My attempt at shooting 135 in RB67 so far

[MCB18]

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.

There is also a 3D printable version of this here, in case you can 3D print stuff.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Here's a result I got the first time I tried 35 mm in my RB.

Cornfield

• Donald Qualls
• Sep 30, 2020

 

[MattKing]

To load and unload film, I roll 35mm film in backing paper, similar to 220 film.

Do you not mean "similar to 120 film" here?

 

[MCB18]

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.

 

[MattKing]

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.

I was confused by the reference to: "rolling in backing paper, similar to 220 film".
I never think of 220 film as being in backing paper - rather I think of it as being attached to a leader and attached to a trailer.

 

[illawarraflametree]

Just finished the first test roll and successfully unloaded and rewound inside a backpack with a black winter coat (reaching into the bag through the sleeves) over the top of the bag, in a windowless room. Way less hassle to just use a Paterson bag, I should just buy another one.

Now that I'm satisfied with this proof of concept I think it's time to replace the rotting light seals on this back and do something about the film counter. I don't trust myself to do it right with superglue, I think a bit of tape should do the trick — I tested it with a piece of masking tape and my hands and it seems to work fine that way (but I don't trust masking tape to not have long term problems as it's quite easy to tear).

There are a bunch of stocks that I'm looking forward to running through this once I've finally worked everything out. Eastman Aerocolor IV in particular intrigues me. ColorPlus will be a good way to save money too, and Ultramax (especially the Fuji rebrand) will be a nice higher speed cheapo film.

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.

Thank you for the welcome!

I've been enjoying tinkering around with this stuff and reading the responses with good info and advice on this. I'd love to see any scans if you end up finding them.

Using a paper leader cut from the backing paper of a roll of 120 is exactly what I've been doing so it's good to see that I'm not the only one to do this. Film is expensive enough, and getting an extra frame or two is very welcome especially with the smaller number of frames you get when shooting like this. Having a paper trailer is something I'm hoping to do if I ever end up bulk loading... Vision 3 sadly off the table, but there's still Kono 400 last I checked, and also plenty of B&W stocks.

I keep meaning to buy some sheets of acetate for masking the viewfinder and I just never remember when I'm near an Officeworks... But I just realised I have a sheet of 4x5 that was developed with nothing on it (ouch), so I could just cut that down and use it and save a bit of money there too. Going to wait and see how the developed film comes out first. I took some photos of the viewfinder right before I shot some of my photos so I should be able to get a better mask than I would with calculations.

Would love to see the results of that test if you end up doing it!

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.

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 this

Here's a result I got the first time I tried 35 mm in my RB.

Cornfield

• Donald Qualls
• Sep 30, 2020

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

 

[Donald Qualls]

This is just such a great way to get panoramas on 35mm without getting a camera that can only do that one thing.

I completely agree. I wish I had money for the Mercury 24x67 adapter plate. If I put the 50 mm and 0.45x filter on, I get a comparable FOV to an Xpan with the widest lens.

 

[Tony-S]

I did this for my Bronica GS-1 many years ago and even made a template for the leader using a 36 exposure roll. A couple of examples.

6x7 35mm Pano Set 2

Alright, revision 2 of the panorama mod for the Bronica GS-1 6x7 220 back. Included is an 11" x 17" sheet containing 7 leaders. Print this out and you should be able to easily get this through the back. Probably works for other cameras as well since the distance from the film to the "start" mark...

www.flickr.com

 

[Arthurwg]

This is just such a great way to get panoramas on 35mm without getting a camera that can only do that one thing.

Let's remember that the Xpan can switch between two formats, the 35mm frame and Pano, right in the middle of a roll.

 

[illawarraflametree]

Let's remember that the Xpan can switch between two formats, the 35mm frame and Pano, right in the middle of a roll.

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.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The compactness of the Xpan makes for a nice selling point, and it is a very elegant camera overall.

On the other hand, I could buy four of my current RB67 sets (body, multiple roll backs, multiple lenses, all three viewfinders) for the price of a single Xpan. And an RB67 is less prone to unrepairable failures. Plus, I can swap out the 220 back with 35 mm film for a 120 back in 6x7, 6x6, or 6x4.5 (or a 6x9 or 2x3 Grafmatic, though the RB won't quite fill that frame) on a moment's notice.

 

[illawarraflametree]

Yup... The convenience just doesn't match up with the price point. The wide variety of backs you can use, and the modifications you can make with them... One of these days I'm going to get my hands on a 645 back and see if I can't modify it to do 6x3. Aligning the frames will be a challenge but we shall see. And I've been wanting a graflex 6x6 back for a while... You know what they say, it's hip to be square!

I truly do think that the RB67 is among the most elegant camera systems ever designed. If it weren't for the weight, I would probably sell almost all of my other cameras, because at that point it would be the perfect camera for me.

Speaking of 6x9, I'm thinking about getting a folder next year for some insane aspect ratio street panos. There's something about a good panorama that just speaks to me... The compositions can be a bit challenging but they're so exciting to come up with.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Put a 6x9 roll back on your RB67 and you can get 24x75 (or so, depending on which baffles your body has).

 

[illawarraflametree]

Put a 6x9 roll back on your RB67 and you can get 24x75 (or so, depending on which baffles your body has).

I plan to do that as well but this plan takes priority as I'd love something compact. I can't really use my RB67 without putting it in the back basket of my bike because of health reasons. Not great for locations that I can only get to by bus since they don't let you take those on buses where I live, and not great for any pedestrian only areas either hehe

 

[blee1996]

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.

 

[illawarraflametree]

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? 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.

 

[Donald Qualls]

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.

 

[MattKing]

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.

Even better, use a developed but uncut roll, even one that has regular 24mm x 36mm to do the counting. That will give you frame numbers and frame spacing to track.

 

[MCB18]

Put a 6x9 roll back on your RB67 and you can get 24x75 (or so, depending on which baffles your body has).

As a note: although this will technically work, it only works in Portrait (vertical) mode, and as mentioned, unless you have a Pro-SD, there’s a good chance that you will only get around 24x71mm. IMO it’s a cool concept but absolutely not worth it considering the amount of wasted film for such a tiny improvement…

 

[Donald Qualls]

As well, the Graflex roll backs are turns-counters rather than length-counters like the RB67 backs. That means you may see different spacing than with 120.

 

[xya]

As Donald and I proposed earlier: don't complicate your life for possibly gaining one to three photos per cartridge. Just count the number of strokes or turns you need to advance one photo by using old film and a sharpie and forget about spacing growing wider. This also works with old 6x9 folders. Don't forget to eventually tape the red window. It's fun and it's cheap...

 

[k.hendrik]

Dacora Digna

135 film into 120 camera

www.fotocommunity.com