Users of roll film backs?

[Ian Grant]

No I do not use a roll back. If I am going to carry around a 4"x5" camera, then I am damn well going to shoot 4"x5" film! I have Hasselblads for 120 film.

That over looks the fact that Hasselblad's have no movements and are 6x6.

When I used my Wista 6x9 back it really was aback up for a day I was on a roll, often out shooting all day many miles from my car. Back then I used 5x4 Agfapan 100 later APX100 and shot AP25 then APX25 if I used the RF back, and the big advantage of using AP25/APX25 was the big increase in quality over the 100 ASA (now ISO) emulsion, so my 6x9 negatives gave prints that were a close match to the 5x4 (at the same size).

Digressing though the Mamiya RB67 is not far different to any other camera with a RF back, it's essentially just a modern version of the older pre-WWII SLR's with roll film or quarter plate (& rf) backs. Its back is not far different to a Graflex RF back, I've a Thornton Pickard SLR, a Junior Special that takes a Rollex 6x9 back as standard, I guess it can also use 6.5x9 plate.film holders but 120 is far easier.

Ian

 

[Sirius Glass]

That over looks the fact that Hasselblad's have no movements and are 6x6.

If I want movements I will use 4"x5" and use 4"x5" film. If I am carrying a LF camera, then I will shoot LF film.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I have 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 and 6x12. Love roll film backs.

 

[chuck94022]

I have a 6x12 that tags along with my Chamonix 045n2 kit. If I want 6x7 I can always crop from the 6x12... ;-)

I find a roll film back to be just a different thing to work with, purchased one day when the GAS pressure got too high.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I have a 6x12 that tags along with my Chamonix 045n2 kit. If I want 6x7 I can always crop from the 6x12... ;-)

I find a roll film back to be just a different thing to work with, purchased one day when the GAS pressure got too high.

Yeah that's why I have them. I'm a huge 6x6 square shooter but want to use some of my older vintage LF lenses that cannot be used otherwise for that size and format. I use 6x9 when I want to go with a mindset more like I do when I shoot and what I'm used to for 35mm work, 6x12 for its semi-pano format, and 6x7? Well, for some thing different! Plus I got them all for really good prices.

 

[mitrajoon]

I just acquired a Vista SP. It came with a Cambo 6x12 roll film back. Unfortunately the acetate mask for composing is missing. Anyone have a suggestion for jury rigging one? I've never actually seen one except in a photo, so I'm not sure what is possible.

 

[removed account4]

can you take a sheet of acetate, mylar, ohp and cut it to be the same size
as the camera back/4x5 back and trace/mark/outline the opening of the roll film adapter
and put that ontop of the ground glass ?

i have a couple of cameras that didn't have a grid-lined ground glass so i made
a grid using mac-paint or mac-draw or whatever it was
on a 8x10 sheet of paper and went to the copy store and they copied it on clear plastic.
it cost about 20¢USD and about 2 mins to make .. ( that was close to 30 years ago )
i am guessing the price might be a little more expensive now, but not by much ...


good luck and have fun with that roll film back !

 

[pdeeh]

I use my 6x7 back on a 5x4 pinhole camera. It was one of the best equipment purchases I've made, and made pinhole projects (rather than the one-shot-and-go-home approach) so easy

Unfortunately it is developing a bit of a grinding & snatching in the film advance so it's probably not long for this world and I can't afford a repair or replacement

 

[miha]

No I do not use a roll back. If I am going to carry around a 4"x5" camera, then I am damn well going to shoot 4"x5" film! I have Hasselblads for 120 film.

Isn't it great we're all different!

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've been experimenting with Horseman 6x9 roll film backs on my 4x5 Ebony for long-distance backpacking ever since Quickload and Readyload holders were discontinued. The nice thing about this is that you can still carry a couple of regular sheet film holders for those special subjects worthy of bigger enlargements. Focus and movements are more nitpicky, but the same lenses can be used if they are precise enough, which mine certainly are. In fact, I get sharper negatives this way than with a dedicated MF system, since full view camera movements per plane of focus are available. And I like the proportion of 6x9. Sometimes in the mountains the weather or timing of things makes it inconvenient to use a changing tent.

 

[miha]

That over looks the fact that Hasselblad's have no movements and are 6x6.

