Triptych Diptych Film Holder Adaptation

[Annie]

I am interested in adapting a 7x11 wooden film holder to accept cut sheet film so that I can shoot triptychs & diptychs. Using one sheet of film and cutting it down after exposure and development is not really an option as there will be variations of exposure etc. within the various elements. Alignment is important so just popping the sheets in with double sided tape may be too hit-or-miss. I would appreciate any suggestions for a method of doing this type of holder hack and any sources for small parts that may be necessary.

Cheers Annie.

 

[Donald Miller]

Annie,
I am not sure that I understand your reasoning. Would you please explain how three separate sheets of film exposed at the same time, in this modified film holder you propose, would expose differently then one sheet of film exposed at that same time?

Perhaps if I understood the basis of your reasoning I might be able to more adequately respond to your request.

 

[Annie]

Donald.... It is probably my 'lack of reasoning' that is confusing you, sorry! Basically I was thinking for a triptych I would like to place three sheets of film in the holder and use different approaches on each sheet. Someone on the other forum has since suggested that I use various dark slide masks to achieve that effect.... That approach may bring me closer to what I want to achieve.... However.. I still need a way to place various films in the holder if I am using a combination of colour and b&w.

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[veriwide]

I know Burke and James made backs for 2, 3, and 4 up on a sheet of 5x7, and maybe in other sizes. The film holder was masked in the back and moved into the various positions. Is that what you're after? If so you might find and study one of those.

 

[Annie]

Thanks for the suggestions! I will be using different film types for the composite.

 

[Robert]

Why not just use three holders? From the sound of it you're going to expose each sheet on it's own so I don't see what you gain from using one holder.

 

[Annie]

Robert,
Close to home that might be a solution... but hiking with an extra dozen 7x11 film holders has it's logistical problems not to mention the cost of nearly $3000 for additional holders to just get 4 composite shots in the field.

 

[Jorge]

Or, if you have extra dark slides, cut them up so that they just allow exposure on one side of the film. Bender photographic has a cut up dark slide that allows 2 4x10 exposures on a single 8x10 sheet, so you could use the same idea. Cut one of your dark slides so that the image is 3 1/4x11 and just reverse it for each picture.

 

[Robert]

If you combine the ideas. Use one holder per film type. Use a modified darkslide. I think you could get three shots per sheet of film. Instead of trying to get multiple types of film into each holder you'll be getting multiple images. The downside is you risk ruining the first image when you do the second.

The way I see it you'll need three extra darkslides. First one would be cut short by a 1/3. The second would have hole in the middle. The third would have a hole near end that slides into the film holder. You'd need to leave a margin.

The only other thing I guess would be reloading in the field.

 

[veriwide]

"but hiking with an extra dozen 7x11 film holders has it's logistical problems"

Do you have a dog, or maybe you could become a Den Mother to some Cub Scouts? Sherpas come in all shapes and sizes.

 

[Annie]

Robert.... I like the way you think! That is a good solution.

Veriwide...... I have 'problems' with dogs.... cheers Annie.

 

[Jim Chinn]

You would need two only cut two darkslides like Robert is talking about. The first is cut out for the one third on the right as you face the back of the camera. You expose that third first. Then you have marked on the darkslide how far it has to be pulled to uncover the left third. now the slide is covering the first exposure and middle section of film. After you make the far left exposure you put in the dark slide with the center cut out and expose the middle section. Then the full darkslide goes back

Like Robert said, this way you could use different emulsions in each holder.

you could also make a small jig to cut the film in the dark with a razor knife. Just need to use an oversize straight edge to hold the film down and keep fingers away from the blade and a couple pieces of plasitc to form a corner to align the fim.

 

[Donald Miller]

Or, if you have extra dark slides, cut them up so that they just allow exposure on one side of the film. Bender photographic has a cut up dark slide that allows 2 4x10 exposures on a single 8x10 sheet, so you could use the same idea. Cut one of your dark slides so that the image is 3 1/4x11 and just reverse it for each picture.

I fail to see, at least on my holders and darkslides, how reversing a slide that has a spot cut would accomplish anything unless you were working to separate the vertical aspect. That would make a 3 1/4 by 11 image (roughly). That may work if the slide doesn't have a handle on it so that it could be switched end for end (in the case of dividing the horizontal aspect).

If consistancy of exposure is critical, then a single sheet of film would seem to work the best. If you want to work with different types of film have one holder with color and the other with black and white. Or different films in the same holder. That may be one way to have this work.

If it were me, and I were committed to this course of action, I would gather a piece of appropriate guage tempered aluminum and have it cut to the dimension of a darkslide. I would then have appropriate size openings cut in the aluminum that would allow masking of the film sheet. I would then have the aluminum anodized black to reduce the possibility of flare.

But that seems like an awful lot of effort and expense for the same effect that could be accomplished by shooting two sheets of film (in the case of a black and white-color mixture) or one sheet of film otherwise. I would think that working on this at the print level is the place to do it.

