Modern large format roll-film cameras

[Donald Qualls]

Photo paper on a roll can more or less simulate shooting roll film. Easily trimmed to correct width and spooled under safelight, though you'd still need to wind by "dead reckoning" unless you take the time to write framing numbers on the back at the correct places. Speed is comparable to what was common when 122 came out, too -- ISO 3 to 25, depending how you measure.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The whole point about wide rolls in a photogrammetric mapping or recon aerial application is that those rolls, developed, could then be serially stretched out tight on an automated precise printing line using specialized equipment. Can you imagine the tens of thousands of precisely sequenced shots it took to make a basic set of USGS topographic maps? The curl of roll film would be a distinct disadvantage doing it by individual cut frames in a regular darkroom. Even little 120 film frames have to be tightly sandwiched between glass to be sharp. That would have been impossible in high volume applications, so some very expensive workaround devices were required. But Hassies and hand-holdable LInhofs were toys compared to what has been done for quite awhile hence - sorry, Bob, but you're a bit behind the times. More serious mapping cameras were available before the 1940's, and there's no way even now 120 film can deliver the necessary degree of resolution. Of course, it's optically easier to design a giant one trick pony that is fixed-focus at infinity, but mechanically far more involved. Now satellite imagery is added to the mix, along with hybrid systems most of us probably wouldn't understand if someone did explain them to us. All of that is big toys for big bucks stuff. Bring a NASA or NSA credit card with no credit limit on it, and you can get just about anything, including getting arrested if you do happen to know enough to ask for the wrong thing. I'm content just to have a decent personal stash or ordinary 8x10 sheet film in my freezer.

 

[Bob S]

The whole point about wide rolls in a photogrammetric mapping or recon aerial application is that those rolls, developed, could then be serially stretched out tight on an automated precise printing line using specialized equipment. Can you imagine the tens of thousands of precisely sequenced shots it took to make a basic set of USGS topographic maps? The curl of roll film would be a distinct disadvantage doing it by individual cut frames in a regular darkroom. Even little 120 film frames have to be tightly sandwiched between glass to be sharp. That would have been impossible in high volume applications, so some very expensive workaround devices were required. But Hassies and hand-holdable LInhofs were toys compared to what has been done for quite awhile hence - sorry, Bob, but you're a bit behind the times. More serious mapping cameras were available before the 1940's, and there's no way even now 120 film can deliver the necessary degree of resolution. Of course, it's optically easier to design a giant one trick pony that is fixed-focus at infinity, but mechanically far more involved. Now satellite imagery is added to the mix, along with hybrid systems most of us probably wouldn't understand if someone did explain them to us. All of that is big toys for big bucks stuff. Bring a NASA or NSA credit card with no credit limit on it, and you can get just about anything, including getting arrested if you do happen to know enough to ask for the wrong thing. I'm content just to have a decent personal stash or ordinary 8x10 sheet film in my freezer.

Not too far behind. In the 363rd RecTec squadron we were going from Shaw AFB in SC to Moses Lake in WA for a TDY assignment. Before we left we sent a pair of RF 101 Voodoos from Shaw to Moses Lakeand back firing their 5” nose cameras over the entire route. We then had to develop, on the Versama, and print them continuously on a Kodak automatic projection printer (which was a modified Kodak package printer).
The prints were on DuPont rapid drying stock which meant it had a water resistant base. Prints were 10 x 10”.
Then a bunch of guys got piles of prints, in sequence, and had to feather all 4 edges so the prints could be mounted together without lumps at the borders. We then started at one end of a long hallway in the lab and pasted the individual prints up and down the hall without correcting for crabbing. They made several turns up and down the hall in a couple of rows!

the next year we got to do it again, up and down the East. Coast so the PIs could cunt the seagull population along the coast! this was done with cameras you couldn’t lift running long roll 5” in the nose of the RF101 Voodoo. Those same planes and cameras from our squadron also found the missiles in Cuba, the ones in the Russian ship’s holds and after the missiles left we we’re flying over the campuses of the Univ of Alabama and Mississippi looking for possible groups of protesting students during intrergration and the rioting at the schools.
But unlike drone photography those planes came over at treetop height with very loud engines at around 300 knots. They were anything but silent!