Ian

And all square

 

[mitrajoon]

jnanian,

Thanks for your suggestion. I actually thought about that, but without any experience with roll film backs and 4x5s, I figured it couldn't be that simple.

 

[removed account4]

jnanian,

Thanks for your suggestion. I actually thought about that, but without any experience with roll film backs and 4x5s, I figured it couldn't be that simple.

you're welcome !

a lot of people like to complicate things more than necessary but sometimes simple works the best

john

 

[Alan Gales]

I tried a couple 6x7 backs. I found that I prefer large format film for large format cameras and medium format film for medium format cameras.

But that's just me.

 

[Wayne]

I have an old Calumet C2 that I use irregularly. I just marked off 6.7 on my GG. I like it because it sort of instantly doubles the number of focal lengths I have. I wish I had the newer C2N though. This one just barely fits my metal Wista and I have to make sure it seats properly

 

[DREW WILEY]

I ALWAYS prefer large format film in the darkroom. Thin acetate roll film is always the worst choice to print from. But you have to weigh this
against convenience in the field under certain situations. I will point out that not all roll film holders are created equal. Some are awful in terms of film flatness or plane accuracy, and in other cases they can be too heavy for the rear standard and actually tug the plane of focus
out of whack. So there is a learning curve to using them correctly.

 

[grahamp]

But it isn't any "extra enlargement." Whether you start from a 6x9 negative or print a 6x9 cropped section out of your 4x5, the enlargement is exactly the same.

A bit behind on this.

My enlarger can produce a maximum print size, irrespective of the format, without turning the head, and using the normal focal length for the format. If I want a large print, and I want to crop from a 5x4, I will hit the practical limit of the enlarger with larger prints.

Using a roll film back I am doing the cropping in camera (smaller film format is a greater magnification for a particular focal length). At the enlarging stage I still have the full range of the enlarger to play with, but I am starting with a partially enlarged original.

The final subject to print result should be the same going via 5x4 or 6x9 on the same emulsion using the same lens, but the practicalities of making a print (enlarger head height and print size) are different.

The longest lens I have for my Wista is 270mm - around 1.8x normal. On 6x9 it is a little over 2.5x normal. That difference translates into a lower enlarger head height for a given print size. As I said earlier, it works for me.

 

[btaylor]

Funny, I have 4 roll film backs and I don't use them (GAS). Never got around to Drew's learning curve. It just always seemed easier to load up the film holders and go. No worrying about cropping on the groundglass, less of a worry about double exposures, etc. I did try one on my Baby Speed Graphic but there was something wrong with the focal plane position, so I went back to reliable sheet film.

 

[fdonadio]

Funny, I have 4 roll film backs and I don't use them (GAS).

Uhhhmmmm... We can always do business, if you want to feel lighter!

Flavio

 

[Roger Cole]

A bit behind on this.

My enlarger can produce a maximum print size, irrespective of the format, without turning the head, and using the normal focal length for the format. If I want a large print, and I want to crop from a 5x4, I will hit the practical limit of the enlarger with larger prints.

Using a roll film back I am doing the cropping in camera (smaller film format is a greater magnification for a particular focal length). At the enlarging stage I still have the full range of the enlarger to play with, but I am starting with a partially enlarged original.

The final subject to print result should be the same going via 5x4 or 6x9 on the same emulsion using the same lens, but the practicalities of making a print (enlarger head height and print size) are different.

The longest lens I have for my Wista is 270mm - around 1.8x normal. On 6x9 it is a little over 2.5x normal. That difference translates into a lower enlarger head height for a given print size. As I said earlier, it works for me.

Well if it works for you it works for you. But if you are hitting the maximum enlargement and head height from your enlarger you are making much larger prints than I am, at least typically. Also if you are printing from the central area of the 4x5 there is no reason you can't just use a shorter enlarger lens same as you would with 6x9 or whatever. It won't cover the corners, but you aren't printing them.

But "works for me" is the best reason for anything.

 

[Ai Print]

For me using a pair of 6x12 backs makes using 4x5 in the field on long days with long distances far more productive. Unlike cut film holders I can re-load my roll film backs while in the field. I also see less of an issue with dust in using them. And finally, the format is just plain excellent, a nice option from the nearly square aspect ratio of 4x5.

