What is the purpose of a 6x12 roll film back?

[GLS]

I backpacked with a 4X5 Sinar system and a dozen sheet film holders for 20 years.

I also now use 12 Toyo double holders (one of the heaviest types). Don't think I'd want to go with any more than that. I hear Peter Dombrovskis used to go out on his trips with 20, but they had to last him for days/weeks at a time. Apparently he only ever shot a single exposure of any scene as a result.

 

[DREW WILEY]

When Fuji Quickload and Kodak Readyload film sleeves were around, that was a backpacking blessing. The Kodak ones weren't perfected until the single-sheet version. And I didn't like either of their own holders, so converted a lightened a 545 holder for greater film plane precision and flatness.

I still own a dozen Mido II lightweight thin holders, along with two clamshell adapters. Those are only half the bulk of regular 4X5 holders, but save only about a third the weight.
So, alas, as I was getting into my late 60's, I started using 6X9 Horseman roll film backs. Glad I did, since I was still taking two week mountain trips in steep terrain, much of it off trail and in bad weather, requiring 75 lb pack wt even with that reduction in film accessory weight. Then the apocalypse of our massive forest fires intervened, coinciding with the pandemic, and I find myself almost 74, glad to have done what I did when I could still do it, but starting to rethink my backpacking strategies into something more realistic for my inevitable changes in my fitness.

 

[xkaes]

I'm still in love with the MIDO I (version B) 4x5 holders. Easier to load than the original version, but the same size & weight -- and MUCH smaller and lighter than the MIDO II holders.

As to the catastrophes of fires, pandemics, age, etc. at least we can still do what A.A. did in his later years -- use the time to apply our darkroom skills to the negatives of the now-missing trees that we never had time to explore before. (Of course, A.A. never did the kind of "field work" that we do -- but that not really relevant.)

Top of my list is to make more 6x17-format (and wider) panoramas from my 4x5" Agfapan 25 negatives. And, YES, a few were taken with a polarizer!

 

[MTGseattle]

Some of us in these forums need to look into pack goats. You get a gear hauler and a landscaper in one semi-compact animal. win-win.

 

[xkaes]

Some of us in these forums need to look into pack goats. You get a gear hauler and a landscaper in one semi-compact animal. win-win.

That is one option, of course.

Sounds simple, but pack animals have to eat -- and that takes a LOT of time. Have you thought about how much grass (and time) it takes for a mule to walk 10 miles?

I've heard from lots of llama-packers in the Rockies. Total disaster. Getting a llama to move is even worse than a mule -- which is even worse than...........

But things are looking up. You can now get a drone to drop in film and EATS in the middle of nowhere.

 

[MTGseattle]

There are pros and cons with everything, I guess. Once we start having drone supply drops are we still "getting away from it all" to photograph? Drone drop-off and pick-up of a rental 6x12 back in the field? There we go.

 

[MattKing]

Some of us in these forums need to look into pack goats. You get a gear hauler and a landscaper in one semi-compact animal. win-win.

Of course, for those of us who live in multi-unit buildings, it can play havoc with the relationship with the people who live below us, or who also like to use the elevator.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I am my own pack mule. As a teenager I did work for a pack mule outfitter one summer. A rite of passage growing up. Llamas go more places, but are still restrictive, and they spook more easily if a mountain lion or bear is around.

Drones? - which kind? Delivery drones, peeping Tom drones, burglar drones, terrorist drones? They should all be fair game for shotgun practice.

 

[beemermark]

What is the purpose of a 6x12 roll film back? Why to make a 6x12 negative of course. I lost my pack mules when my daughters all grew up and moved away.​

 

[xkaes]

If I could have figured out a way to get a 6x12 roll film back on my RB67, I might never have discovered LF. So now I can do 6x17 without a roll back.

 

[Axelwik]

If I could have figured out a way to get a 6x12 roll film back on my RB67, I might never have discovered LF. So now I can do 6x17 without a roll back.

Yep, just shot some 6x17 today using my 5x7 camera and a modified dark slide. ;-)

 

[MTGseattle]

Back to 6x12. I personally like a wide-angle focal length in conjunction with the panoramic formats. I know it doesn't have to be this way, but that's what I like. Who in here is/has shot 6x12 with "normal" focal lengths and do you like the results? 150,180 and 210mm come to mind.

 

[Neil Morgan]

Anybody have experience with the Dayi 6x12 film back? new it's half the price of a used Horseman.

 

[MTGseattle]

I'm seeing $368 US new for the Dayi. I've missed a couple of Horseman backs under $500 lately and finally gave up and bought one for over $500. The Dayi is likely fine, there are reports of sloppy build quality and there are the pros and cons of it being multi-format (extra parts to get lost/broken).

