Pulled the trigger

[Alan Gales]

Does anyone know of a roll film back that will work with this model? Or an instant film back that will work? Best source, ebay?

Pick up one of these off Ebay. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmXg2d2JOh4 You slide it in just like your film holders. There are graphloc holders that require you to remove your ground glass. They work great but take longer to use than the Calumet roll film holders.

Oh, they are called roll film holders and not roll film backs. Call them backs and Dan Fromm will correct you like he did me. Good ole Dan keeps us on the straight and narrow.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Does anyone know of a roll film back that will work with this model? Or an instant film back that will work? Best source, ebay?

Calumet's CC-40x cameras have a bail back, can be used with insertion type roll holders. I don't know -- sold my CC-401 several years ago -- whether the back will open wide enough to accept a Toyo roll holder (48 mm thick). It should accept Sinar (up to 6x12) and Cambo/Calumet/Orbit (up to 6x12, 6x12ers are quite uncommon, 6x9ers are not quite so rare, the most common are 6x7) roll holders. There's also the 2x3 Adapt-A-Roll 620 (will feed from a 120 spool, must take up on a 620 spool and AAR 620s to fit 4x5 cameras have the gate offset from the camera's optical axis).

 

[Alan Gales]

Well that settles it. Dan says you have a bail back and not a Graphloc back. You will need a slide in holder like the Calumet I recommended.

Thanks, Dan!

 

[LMNOP]

Calumet's CC-40x cameras have a bail back, can be used with insertion type roll holders. I don't know -- sold my CC-401 several years ago -- whether the back will open wide enough to accept a Toyo roll holder (48 mm thick). It should accept Sinar (up to 6x12) and Cambo/Calumet/Orbit (up to 6x12, 6x12ers are quite uncommon, 6x9ers are not quite so rare, the most common are 6x7) roll holders. There's also the 2x3 Adapt-A-Roll 620 (will feed from a 120 spool, must take up on a 620 spool and AAR 620s to fit 4x5 cameras have the gate offset from the camera's optical axis).

This is the one I continue to see around... No good?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/CALUMET-C2-...749?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item19fe63b93d

 

[Alan Gales]

This is the one I continue to see around... No good?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/CALUMET-C2-...749?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item19fe63b93d

That's the one I was recommending but I wouldn't buy that particular one. You can probably find a cheaper (shipping cost) and nicer one (screws look rusty) in the States.

 

[Rick A]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Calumet-C2-...762?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4d31f31412

 

[LMNOP]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Calumet-C2-...762?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4d31f31412

Nice! Thanks!

 

[analoguey]

Do you really wanna shoot roll film on a large format monorail?
It's possible, available, but you lose the convenience of shooting roll film cameras - and also the large negative that your 4x5 affords you.

Imho field cameras are better suited for this because of the smaller vf or rf available with them. Then you don't have to pull out the roll back everytime to Focus/compose.

 

[LMNOP]

Do you really wanna shoot roll film on a large format monorail?
It's possible, available, but you lose the convenience of shooting roll film cameras - and also the large negative that your 4x5 affords you.

Imho field cameras are better suited for this because of the smaller vf or rf available with them. Then you don't have to pull out the roll back everytime to Focus/compose.

If I can get one for cheap, it would be a good way to test the camera, I have access to 120 developing next door to my work. For 4x5 negs I have to drive two towns over and pay more money, and my scanner won't take 4x5. I don't really see myself shooting much 120, maybe do some stitch shots later but its more for initial testing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

By the time you run and drive all around for a roll film back, you will have more than spent the money you saved from not shooting 4"x5" film and still not gotten any experience shooting sheet film. Shooting sheet film is an entirely different thing; there are some many innovative ways to screw up sheet film than one can imaging and until one starts shooting sheet film one will not learn about large format photography.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Do you really wanna shoot roll film on a large format monorail?
It's possible, available, but you lose the convenience of shooting roll film cameras - and also the large negative that your 4x5 affords you.

Imho field cameras are better suited for this because of the smaller vf or rf available with them. Then you don't have to pull out the roll back everytime to Focus/compose.

