Spring vs Bail backs

[Michael Firstlight]

COnsidering a 4x5; I found one I like and it had a spring back vs a bail back. I hear bail backs are better less chance of camera movement when sliding in the film holder- but how much worse is a spring back compared a camera with a bail back?

Mike

 

[peter k.]

spring back vs a bail back

Your going to have to give some more information, of what type of camera it is.
Wonder if you referring to a graflock back vrs spring back as on a speed 4x5

 

[BrianShaw]

I've never used a bail back and rarely have movement from inserting film holders. One needs to hold the camera while pulling the back and pushing in the holder. I think the problem you hear about is when folks try pushing the holder in and assuming that the third law of physics has been suspended.

 

[pdeeh]

Wait.
There's a third law?

 

[Michael Firstlight]

Your going to have to give some more information, of what type of camera it is.
Wonder if you referring to a graflock back vrs spring back as on a speed 4x5

Considering a Zone VI 4x5 wooden field camera.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The bail is nice, but a spring back is very useable. After ca. 30 years with 4x5 and 8x10 I've no complaints with spring backs.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Wait.
There's a third law?

Damfino. Must be something new.

 

[AgX]

Actually a bail back is a spring back, but added with lever to overcome the springloading before pushing-in/pulling-out the film holder.

 

[Mick Fagan]

I have both in 5x4” format on two cameras.

When using the camera with the Bail back, I am quite happy with the ease I can insert the film holder. This camera though has a 360º revolving back which can be locked in any position from zero degrees to anywhere, therefore it is possible the camera back may be running at a very odd angle. Having a bail back in those conditions, is a definite asset. However it is still possible to move things slightly, one must always take care.

My bail back camera is a Toyo 45G monorail, essentially a studio type of camera, but one that I have taken out into the field. Also my previous Calumet monorail had a bail back, loved it.

My Shen Hao 4x5” wooden folder (HZX4x5-II) doesn’t have a bail back. As Brian Shaw suggests, one has to hold the camera, while at the same time pulling the back and pushing in the film holder. Not really an issue, however it is possible to move things ever so slightly easier than with a bail back.

I would suggest having a sturdy tripod with the ability to easily hold the weight of your camera, would be more beneficial in stopping movement that can occur when you load a film holder, over whether a Bail back is better or not over a Graflock back.

Probably the real reason camera movement is detected, or happens, is because things are not correctly tightened/locked before going ahead to insert the film holder. There are a squillion ways to destabilise a view camera, anyone who has used a view camera with film holders quickly understands this.

A Bail back is handy, that’s all.

Good luck with your endeavours, it should be a great ride.

Mick.

 

[Alan Gales]

Wait.
There's a third law?

I think Brian is talking about Newton's third law of physics.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law

 

[cowanw]

I think that certain smaller medium format inserts can be too deep for some spring backs and a bail back may avoid this problem.

 

[Michael Firstlight]

Thanks all - going from 6x7 MF to 4x5 ought to be educational - to say the least. I've always dreamed of having real perspective control.

Mike

 

[BrianShaw]

You'll really like it. Enjoy!

 

[Arklatexian]

I think Brian is talking about Newton's third law of physics.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law

I thought that maybe he was talking about "Murphy's" third law of physics......Regards!

COnsidering a 4x5; I found one I like and it had a spring back vs a bail back. I hear bail backs are better less chance of camera movement when sliding in the film holder- but how much worse is a spring back compared a camera with a bail back?

Mike

In my book, a spring back is much more worser than a "bail" back. A Graflok bavk is not as bad as a "spring" back regarding unwanted camera movement but it is more useful than either spring or bail backs. Did the Zone VI camera offer both a bail AND a Graflok, If so, and I had the money, I would buy both.........Regards!

 

[Alan Gales]

I thought that maybe he was talking about "Murphy's" third law of physics......Regards!

Could be!

 

[Ian Grant]

As AgX said a bail back is a spring back, I had a De Vere monorail with a bail back that I used to use for work.

I think that certain smaller medium format inserts can be too deep for some spring backs and a bail back may avoid this problem.

That's going to depend on the springs and the system used, bail backs are used with leaf springs and none (with or without) will open particularly wide, all I've used though will take a Grafmatic golder. All the bail does is lift the back, none of my current LF cameras has a bail and I've never found I miss having one.

Other types of spring back like the one on my Wista 45DX will open very much wider than any leaf spring maybe 3 inches or more, so I can use a regular Roll film back similar to those used with Graflok backs, however the Wista one I use has a plate on it's film door to protect the focus screen. The Wista Focus screen holder uses a covered coil springs mechanism? (I've not taken it to bits) attached to the arms and the screen holder.

In practice I'm often using cameras with Focus screen hoods and a bail wouldn't be feasible.

Ian

 

[fdonadio]

Wait.
There's a third law?

Sure there is, but some people think they are *above* the law.

 

[AgX]

I think that certain smaller medium format inserts can be too deep for some spring backs and a bail back may avoid this problem.

As long as a bail back is just the standard spring back added with a lever there would be no benefit concerng insert thickness.