Procedure in Using Roll Backs

[braxus]

I have a Graflex 4x5 camera with the Graflok back on it. What is the procedure in using a roll film back used with the 4x5 attachment? I'm thinking a RH8 for example. Camera is a Speed Graphic.

How does one frame and focus when using these backs? And do you have to remove the back for every time you set up a shot? And what about the ground glass on the 4x5 camera? Does that have to be removed too?

 

[BrianShaw]

Roll film back is only convenient when one has a working rangefinder. I find it unthinkable to use GG focus and swap backs. Not worth the time; may as well use sheet film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If one is going to carry around the volume and mass of a 4"x5" camera, then one might as well shoot 4"x5" film. Anything smaller is a waste of camera capability and it does not give the user the real experience of using a 4"x5" camera. Just use a MF or 35mm camera instead.

"Fakin' it but just not makin' it."

 

[ic-racer]

If you are using the camera like a view camera, think of the back as a film holder multiple frames. You compose on the ground glass and instead of inserting the film holder under the ground glass, you have to take the ground glass off and set it aside. I put it in the camera bag as I swap back and forth between the rollfilm back and the ground glass. Get in the habit of advancing the back after each shot just before or after you insert the darkslide, then you always know the rollfilm back is ready to go. It is no more cumbersome than carrying a bunch of film holders.

 

[RobC]

+1

Get a 6x12 camera instead. And if you don't want 6x12 then use a MF camera.

Sinar zoom 2 roll film back is inserted between GG and camera just like a 4x5 darkslide except its a LOT thicker and too thick for some backs. And will probably cost you an arm and a leg. I used to have one but sold it. Does various format from 6x4.5 upto 6x12 if I remember correctly. Problem is you'll probably shift focus inserting the damn thing after composing on the GG and it'll weaken the springs on an international back..
I got rid of it once I got a 4x5 enlarger and could print 4x5 negs.

 

[removed account4]

in addiiton to what ic-said
you probably want to mark off the aspect ratio of your roll film adapter on the ground glass
some use pencil on the glass, i never do, i use clear xerox film / copy shop acetate with a grid xeroxed on it.
cut it to size, and mark off where your roll back sits on it.
you can also make a mask, cut thin paper to fit ontop of your ground glass so it is a grid ..
like you would do with the xerox film, put it against your roll film adapter and mark off the opening so you can
compose on the ground glass. both the mask and grid make composing much easer than guesstimating.

if the camera is on a tripod focus on the ground glass, as you always would, depress the spring brackets and slide off the ground glass
and put the film holder in its place. if it is the speed graphic you are using, look for "view finder masks" they made a bunch of them.
they are numbered, you can poke around graflex.org in the accessories area, i am sure the numbers are easily found on eBoo.
the masks are for viewing 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, & 6x9 they slide infront of your view finder ( not your rangefinder )
you can "zone focus" ... attach the roll film adapter to the back of the camera, set your focus, f-stop, shutter,
and look through the viewer and take your photographs.

using a roll adapter is great with a speed/crown graphic because if you barrel lenses &c you can use it with
any film you want, not just 4x5. and with a view camera you can do perspective control/camera movements with non 4x5 film, it comes in handy.
i used to use a 35mm roll film ( recommar 35 kodachrome ) adapter with my speeder and view camera and graflex slr. it was nice to be able to use a 120 year old lens with roll films and
not deal with sheet film.

of course your mileage may vary.

good luck !
john

 

[braxus]

Sounds like a lot of work just to take a picture, and risk damaging the camera. I think I'll skip getting a roll film holder.

 

[removed account4]

its about 20 seconds worth of work to make the grid
and it doesn't need to be removed (you can use it to make sure your verticals are vertical and your horizon is straight even if you are using sheet film )
removing the ground glass takes about 3 seconds, securing the roll back takes about 2 seconds
and the only way anything would get damaged is if you drop the ground glass. ( jacket + pockets )
graflok backs were made to use with roll film holders, not sure how using the graflok back/sliding tabs would risk damage the camera.

good luck !

 

[BrianShaw]

The Graflok tabs don't cause any damage, but removing the GG panel so one can use the tabs can expose the GG to breakage risk... inadvertent dropping, etc. Taking GG panel off of a Graflok to attach a roll film back is the ONLY way I've ever broken a GG in the past 30 years.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If one is going to carry around the volume and mass of a 4"x5" camera, then one might as well shoot 4"x5" film. Anything smaller is a waste of camera capability and it does not give the user the real experience of using a 4"x5" camera. Just use a MF or 35mm camera instead.

"Fakin' it but just not makin' it."

There is a pattern to using a 4"x5" camera with sheet film that will not be learned with a roll back. Use a roll back any you will not learn the pattern and then you will screw up the sheet film, by pulling the dark slide at the wrong time, moving the focal plane shutter with the dark slide out and the lens open, forgetting to put the dark slide back so that you will not to double expose, ... .