If I can get one for cheap, it would be a good way to test the camera, I have access to 120 developing next door to my work. For 4x5 negs I have to drive two towns over and pay more money, and my scanner won't take 4x5. I don't really see myself shooting much 120, maybe do some stitch shots later but its more for initial testing.

I'll be shooting 6x12cm roll film with my 4x5 camera when I want a panoramic crop because there's no logical reason to shoot sheet film since I'd shoot all six shots of the same subject anyway so adjusted development is not a deciding factor. Also, even if I only shot roll film, and never sheet film, I'd still always compose on the GG to take advantage of Scheimpflug movements.

 

[fotch]

I used the roll film adapter/back on view cameras mainly when I was making copy negatives of prints that the negatives were lost. I also sometimes would use a roll film back on my Graflex press cameras if I needed both a large negative, speed, and also would be shooting both roll film & 4x5 film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

...
I also sometimes would use a roll film back on my Graflex press cameras if I needed both a large negative, speed, and also would be shooting both roll film & 4x5 film.

If you wanted a large negative why not use 4"x5" film?

 

[LMNOP]

I spoke with the only other large format enthusiast I've ever met in my area, and he had nothing but discouraging words for me. It kind of bummed me out, since I am coming at this from a low budget, DIY position, he basically told me I was wasting my time without access to my own dark room.

Now, I will still primarily shoot MF roll film, thats my main squeeze, I just killed two rolls this afternoon in my GW690, love of my life. But I find 4x5 fascinating, and I want to experiment with a limited range of shots, maybe drum scan, maybe print for a show someday, its an ambitious pursuit but MF seemed daunting at first as well, I've been working at that for years. This guy told me that scanning a 4x5 negative was robbing the film of its potential. While I do see the point there, I still believe there is a lot in the experience of shooting with the camera, and trying different formats on the back. We don't all need to make large scale prints to enjoy shooting a camera.

In the meantime, I am taking all of your book suggestions. I went to the library today and requested a transfer for Steve Simmons' book, though I just might buy it online. I checked out Darkroom Techniques by John Hedgecoe and I'm looking for a copy of View Camera Technique by Leslie Stroebel. If you have any other suggestions, I would love to hear them, looking for used copies.

I love film, I hate when people are snobby about it, just because they know more. I come to this forum for information, and usually take the most humble approach possible. The fact is, I've been shooting for ten years, and I am always excited to try something new or uncertain. Thank you guys for giving me such un-snobby advice and support.

 

[LJH]

I think that the person with whom you spoke is full of sh!t...

 

[Sirius Glass]

LMNOP a good drum scanner will set you back much more than the cost of a darkroom. The real cost of a darkroom is the loss or temporary loss of living space. Consider that you can develop film with a modest investment in cost and space. Also consider finding if there is a local darkroom that you can use or rent. For example in the Washington DC area for $7 an hour you can use the darkrooms at http://glenechophotoworks.org/.

 

[Alan Gales]

Don't let the other fellow discourage you. There are those who agree with him and only wet prints will do. There are plenty of others who scan and print their negatives digitally. Do what you want.

I flatbed scan my negatives on an Epson V750. I eventually want to contact print my 8x10 b&w negatives when I have a place to do it. I'll still scan my 4x5 color negatives though.

 

[removed account4]

LMNOP

the person you spoke with has a valid opinion, one that is mirrored by a lot of people who are on this website
and the largeformatphotography.info page, and people who shoot film.. you are missing out on a large part of photography if
you send things to a lab, or go the hybrid route ... but it is a perfectly valid route to go. there is no shame in having someone
else process your film, or not making silver prints from your film. do what you want to do, and have a good time doing it.
it is too bad people can be such a wet blanket.

the thing that will help you the most is to connect with a lab you want to work with and you can trust because they are going to be an extension of you.
they will process your film the way you want it to be processed so you get what you want out of it.
i don't mean to throw a wrench in your spokes here, but there IS a way you might be able to process your film at home with just 1 chemical ,, if you are interested ..
if you can find a film developing tank, and a rubber band, look into developing film the "taco method" ... and using the new impossible project monobath developer.
from what i understand from a video i saw, it really does nice work ... it has a developer and fixer as 1, so all you would have to do is wash the film when you are done.
it might be a solution worth looking into, and you could load your film into your film tank in the same dark closet you load your film holders with film, and then do the rest in daylight ...

good luck !

john

 

[LMNOP]

I think that the person with whom you spoke is full of sh!t...

