect a sealed box of sheet film? Holders, which they won't recognize as "film?" Same for Grafmatics....

(a) Carry a photocopy of the Grafmatic instructions so they know what it is

(b) Don't worry about X-rays

Cheers,

R.

 

[jd callow]

They hand inspect sealed boxes by running a cloth covered dauber (?) over the box and then remove the cloth and have it analyzed for traces of explosives. I have had this done many times as well as had them just visually inspect it. Most of the folks doing this are pretty good. On a rare occasion they refuse to hand inspect and on even rarer occasions the hand inspection will go south, but never have I had film opened.

I have been held up at the airport because the security folks couldn't see through my MF lenses. They were in shutter and I was told that all *real* lenses could be seen through -- I imagined that that was in the airport security training manual.

Another time they quizzed me on the highly suspicious cable release.

I never preload my film prior to travel.

Back to the topic. If you use grafmatics and develop the film in ether the ss nikon 4x5 tanks or one of the many other multi sheet drum solutions available you should be able to shoot and develop in somewhat large quantities. With 7 or 8 holders and a changing bag it is not unusual for me to shoot 50 sheets during the course of a day’s job. For me it is essential. I will shoot 2 sheets per set-up and exposure. If I bracket, one setup can use up 6 (or more) shots/sheets rather quickly.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I started developing 4x5 with a Combi-Plan -- torture. I use 2500-series Jobo tanks now. Two of the two-reel tanks will process 24 sheets in a session. I turn them on old Beseler/Chromega/Unicolor roller bases and they work fine. Honestly, they are much easier to load than the Combi-Plans, use much less chemicals, faster to fill and drain. They're worth every penny.

Sanders McNew

 

[Sparky]

Sanders - Do you find any issues with uneven development with that system? Seems that the constant agitation and the edges of the film frames (there's some sort of bar type retaining clip - isn't there?) might cause something less than perfectly smooth development... in theory anyway. That's why I never used them.

I started developing 4x5 with a Combi-Plan -- torture. I use 2500-series Jobo tanks now. Two of the two-reel tanks will process 24 sheets in a session. I turn them on old Beseler/Chromega/Unicolor roller bases and they work fine. Honestly, they are much easier to load than the Combi-Plans, use much less chemicals, faster to fill and drain. They're worth every penny.

Sanders McNew

 

[Ole]

Sam, Sam, Sam,

All this great advice, when it is you that is obviously the problem. You have become too darn adept at 4x5.

Anyone can see that an 8x10 or larger is now needed, to slow you down. It's for your own good.

I can recommend a FSU 30x40cm plate camera. Nothing slows you down quite as efficiently as 30 lb of east block ULF! (Yours for the price of shipping - plus $200 for the double plate holder).

 

[gordrob]

It's too bad they don't make film packs anymore. Sixteen sheets of 4x5 film packaged in a holder not much bigger than a graphmatic holder. I still have some 2x3 and 3x4 Tri X film packs that don't take up much room at all. I like the Nikor 4x5 tank or the hard rubber tanks for processing large volumes of film.

regards
Gord

 

[Sparky]

I can only seem to manage a max. of 8 hangers at one time... do you know something I don't know?? Or is there an 8x10 version of the tank that I don't know about...?

It's too bad they don't make film packs anymore. Sixteen sheets of 4x5 film packaged in a holder not much bigger than a graphmatic holder. I still have some 2x3 and 3x4 Tri X film packs that don't take up much room at all. I like the Nikor 4x5 tank or the hard rubber tanks for processing large volumes of film.

regards
Gord

 

[gordrob]

I can only seem to manage a max. of 8 hangers at one time... do you know something I don't know?? Or is there an 8x10 version of the tank that I don't know about...?

The maximum that the Kodak 4x5 tank will take is 8 hangers. There is a 5x7 & 8x10 hard rubber tank as well. Kodak made a multiple film hanger for the 8x10 tank that took 2 5x7 or 4 4x5 sheets. The 8X10 tank is 3.5 gallons and takes 12 hangers at a time so you could do as many as 48 sheets at a time. I have a narrower plastic tank set up that take 4 8x10 hangers so that equates to 16 sheets at a time with a lot less chemistry. It also has a rack that allows for 35mm or 120 reels to be processed.

regards
Gord

 

[Sparky]

Yeah - I LOVE the multi-hangers. They're great. Consumes a LOT of chems though!! I didn't know there was a rubber tank for those. I thought they only came in stainless.

The maximum that the Kodak 4x5 tank will take is 8 hangers. There is a 5x7 & 8x10 hard rubber tank as well. Kodak made a multiple film hanger for the 8x10 tank that took 2 5x7 or 4 4x5 sheets. The 8X10 tank is 3.5 gallons and takes 12 hangers at a time so you could do as many as 48 sheets at a time. I have a narrower plastic tank set up that take 4 8x10 hangers so that equates to 16 sheets at a time with a lot less chemistry. It also has a rack that allows for 35mm or 120 reels to be processed.

regards
Gord