​

 

[Ian Grant]

Roll film back is only convenient when one has a working rangefinder. I find it unthinkable to use GG focus and swap backs. Not worth the time; may as well use sheet film.

I've always used my GG screen to focus and compose when using a Roll film back, but then I have one that fits under the focus frame on my Wista (no Graflok back), I could use it with my Speed or Super Graphic but you do need to remove the GG focus frame. It's very quick and there's no risk of damaging anything (unless you drop something but there's always that risk anyway

One reason for using a RF back is the weight of DDS and the number you can carry when backpacking, a RF back gives you spare capacity for little cost or weight.

Ian

 

[removed account4]

there is no pattern that is different for sheet film, it is exactly the same thing ..
the difference is that the mistakes cost $1.80 if you blow a sheet of tmy sheet film and 56¢ if you are using tmy 120 film in a 2x3 back. and as ian said 4 sheet film holders weigh a lot more than 1 roll film back.

 

[BrianShaw]

Maybe we are getting confused a bit, John, regarding the roll film back the OP is talking about. Unlike the Calumet-type that Ian uses (assumption, it may be another make of similar capability), which slips under the GG focus frame, the Graflex RH backs do not slide under the GG frame but replaces it. With regular film one generally does not have to remove and handle the GG. So the pattern when using a Graflex roll film back is quite different from using a regular "DDS" and sheet film. For give me if I'm misunderstanding you.

 

[removed account4]

hi brian

naaah, i think we are both talking about the same thing

maybe i have been using them enough or for so many years it doesn't seem like a big deal ?
i never realized it was difficult to swap out ground glass for a roll film adapter
your claims are totally legit: if you aren't used to the "routine" it can be a pain and awkward.

( sorry to hear about your broken glass, my belated and sincere condolences ...
broken ground glass is no fun )

but someone's claim that using a smaller format film with a 4x5 camera is "faking it" is flawed.
it suggests using a reducing back is faking it.
roll film holder, reducing back pretty much the same thing.

john

 

[ValoPeikko]

I would recommend using Sinar or Calumet type roll film back. Working with it exactly the same as working with sheet film holders. Of course you end up with smaller negatives, but on the upside it's easier while travelling / hiking to load roll film back with new roll then to unload and load sheet film holders. I generally either carry second camera + LF with sheet film holders or LF and sheet film holders for "important" stuff and roll film back for some details or story pictures which can support a photo essay. Latter has become my favourite due to the slow working with GG focusing, which forces to concentrate more. And I'm not taking snapshots anyway. I simply don't want to risk the dust hazards of unloading and loading while in the wilderness.

But it all depends on your preferences and how you work.

Sinar 6x9 back is quite big one though, here it almost dwarfs my "tiny" 4x5 body:
Dead Link Removed

 

[mdarnton]

The person I worked for in high school shot weddings on 4x5 film packs in a Super Graphic. When I came back a couple of years later, he'd switched to a 90mm WA Optar and roll film in the same camera. He said it was a lot easier to handle, but people still thought he was using a fancy camera. I took a whirlwind trip of Europe to do a job once and ended up taking a 4x5 Cambo and all the fixings in a trunk, for the color, and a Calumet roll holder for B&W, which was the way we'd always done the job, but usually with a Mamiya 67 and the Cambo. Everything worked fine.

So roll backs definitely have their place. But I prefer the Cambo one because it just slides in--no fumbling with pieces. As I think I mentioned before, though, it may not slide in the Graphic View I's spring back. Or maybe it will.

For shooting roll film in a Speed Graphic, you just use the appropriate mask in the optical finder and the rangefinder with the lens it's set up for, and you're on the road, so that's easy, but it's a slight tele lens relative to roll film.

There are a lot of ways to skin this cat, but first I think you should just get some sheet film and start shooting, to see if you like it at all.

 

[braxus]

I've shot 4x5 film before quite a few times, as I had used a camera in high school, and later in 2004 got myself a Speed Graphic. But it rarely gets use because I really only had the one good lens for it. That has changed now that I have two more lenses coming.

 

[RobC]

If you are using rollfilm back then you really need to use a viewfinder. Ther are/were several makes available such as the linhof one which is very expensive but providing you have fitting on top of camera for it you can use. Or as has been suggested a 4x5 camera with ramgefinder.
With one of these you just fit rolfilm back and your good to go. They also make various rollfilm (rollex) backs for their cameras. But using movements you have no way to see what you're composing and whats in focus so really only any good for camera in fully squared position. And that begs the question, why? It would be better to use a MF camera.
http://linhof.com/en/optischer-universalsucher/

 

[Dan Fromm]

If you are using rollfilm back then you really need to use a viewfinder.