Thanks for saying so! haha

Don't let the other fellow discourage you. There are those who agree with him and only wet prints will do. There are plenty of others who scan and print their negatives digitally. Do what you want.

I flatbed scan my negatives on an Epson V750. I eventually want to contact print my 8x10 b&w negatives when I have a place to do it. I'll still scan my 4x5 color negatives though.

I want to upgrade to a V800 - but I'll leave that discussion out of this. Thanks for the encouragement.

 

[LMNOP]

LMNOP

the person you spoke with has a valid opinion, one that is mirrored by a lot of people who are on this website
and the largeformatphotography.info page, and people who shoot film.. you are missing out on a large part of photography if
you send things to a lab, or go the hybrid route ... but it is a perfectly valid route to go. there is no shame in having someone
else process your film, or not making silver prints from your film. do what you want to do, and have a good time doing it.
it is too bad people can be such a wet blanket.

the thing that will help you the most is to connect with a lab you want to work with and you can trust because they are going to be an extension of you.
they will process your film the way you want it to be processed so you get what you want out of it.
i don't mean to throw a wrench in your spokes here, but there IS a way you might be able to process your film at home with just 1 chemical ,, if you are interested ..
if you can find a film developing tank, and a rubber band, look into developing film the "taco method" ... and using the new impossible project monobath developer.
from what i understand from a video i saw, it really does nice work ... it has a developer and fixer as 1, so all you would have to do is wash the film when you are done.
it might be a solution worth looking into, and you could load your film into your film tank in the same dark closet you load your film holders with film, and then do the rest in daylight ...

good luck !

john

I like your perspective on this. There IS a future for me in developing my own negatives, saving myself money, and connecting with the film on a new level. That is how I started, in high school, I took 2 full years of developing and print making, but after losing access to the resources I slipped into the laziness of lab and scanning. I love the results I get today, but I would like to be able to get 4x5 negatives on a regular basis, and paying my local guy would not be cost effective. For some color work and my roll film in color, I can afford that, but I could do a lot more LF with BW and home developing. Eventually I will print, maybe even at home on a small scale, thats why I'm reading Darkroom Techniques, reacquainting myself with the process, it has been a long time.

I look around for that monobath, appears to be out of stock from one site and not listed on Impossible Project. I would be interested in a simple process like that, but if I get the right developing gear for cheap, the taco method looks doable. Another APUG-er messaged me about that, it seems doable.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

If the very best quality in very large prints is a monetary value...

Then let's equate film square inches to US dollars...

135 = 1.34 square inches (to the bleeding edge)...

4x5 = 13.1 square inches (after edge loss from holders)...

4x5 = 9.78 x 135...

If 135 = US$100K then 4x5 = US$978K...

"IF" shooting 4x5 but not doing one's own darkroom work only nets half the gain then...

US$978K - US$100K = US$878K...

Half the gain is US$439K...

I'll be very happy to gain US$439K.

So... if we equate final "LARGE" print quality to US dollars then yes, there is a very pronounced gain even if one doesn't do his/her own darkroom work.

 

[palewin]

LMNOP: I'll join the others who strongly recommend you ignore your neighborhood LF enthusiast, he is just wrong. I still remember when I started photography some 50 years ago, living in NYC, and using a lab to develop and proof my 35mm film, and make prints of the few images I really wanted. Fast forward to the present, and I have a darkroom and process and print everything from 35mm through 4x5, and occasionally exhibit work. Each approach had its time and place.

Where is he wrong specifically? As was posted, many scan their negatives on Epson flatbed scanners, and produce their prints digitally. Those prints can be just as wonderful as darkroom-processed prints. Without meaning to generate a big debate, simply visit any photography gallery, and these days the majority of their sales are of digitally processed prints. Why do I make darkroom prints? Largely because I know how to produce decent prints that way, and don't want to go through the entire learning curve of Photoshop and inkjet printing, or the expense of a dedicated photo printer and inks, especially because I am a low-volume printer, and digital printers want to be used more regularly than I would. Its not a quality issue, because a skilled worker can make wonderful prints either way. Also, you don't need a V800, look into a refurbished 4990 (that's what I use) or a refurbished V700. They're just as functional if you want to save money. (I'm actually a hybrid, I develop my film, scan it to make digital contact sheets, and to allow me to post to the web, and then make darkroom prints of the images I really like.)

