Good point. I didn't think of this because I use the double exposure lever from the very beginning so I don't lose frames at the front of the roll. I tape my roll to a used 120 paper leader (just the leader) and am able to shoot the whole thing.Of course, the other reason to use a 220 back for 35mm pano in an RB67 is that it will let you shoot 20 frames, which is all you'd get on a 36 exposure roll anyway (if loaded with leader and trailer). The 120 backs stop spacing the frames at 10 (though if you're doing the double exposure lever dance that isn't a limit -- I wrapped tape on the roller of my ProSD 220 back so the 35 mm film drives the counter and spaces correctly).
Don, can't you mark up the viewfinder with a grease pencil or masking tape to show where the 35mm film would be to help frame the picture? As an aside, I recall seeing some overlay in one of the editing program where you can overlay the sprockets on 120 film as if you shot 35mm. I forgot where I saw it.Yes. Many more cropping opportunities shooting full frame 6x7 (or whatever) and cropping to panoramic aspect ratio. No question.
However, part of the fun of shooting 35 mm in a medium format camera is being forced to compose for the aspect ratio, instead of being able to crop from the full frame. It's a discipline, a creative limitation. Some of the same idea as shooting a 1930s vintage box camera instead of your fully adjustable folder (that uses the same film and format). Or shooting in the "Lomography" class for creative purposes.
For me, it's something I can't do well with other equipment I own or can afford. With the 35 mm RB67, and a 50 mm lens, I'll get results very similar to an XPan with a 45 mm lens -- for less than the cost of the lens.
Dan, the 90 mm and even 60 mm lenses for 4x5 would do a nice job on 35 mm in a 120 roll holder (film back, as opposed to the ground glass back, I suppose) -- they only cost about twice what my whole RB67 setup has cost so far. I can get a 65 mm lens for under $200, apparently; 50 mm are a bit more, but still within reach. Not many fisheyes that will cover large circles, though I think I've seen at least one 4x5 camera made to use only a proprietary fisheye.
What I wanted to indicate is that sprocket holes at the rebate are one thing, them being cluttered with letters, figures and barcode another thing. Which to me decreases the choice of films for this kind of exposure.
While this is a 35mm shot on a 35mm, it really shows the mess that was in the rebates of Ektachrome years ago. They even added "Processed by Kodak" in the rebates. I don;t know if the new Ektachrome is the same.Typically these sprocket-holes pananoramas are cluttered with rebate signing, up to barcodes.
But the Processed by Kodak makes it so much more valuable. It's like buying an old Mickey Mantle baseball card with Mickey's signature. It's cool man.If that edge marking bothers you, I guess you could buy Vision3 movie stock in 400' rolls and roll it down yourself (or get it from resellers who put it in cassettes -- IIRC, Cinestill even removes the remjet before sale). AFAIK, the movie film only has the actual film stock ID every few inches, no frame numbers (and certainly no "Processed by" tag, that was presumably added by a Kodak processing machine after the camera exposure).
But the Processed by Kodak makes it so much more valuable. It's like buying an old Mickey Mantle baseball card with Mickey's signature. It's cool man.
Well if Mickey Mouse signed it, I'm sure it would be worth more than if Mantle signed it.Well, that depends on what Mickey signed it, I guess -- was it actually Mickey Mantle? Or was it Mickey Dolenz, Mickey Mouse, or Mickey Finn?
that the pressure plate put the film in the same plane no matter what back was used.
Part of me thinks that makes sense.
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?