Are you sure? I ask because I shoot roll film with 2x3 Graphics and with a 6x12 Sinar roll holder attached to a 4x5 Cambo. I focus and compose on the ground glass.

Must I use a viewfinder? If so, how can I focus with it? And how will I shoot 6x12 with a view camera?

 

[RobC]

Well yes, I wasn't strictly correct and was refering more to roll film backs where you have to take the GG off and replace with roll film back for each shot which is a real pain IMO. And no you cant focus with a viewfinder so a rangefinder or method for focussing is required. i.e. take GG off and on and replace with roll film holder each time you need to focus with GG. But again it begs the question of why bother. Just use 4x5 film or MF camera.
And its quite possible to use a hand held range finder and set focus using lens extension but it all requires more gubbins to do it and I would question the level of focussing accuracy you would get. Use a MF camera.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Use a MF camera.

But Rob, my 2x3 Graphics are medium format cameras. So's my 2x3 Cambo. Although 6x12 is MF, it requires a dedicated purpose made 6x12 camera or a general purpose 4x5 camera.

 

[removed account4]

But again it begs the question of why bother. Just use 4x5 film or MF camera.

I don't have an ilex semenat or portrait veritar or verito or tessar or rapid rectalinaer lens on any
of the MF cameras I own ( i only own box cameas and a 620 folder for MF )
so I'll be more than happy to use a speeder, slr or view camera camera and reduce the negative to roll film.
certainly dropping the glass might be an issue, but other than that it is as simple as using sheet film ...

why not just use sheet film ?
why bother ?

if I have a few rolls of 120 film on hand. that's 8 exposures in a little cassette that
takes up no room compared to 4 film holders ... 4 rolls of 120 would be 16 film holders.

I was in besancon France a few years ago. i wandered around and shot IDK 15 rolls of 120 film with a 4x5 graflex slr.
that is 120 frames. I didn't want to deal with bringing 4 bag magazines ( @ 12 each ) AND 36 film holders with me, that's more of a pain ... not to mention the convenience of using roll film, i was able to
use a 3.8 tessar and a 19th century brassie named laverne

I find some of the anti roll film holder arguments to be kind of strange.

 

[ic-racer]

Horseman created this for those that don't like to remove the ground glass back. Even has a built-in automatic darkslide. Shown here without the rollfilm holder, but the rollfilm holder can stay attached and spins out of the way to use the ground glass.
Dead Link Removed

 

[RobC]

But Rob, my 2x3 Graphics are medium format cameras. So's my 2x3 Cambo. Although 6x12 is MF, it requires a dedicated purpose made 6x12 camera or a general purpose 4x5 camera.

Dan, my experience with LF and the sinar zoom 2 holder I had were not good so my opnion on using them is based on that. Personally I found that focus was nearly always off. However, I suspect that was largely due to my camera which whilst having locking controls on the standards, would actually move with a little pressure on them which inserting the zoom2 would do.
Other cameras and roll film holders may be fine but I haven't used them so can't really comment so I suppose I did make a bit of sweeping statement.
Having said that I would perosnally shy away from using rollfilm holders on LF and use 4x5 film if I were still doing LF photography. If I want to use roll film I would use a dedicated camera for it. The only reason to use it on a LF camera is for camera movements and there are MF cameras which have movements, Fuji 680 for example but if I wanted movements I would us 4x5 or bigger film format anyway.
Just my biased personal preferences. And yes a 4x5 rangefinder on the camera would make things significantly easier. And in the abscense of a RF you could use a handheld rangefinder (like the ones used for golf) to get distance and calculate required lens extension. Or you would need to focus on GG then remove and replace with rollfilm holder. All a bit of a pain when you could just insert a dark slide.

 

[ValoPeikko]

For most I agree there's little to no sense in roll film backs. But I couldn't do with out it now days. It's lighter option then carrying two cameras (those MF bodies also weight something) and when on longer trips it allows me to carry plenty of rolls which are easy to swap in the wilderness with out fear of dust in holders. As for focusing and shooting, I haven't used any backs which can't be placed under GG and honestly can't see my self ever doing so (unless I somehow decide to go 6x17 at some point). For me it's as good as using sheets, except smaller negative. And it allows more shots per trip. I generally travel with around ten sheet holders (20 pictures) and a roll film back and 120 film. I can load holders at home and have enough film to shoot a week in the woods with out problems. Or I travel with 20 holders and no roll film back and carry a smaller second camera. But that's actually more weight. Of course for someone who travels by car to location, does a shoot and then backs up again into car. It makes no sense to them. But for a hikes and travel, I feel roll film back to be a nice option to have.

That Horseman revolving back is something I wouldn't see my self using, it must add quite a bit of weight and bulk to any camera. Only in studio setting I would see the benefits. And in studio I have hard time figuring out reason to use roll film back