I don't think that an extra holder is that much extra effort at least on that size of format. It may be if I were considering my 12X20 but not my 8X10.
I imagine that 7X11 holders are not any heavier then 8X10. (77 square inches of film versus 80)

 

[Jorge]

A picture is worth a thousand words.

http://www.benderphoto.com/4x10pa.htm

 

[Annie]

I agree one extra holder will not make a difference! Even though each triptych panel requires a different treatment in the field, with various darkslide masks, 3 holders and my rototrimer... 6 triptychs!! Actually varying the dark slide masks allows for many more interesting configurations I had not considered. This is great...... one does not have to be clever one just needs to associate with clever people... Thanks Apuggers!

 

[Donald Miller]

A picture is worth a thousand words.

http://www.benderphoto.com/4x10pa.htm

Jorge,

That is what I was alluding to. The 7X11 format would by it's aspect ratio normally be considered a panoramic format. Just as your and my 12X20 format. All of the panoramic images that I have seen are presented horizontally. Maybe you have seen some that I haven't and if you have I would appreciate knowing about them. In fact the aspect ratio of the 7X11 is is very near the 12X20. Typically a diptych or triptych would be used on a horizontal (panoramic) image and it would be used to separate the long dimension rather then the short dimension (at least all that I have seen have been presented that way). I don't know of many subjects shot in a banquet format that would benefit from further dividing the minor aspect (short dimension).

Do you make many images with your 12X20 in which the long dimension is in a vertical orientation?

 

[Nige]

After reading all this I'm still confused as to the actual use. Isn't a triptych or diptych is a series of 3 or 2 photos, usually related in some way? I could understand (I think) doing all this if you were aiming to print the whole neg (either contact or enlarged) as is, but when different emulsions (& colour and B&W) are mentioned, what are the benifits? (I can see the benefit of the two panoramic images placed on one piece of film). Since your reducing the amount of negative your using, why not use a smaller camera (interchangable back MF)? unless the need for movements is mandatory (which probably would be to get the image onto the bit of the film you're aiming for anyway)

Pless enlighten me (I won't be able to sleep otherwise!!!)

 

[Donald Miller]

Nige,
You are a man after my own questions...But then "who knows what lurks in the hearts of man?"...from that old radio show "The Shadow"

 

[Nige]

Annie... ohhh Annie... where are you

 

[Annie]

It is just about chopping up time & space, various games with infinity and how colour effects form & sentiment and as part of my conception I wished to do it in a very specific (and now it appears possibly annoying ) way...... nothing to loose sleep over... and there is certainly nothing sinister lurking in my heart..... Annie.

 

[Jorge]

A picture is worth a thousand words.

http://www.benderphoto.com/4x10pa.htm

Jorge,

That is what I was alluding to. The 7X11 format would by it's aspect ratio normally be considered a panoramic format. Just as your and my 12X20 format. All of the panoramic images that I have seen are presented horizontally. Maybe you have seen some that I haven't and if you have I would appreciate knowing about them. In fact the aspect ratio of the 7X11 is is very near the 12X20. Typically a diptych or triptych would be used on a horizontal (panoramic) image and it would be used to separate the long dimension rather then the short dimension (at least all that I have seen have been presented that way). I don't know of many subjects shot in a banquet format that would benefit from further dividing the minor aspect (short dimension).

Do you make many images with your 12X20 in which the long dimension is in a vertical orientation?

...how about you take two pics in one negative, you develop it and then cut along the dark line and place them side by side? since the aspect ratio will be so "big" it should give a feeling of true panoramic.

OTOH there is no reason why you cannot make one dark slide with the rectangle on the far left, one with the rectangle in the mdidle and one with the rectangle in the far right leaving just a thin edge on each of the extremes as supposrt. so lets see the image would be 3 shots one right next to the other of measurements 6 7/8x3 1/2 in. Or you can do only two slides....the combinations are endless.

I seem to recall a guy who did a series or "tryptich" one on top of the other, but I dont remember where.

Certainly I have not found a photograph where I can use the 12x20 vertical, but I do carry a smaller tripod presicely for those occasions so I can support the camera with two tripods.

Some times we need to think out of the box, just because it has not been done does not mean it should not be done...no?

 

[Jorge]

BTW, Bender just notified me that they will not be selling the 4x10 slide any more. Seems Calumet bought all the film holder manufacturers, cornered the market and has increased the price of blank dark slide so much that it no longer can be profitable for them.

 

[Annie]

Alan Brubaker (filmholders.com) is making some dark slides for me for another project... I am sure that he could do some really good precision work for masking slides... I'll ask him next time we talk.

 

[Robert]

Does anybody have an idea for a material to make those darkslide masks out of? Cutting up a good darkslide doesn't seem right. The material wouldn't need to be 100% light tight just tight enough for the time the shutter was open.