 

[Ian Grant]

Just over a year ago I saw a superb large format roll film camera in almost new condition, a 10x8 Thornton Toursist. It may have been a prototype as it had a roll film back taking 8" wide film. It pre-dated the formation of Thornton Pickard in 1888 as the badge was Thornton Manufacturing Co. The camera and back would have been made by Joshua Billcliff to Thornton's design, it had a rotating lens board that could carry up to three lenses of different focal lengths.

Ian

 

[Donald Qualls]

"For the tourist who owns his own rail car -- and the locomotive and tender to pull it, and can afford the crane fees to switch from one track gauge to another at certain international borders."

 

[DREW WILEY]

Bob - I think EVERYTHING you or I know about this subject was superseded at least 30 years ago, maybe not in routine practice, but in already known new technological options. These would have included magnetic/optical hybrids, even infrasound/optical, precision controlled flexible mirrors, dramatically improved aspherics, gosh knows what else besides emergent digital hybrid options. The very critical nature of this would mandate exceptionally stable housing. Other than known NASA applications and international ground-based observatories, one is not really supposed to know where this kind of product was going; but I do know some of it ended up on Coast Guard vessels involved in drug interception and specialized Naval vessels dedicated to basically espionage. Aircraft and drones are not any area where I had any personal rumor connections, at least classified applications. I did have a family member who did mapmaking for both the USGS and NASA.

 

[Bob S]

Drew, the Aero Technika was being sold and used well into the 90s. Later, there were very good sale prices on them but film and processing became a major problem to their sale.
Photogrammetric photography using cameras with a reseau plate gave way to digital as plotting pixel position was as or more accurate then plotting the reseau positions on the film.

LInhof discontinued their 5” Metrika photogrammetric camera and Rollei their 35mm, 6x6 and 9” roll cameras about the same time. Not sure what Zeiss and the Swiss did with theirs.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I would have been happy just snapshooting from the air with a P67. I never completed my carbon-fiber handheld 4x5, maybe one of these days. My brother had a pilot's license, but also a heart condition, so was not allowed to fly above 10,000 ft or without another pilot seated next to him. So shooting things from atop mtn peaks is as close as I came, and that was mostly done full view camera, either 4x5 or 8x10. It's a shame that Quickload and Readyload sleeves are no longer made; they were a great lightweight convenience, and far more practical than any large roll back. Right now I'm packing up some Mido holders - not as light, but quite compact, and no big adapter needed. As they say, Gettin' old ain't for sissies, and figuring out how to trim down pack weight without giving up sheet film is always on my mind. Nor can the outdoor essentials be omitted - those mountain storms move in really fast; but that's the whole point, wonderful clouds and light, and maybe a long snooze in the tent as the snow falls.

 

[Bob S]

There was a motorized sheet film back that was available for a while. It held 50 sheets of film. Don’t know if it could hold more thin base film though. Probably wasn’t very light though!

 

[removed account4]

No, please do not misunderstand me.

I already use 120 medium format roll-film in 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9cm cameras.

I also use a 120 medium format roll-film back in my 4x5 inch large format cameras.

I am asking about the availability of large format cameras that would allow me to capture 8x14cm images (or larger) on roll-film.

I find it strange that large format cameras and large format roll-film existed in the early 1900s but it is impossible to find modern ones now.

Keep your eyes glued to j.Lane's Dry Plate Company. Nodda Duma ( J.Lane ) hinted at some point he would love to start making ortho *film* so it is only a matter of time before you might collect your spools and buy a bulk 100 foot roll of j.lane ortho 122 film
Personally, I hope it is sooner rather than later because I LOVE the spectral response of ortho film / paper and it would be so much easier to do AltProcess stuff with direct-camera ortho film than mickeymouse around with what we use nowadays... ( and a lot easier to develop too ! )

 

[grat]

I am asking about the availability of large format cameras that would allow me to capture 8x14cm images (or larger) on roll-film.

I find it strange that large format cameras and large format roll-film existed in the early 1900s but it is impossible to find modern ones now.

8x14cm is only 3.2 in x 5.5 in... that's not much bigger than 4x5 (and is actually smaller in overall area), and a grafmatic makes shooting 6 shots in a row comparable to a roll of film.

I understand the interest, but it's such a niche format, it's not surprising it doesn't exist, especially given the odd state that film occupies now.

