FWIW, Mercury Camera Co. makes a 35mm Pano kit to convert the RB 67 back to handle 35mm film. It replaces the film gate of the back with one with a 35mm 24x67 opening. That should help film flatness. They don't address the film counter as well as is discussed here.
To load and unload film, I roll 35mm film in backing paper, similar to 220 film.
No, that wasn’t a typo. Attaching it to a leader and trailer is much easier than putting it on backing paper like 120. Extremely hard to get it centered. But I’ve had no problems loading either a full 5’ 36 exposures roll, or 65” 220 length roll, into the camera like normal 220.Do you not mean "similar to 120 film" here?
No, that wasn’t a typo. Attaching it to a leader and trailer is much easier than putting it on backing paper like 120. Extremely hard to get it centered. But I’ve had no problems loading either a full 5’ 36 exposures roll, or 65” 220 length roll, into the camera like normal 220.
Thank you for the welcome!Welcome to Photrio!
I have done this a couple of times, and I have to say it’s a pretty fun experience!
I see that most of your initial questions have been answered, so I’ll just post a summary of my process. Unfortunately I can’t seem to find any of the scans, but if I find them I’ll post them later!
To load and unload film, I roll 35mm film in backing paper, similar to 220 film. This lets me shoot the roll just like a regular MF roll, which is super convenient.
For VF masking, I printed out some transparencies that I can put between the focus screen and my prism. It works very well!
I also put a bit of red electrical tape around the counter roller to ensure that it meters the film correctly.
I’m actually thinking about maybe shooting a double length roll of film (10 ft) in my 70mm back to test for light leaks and just for poops and giggles. 40 panoramas in a single load sounds pretty cool NGL.
Yeah I saw that one. I think that film flatness hasn't been that big of an issue from a visual test I did with an already developed roll that I ran through the back; I found the flatness was acceptable when I took the dark slide off. This was Gold 200, and I found it was less curly than undeveloped Gold 200 so I'm reasonably happy with not spending more on thisFWIW, Mercury Camera Co. makes a 35mm Pano kit to convert the RB 67 back to handle 35mm film. It replaces the film gate of the back with one with a 35mm 24x67 opening. That should help film flatness. They don't address the film counter as well as is discussed here.
This is just such a great way to get panoramas on 35mm without getting a camera that can only do that one thing. I like the expansiveness of the photo
This is just such a great way to get panoramas on 35mm without getting a camera that can only do that one thing.
This is just such a great way to get panoramas on 35mm without getting a camera that can only do that one thing.
This is very true. The compactness of the Xpan makes for a nice selling point, and it is a very elegant camera overall. I do find the RB67 system to be more comprehensive in its range of options for lenses and backs... 35mm of various widths, a few MF sizes, Polaroid integral/Instax square, and peel apart (with those supersense DIY kits). Am I going to make use of all of these options? Not all of them, but I would definitely shoot Instax, 35mm, 6x7, and 6x4.5.Let's remember that the Xpan can switch between two formats, the 35mm frame and Pano, right in the middle of a roll.
The compactness of the Xpan makes for a nice selling point, and it is a very elegant camera overall.
Put a 6x9 roll back on your RB67 and you can get 24x75 (or so, depending on which baffles your body has).
I think I've heard of some people counting the number of twists that they make on the advance level for some TLRs... Would this not work with a folder? It's not exactly ideal, obviously. I would much rather prefer to have proper frame counting but that could be a reasonable "if it ain't broke don't fix it" money saving type solution. A medium format camera that (almost) fits in a coat pocket is pretty appealing.The problem with 6x9 folders is that most of them use red-window for frame counting. Even if they have automatic frame counting, it might rely on little toothed wheel to engage edge of backing paper. Folders are primitive cameras, unlike modern medium format cameras with much more sophisticated frame counters that are independent of the backing paper.
To use 35mm film pano in 6x9 folders, you will need to figure out how to advance frames precisely.
I think I've heard of some people counting the number of twists that they make on the advance level for some TLRs... Would this not work with a folder?
This works, and I've done it, though your frame spacing will be a little inconsistent/imprecise. You can sacrifice a roll (same one you'd use to practice loading a daylight tank, for instance) to figure out how many key turns it takes -- and the number of turns will decrease as the film builds up on the spool.
Put a 6x9 roll back on your RB67 and you can get 24x75 (or so, depending on which baffles your body has).
I find something oddly compelling about this composition
Oh wow yeah, it looks like the remjet helps a lot. Shame that Vision 3 AHU means that it'll soon be a thing of the past... you win some, you lose some. People are already starting to respool the new stuff lolInspired by this thread and also to come back to my post earlier about the issue with color film, I played with this concept a little last night:
This is on Kodak Vision3 50D, the original version with remjet backing, which does help (a bit) keeping the unwanted backside exposure along the edges in check. I have a feeling it also curves inward a little less than regular film; the remjet layer seems to add a little sturdiness, which helps in this regard. Nothing helps against the silliness of accidental double exposures, perhaps except the notion that they sometimes come out nice as such.
A few more notes on these images here: https://tinker.koraks.nl/photography/a-bit-of-a-stretch-sprocket-hole-panoramas/ I might extend that blog entry a bit with more illustrations etc.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?