As for developing, I would experiment with the taco method. I've never used it because I have a darkroom, but it requires very little equipment, and you may discover you like developing, at least B&W film. Actually any tank method will work, chemicals are really cheap, and almost everyone can find a closet for film loading. Wait until night time, turn out the lights in the adjoining room, and with only a towel or something to stuff in the cracks you have the minimum "darkroom" required. Once the film is in the tank, develop in your bathroom.

At the end of the day, the vast majority of us do this for fun. For me, the quality difference between MF (which you shoot a lot) and LF is pretty small (at least on the 11x14 prints I make) but I just love the tactile feel of working with sheet film. And I enjoy the process of using a view camera. So ignore your local poor advice, and enjoy yourself!

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Yeah, I know. My analogy sucks.

 

[LMNOP]

LMNOP: I'll join the others who strongly recommend you ignore your neighborhood LF enthusiast, he is just wrong. I still remember when I started photography some 50 years ago, living in NYC, and using a lab to develop and proof my 35mm film, and make prints of the few images I really wanted. Fast forward to the present, and I have a darkroom and process and print everything from 35mm through 4x5, and occasionally exhibit work. Each approach had its time and place.

Where is he wrong specifically? As was posted, many scan their negatives on Epson flatbed scanners, and produce their prints digitally. Those prints can be just as wonderful as darkroom-processed prints. Without meaning to generate a big debate, simply visit any photography gallery, and these days the majority of their sales are of digitally processed prints. Why do I make darkroom prints? Largely because I know how to produce decent prints that way, and don't want to go through the entire learning curve of Photoshop and inkjet printing, or the expense of a dedicated photo printer and inks, especially because I am a low-volume printer, and digital printers want to be used more regularly than I would. Its not a quality issue, because a skilled worker can make wonderful prints either way. Also, you don't need a V800, look into a refurbished 4990 (that's what I use) or a refurbished V700. They're just as functional if you want to save money. (I'm actually a hybrid, I develop my film, scan it to make digital contact sheets, and to allow me to post to the web, and then make darkroom prints of the images I really like.)

As for developing, I would experiment with the taco method. I've never used it because I have a darkroom, but it requires very little equipment, and you may discover you like developing, at least B&W film. Actually any tank method will work, chemicals are really cheap, and almost everyone can find a closet for film loading. Wait until night time, turn out the lights in the adjoining room, and with only a towel or something to stuff in the cracks you have the minimum "darkroom" required. Once the film is in the tank, develop in your bathroom.

At the end of the day, the vast majority of us do this for fun. For me, the quality difference between MF (which you shoot a lot) and LF is pretty small (at least on the 11x14 prints I make) but I just love the tactile feel of working with sheet film. And I enjoy the process of using a view camera. So ignore your local poor advice, and enjoy yourself!

Thanks for this, I am getting a lot of great ideas from your feedback. I'm looking around for refurbished v700s - that would do the trick for me. I kind of regret investing in a Canon 9000F because as great as it is, I could really use the flexibility of a larger element, but I don't want to own two scanners.

I like the idea that everyone should pursue what is best, some people speak in such defined terms, you have to take Ansel's approach, etc. I'm a computer professional, so for me, photoshop, digitizing, having my best result exist digitally, it makes sense to me. That said, I want to have a wet print operation, especially for select BW work, I am mapping out an extra desk space now, I'm cruising old enlargers on craigslist, I can make this happen.

For starters, I'll probably get a roll film back, maybe that DSLR hookup, and hopefully upgrade my scanner soon. I'll have 4x5 enlarging capabilities someday.

 

[LMNOP]

Yeah, I know. My analogy sucks.

I actually really like that way of thinking, and have thought that way about my 6x7. Even if I scanned lo-res or had small prints made, it still beats 35mm, it just does! Plus, the potential for larger scale is there, if I need it, my negs are in storage forever.