 

[Ian Grant]

I would love to have a modern large format roll-film camera like the vintage Kodak No. 3A Folding Pocket Camera produced in the early 1900s. What cameras are available and what large format roll-films, like the Kodak 122, are available.

I mentioned John E Thornton's 10x8 Tourist camera from 1887/8 with it's roll film back, Thornton was a pioneeer but not well educated and poor business skills, eventually being ousted from his own cmpany by the Pickard family. He then set up a company making roll film.

There must have been a reason the 10x8 roll film abck never went into production. Thornton Patened his film pack and lived a meagre existence on royalties from Eastman Kodak who licensed his design and also a a colour film which was sold as Kodachrome (1920's) an early colour motion picture film, the name was revived in 1935. Thornton also pioneered early roller blind and focal plane shutters.

The film pack largely took the place of early LF roll films as a convnient but more importantly the films was held flat, and issue with large roll film. I have an Alliance Roll-film Camera Co. Ltd 110 camera (5"x4") format as well as a Kodak No 3 Pocket camera118 roll film (Quarter plate). Both cameras would be easy to use if film was available,

Ian

 

[AgX]

There is no roll film in production (since about the mid-1970s) larger than 120.
There haven't been [roll-film] cameras made for sizes larger than 120 in much longer than that.

The widest roll film I know of was 5" from 1898. But such format hardly ever went beyond the USA. (Though Ian may know better.)

In any case this thread for me as continental European looks weird.

 

[Dan Fromm]

There's 10" aerial film. 9" x 18" is impossible on 5" roll film.

 

[jtk]

There's 10" aerial film. 9" x 18" is impossible on 5" roll film.

Yes.

The most impressive 10" camera I've seen was actually a pair (said to be vintage WWII) installed together in a U-2 "sply plane". The pair swung left and right across 5 positions to produce astounding 3-D views. Each 10" rectangle covered about 5 miles and it was easy to see Ektachrome color of furniture upholstery in back yards in Silicon Valley. Was given to US Army Corps of Engineers by CIA.

 

[AgX]

There's 10" aerial film. 9" x 18" is impossible on 5" roll film.

The OP has it not about 9x18inch, but 8x14cm (or larger). And that would be possible on 5" roll-film. If that still would be around, and the respective camera...

He explicetely referred to roll-film, thus paper-backed film, not spooled film used in modern aerial cameras.

 

[Donald Qualls]

If you convert to inches, the 8x14 cm the OP asked about is 122 postcard format film. There were other, slightly larger formats, some of which were obsolete before WWII -- but as far as paper-backed consumer formats, 122 was the largest (in terms of negative area) still manufactured after about 1950 -- and like 116/616, was carried into the 1970s, though it was harder and harder to find through the 1960s.

I don't know of any cameras still manufactured after WWII for 116/616 or 122 film, though I can't say for certain there were none. Zeiss made folders in other sizes than 127 and 120 (there was a size between the two, for instance, about 55mm wide to give a 5x7 or 5x8 cm negative), but they're rare enough you can't reliably find a single example on eBay at any given time -- and pretty much strictly collector's items, since there hasn't been film for them in decades and it was never popular enough to have leftover rolls still show up regularly as is the case with 116/616 and 122 some forty-five or so years after they were dropped.

 

[Dan Fromm]

The OP has it not about 9x18inch, but 8x14cm (or larger). And that would be possible on 5" roll-film. If that still would be around, and the respective camera...

He explicetely referred to roll-film, thus paper-backed film, not spooled film used in modern aerial cameras.

Et 220, brute?

 

[AgX]

Type 220 has the same width as type 120 and would not provide format 8x14cm anyway.

 

[reddesert]

There were lots of cameras made for 3.25" x 5.5" (8x14 cm) also called "postcard" size film in the early 20th century. The Kodak roll film size is 122 and the cameras are labeled 3-A, like 3-A Folding Pocket Kodak: http://www.vintagephoto.tv/3afpk.shtml . They are common in the US at auction or charity/antique shops. I have one here and the folded size is 9.5 x 5 x 2" (24 x 12 x 5 cm), so one might wonder if the "pocket" belongs to a horse.