It's a no brainer for me, makes using the 4x5 a lot stronger of an image making machine.

 

[fdonadio]

Pardon me for not starting a new thread, but I think I am still on the subject here.

I don't have an MF roll film holder for my Sinar F, but I am considering buying one in the near future. Yeah, GAS is terrible!

I've seen there are holders like in Ai Print's photo (above, looks like a Wista) and "slide-in" holders, which slide into a Graflex-style back, just like regular sheet film holders.

From what I gather, the former style goes directly into the back frame/standard, so one has to take the back off the camera to set the holder it into place. Am I right? If so, this raises concerns of dust getting into the camera and the possibility of me mishandling the ground glass back... All of which look very bad to me!

Did anyone try both holder styles and can give the pros and cons of each one?


Flavio

 

[Vaughn]

I used a Calumet rollfilm holder for awhile. It is the type that fits in just like a film holder. Here is a good post in the LF forum on the two models.

http://www.largeformatphotography.i...?63404-Calumet-C2-vs-C2N-Compare-and-Contrast

Now the only issue I have with it, is that the film is moved over rollers that bend the film the opposite way it is rolled around its spool. So if there is any significant time between exposing frames, the film remembers that backwards curl and will not roll tightly around the take-up reel. One then risks light leaks when one removes the film from the holder. I ended up using a darkbag to always unload the film and tighten the film around the reel before removing it from the darkbag.

I have also used the Graphlex rollfilm holders -- thicker, so one has to remove the GG assembly to attach it. Works great, but on a long trip I would bring an extra GG due to all the extra handleing of the GG.



Image -- Gum Tree, Australia. Gowland Pocketview 4x5, Caltar II-N 150/5.6, Calumet C2, Kodak Portra 160VC, RA4 print

Editted after reading the rest of the post here: I used a 135mm enlarger lens on an Omega D5 -- Having the enlarger set up for 4x5 and using a 135mm lens, I figure I am using the center sweet spot of the whole system. The print is only 8x10, but the system works fine for 11x14 prints, too.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I've seen there are holders like in Ai Print's photo (above, looks like a Wista) and "slide-in" holders, which slide into a Graflex-style back, just like regular sheet film holders.

From what I gather, the former style goes directly into the back frame/standard, so one has to take the back off the camera to set the holder it into place. Am I right? If so, this raises concerns of dust getting into the camera and the possibility of me mishandling the ground glass back...

You are slightly mistaken or your English isn't quite good enough. A clip-on type roll holder for a Graflok (= International) back replaces the focusing panel, not the whole back. Letting dust in isn't a major problem, putting the focusing panel down safely doesn't have to be a major problem.

Sinar has made several insertion type roll holders that slip in like cut film holders; I'm quite happy with my Panorama (fixed gate) 6x12. In Sinar's roll holders, the film goes from the feed to the spool to the gate, does not bend (so can't take a set) before exposure. Exposed film goes around a large roller when wound on, then straight into the take-up spool. No problems. By all accounts they're better than the Cambo/Calumet roll holders.

Toyo also makes an insertion type roll film holder for 4x5 cameras. It moves the film straight across the gate from feed spool to take-up spool with no bends at all. One possible drawback is its thickness, 48 mm.

Wista roll holders look much like Horseman and Linhof Super Rollex.

 

[fdonadio]

You are slightly mistaken or your English isn't quite good enough. A clip-on type roll holder for a Graflok (= International) back replaces the focusing panel, not the whole back.

I keep saying my English is not good enough!

Thanks for correcting me. I've searched for information on how to use these clip-on holders (and didn't even find this term) and came back empty handed.

I am not quite familiar with large format cameras yet. I still didn't try to disassemble some parts and I am a little scared to fiddle with the back.

Letting dust in isn't a major problem, putting the focusing panel down safely doesn't have to be a major problem.

I intend on using my camera on the field, primarily for landscape shots. That's why I am interested in 6x12 and 6x9 roll film backs. I have a lot of Foma 4x5" film, but I can see the advantages of having a roll film back, either as a backup or as a lower cost alternative.

Thanks for the info on the different brands. I had found a thread on photo.net about the problems with sharp bends in roll film holders, but they never mentioned some brands were better than others.

I see the slide-in holders are a lot more expensive than the clip-on ones, though.

Flavio