That's what the OP is asking about. Kodak stopped making 122 roll film in 1971 according to https://www.brownie-camera.com/film.shtml . I think the OP is asking why they don't make giant roll film now, so we can all walk around with large format cameras in our horse-pockets. These cameras were originally designed in the age of contact printing to make postcard size prints. It's possible that the film flatness for 122 roll film is not up to the standards of 4x5 sheet film for large enlargements. I bet that aerial cameras using 5" spool film have more elaborate film transport systems (probably one reason they're so bulky).

If one wanted to make enlargement-quality negatives from a 3-A Kodak, attention to improving the pressure plate and rigidity of front standard could be helpful.

 

[AgX]

These cameras were originally designed in the age of contact printing to make postcard size prints.

The whole rollfilm thing origins from the contact printing era. (Of course in the USA everything was bigger than over here.) But only one rollfilm format longterm survived the change to the enlarging era.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. The #4 Folding Pocket Kodak shot 4x5 on roll film. The #4A Folding Kodak shot 4 1/4 x 6 1/2, also on roll film.

 

[Ian Grant]

The whole rollfilm thing origins from the contact printing era. (Of course in the USA everything was bigger than over here.) But only one rollfilm format longterm survived the change to the enlarging era.

I'm not sure that's totally correct for instance 110 film (5x4 negatives)was introduced in 1898 along with quite a few other sizes, and thatt's the same year Butcher introduced their "Record" horizontal enlarger, also later sold by Houghton as a King enlarger, I have a 110 camera made by Alliance Roll-film Camera Co. Ltd (mentioned above) as well as a King enlarger, so could have made enlargements from the start if I'd been a purchaser in 1898.

Yes most negatives would have been contact printed but it's equally true that enlargements were also being made. In fact there were quite a few enlargers available by 1898 some daylight enlargers, some fixed sizes ie Quarter plate to Full plate (whole plate) and then condensrer horizontal enlargers still useable today

Ian

 

[AgX]

Ian, introduction of enlargers and enlarging era are different . To my understanding enlargements at the turn of the century had a nihil share amongst the number of prints made.

And at least over here type 120 cameras were sold post WWII in masses, as they could be made in simple ways and still yielded prints for albums being made at lesser cost than enlargements from 35mm film.

 

[Ian Grant]

Ian, introduction of enlargers and enlarging era are different . To my understanding enlargements at the turn of the century had a nihil share amongst the number of prints made.

And at least over here type 120 cameras were sold post WWII in masses, as they could be made in simple ways and still yielded prints for albums being made at lesser cost than enlargements from 35mm film.

Judging by the number of different enlargers avaialble in 1898 and also papers for enlargements,nd companies offering enlargements as well as Carbon and Platinum prints, hand colouring etc, toning etc I think you're wrong. Of course the mass market would have been small enlargemnts and contact prints, but that remained the same in terms of small prints to what we have left today and larger prints have always been far fewer.

However when it comes to using the older higher end roll film cameras your going to have more serious photographers and a much higher proportion wanting enlargments. One 1898 advertiser G. W. Secretan in London offered a trade printing and Enlarger service, established 20 years. Another Myers and Frost, The Manchester Photo Enlarging Compy, established Over 30 years, I'm not suggesting they'd be enlaging for over 30 years rather thats how long they'd been established.

Also by 1898 Ilford offered a range of four Enlarging papers as well a POP as did many other UK manufactuers. Ilford papers 34" wide and 20ft rolls indicates there was quite a marke, not "Nil". They'd already sold 70,000 copies of "The Ilford Manual of Photography" it covers enlarging (I have a copy), and had a monthy magazine The Ilford Journal with a circulation of 35,000. There were many other companies making enlarging papers here in the UK, Austin Edwards, Cadett & Neal, Elliott & Son (Barnet), Gem, Imperial,Ilford, Marion, Mawson & Swan, Paget, Wellington & Ward, Wratten & Wainwright and I've missed a few, also enlarging papers were imported and sold by Eastman Kodak and European manufacturers. This was around the time George Eastman first approached Ilford with a view to buying the company but they weren't interested so he set up his own factory here.

Interestingly Ilford offerd an Bromide Opal, a forerunner of Oplaline, a bromide emulsion on Opal glass in sizes up to 15"x12" so by 1898 there's a surprising maturity in the market.

Ian