 

[Neil Morgan]

I'm seeing $368 US new for the Dayi. I've missed a couple of Horseman backs under $500 lately and finally gave up and bought one for over $500. The Dayi is likely fine, there are reports of sloppy build quality and there are the pros and cons of it being multi-format (extra parts to get lost/broken).

Over here in the UK it's £300 vs £600 for the Horseman. I may just bite the bullet and get a horseman as it's for a home made 612 I'm designing - cross between a Horseman and the ALPA

 

[xkaes]

Back to 6x12. I personally like a wide-angle focal length in conjunction with the panoramic formats. I know it doesn't have to be this way, but that's what I like. Who in here is/has shot 6x12 with "normal" focal lengths and do you like the results? 150,180 and 210mm come to mind.

Wide-angle? Of course. Normal? Sure. I've made panoramas with long lenses, too. Why not? If you're on the south rim of the Grand Canyon you can make a great panorama of a lightning storm on the north rim -- but only with a long lens -- for example.

 

[bitacraic]

Just my 2 cents on 6x12 backs,

Mr. Alvandi makes superb backs for anyone looking to buy a new film back. I know a lot of the older horseman etc. backs are starting to show their age.

 

[Axelwik]

Back to 6x12. I personally like a wide-angle focal length in conjunction with the panoramic formats. I know it doesn't have to be this way, but that's what I like. Who in here is/has shot 6x12 with "normal" focal lengths and do you like the results? 150,180 and 210mm come to mind.

I sometimes use long lenses with 6x12 and 6x17. Often a 300mm with 6x17.

 

[andyvan]

yes, I get the questions, I shoot with a sinar f2 and have the zoom back 6x12 it allows me to shoot my Fujinon SW 90 & 65mm f5.6 glass in a panoramic format, its easier to have 5 rolls of 120 in your kit bag than a dozen film holders, it is a bugger, yes, as its only 6 shots!, so one has to read the manual, go SLOW, so one does the right thing, but it gives a great alternative to larger formats, is cheaper, and also gives more surface area for wider lenses, as compared to 6x6 or 6x7 roll backs, aka it allows better aspect ratio so one can include more context to the subject.
One other point, 120 roll film is capable of being processed in any lab, and most do it, as easy as 135 film; sheet stock on the other hand is more specialised, so you end up having to dev. your own negs.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

One of the reasons I purchased a 4x5 camera was a bigger negative. Specifically, I wanted better panoramas, as my current method is cropping 6x7 which doesn't produce a large negative. Looking at my options now I am trying to understand the purpose of 6x12 roll film backs for 4x5 cameras.

If my math is correct, a regular 4x5 sheet is wider than a 6x12 negative. Meanwhile, these roll film backs do not seem as convenient to use as sheet film. You have to focus on the ground glass, then take the regular back off, mount a 6x12 back, etc. Basically smaller negative + slower shooting + extra weight + extra cost. And despite this, they do exist.

I am obviously missing something here. What is it?

I find roll film is a lot easier to handle, process and store than 4x5. It's also lower cost per shot.

 

[koraks]

It's also lower cost per shot.

6x12cm in color isn't too daunting. 4x5" in color is currently only reserved for "pigs who are more equal than others".

 

[andyvan]

6x12cm in color isn't too daunting. 4x5" in color is currently only reserved for "pigs who are more equal than others".

we are NOT pigs, we just haven't yet got the "eye" for black and white yet, Or just do portraits and want the shallow dof that the format brings, and just can't shoot a subject like that NOT in colour, we know its $$$ but we just LOVE colour , have you ever seen a nice vintage car in black and white, and cried, as you didn't get that lovely paint job in the shot!!

 

[koraks]

we are NOT pigs

It was a tongue-in-cheek reference to Animal Farm and the current price levels of 4x5" color film. Sorry if that wasn't obvious; I was under the impression that anyone in the western world presently alive would have got the joke; maybe it wasn't as universal as I had anticipated. My apologies.
I love shooting color. I'd love to shoot more large format color. And I really need to dig up the 6x12 back and my Sinar F.

 

[andyvan]

It was a tongue-in-cheek reference to Animal Farm and the current price levels of 4x5" color film. Sorry if that wasn't obvious; I was under the impression that anyone in the western world presently alive would have got the joke; maybe it wasn't as universal as I had anticipated. My apologies.
I love shooting color. I'd love to shoot more large format color. And I really need to dig up the 6x12 back and my Sinar F.

sorry, I have Autism, so didn't get it, I did it in school English class, so if you said "absolute power corrupts absolutely", Yes, I would have got it, as that's the "one liner" of the movie/book, and the moral of this story. Yes the cost of this hobby is disappointing, but its also a fact of no to low competition as only Fujifilm, Ilford (Harman technologies) and Kodak make film, and the low volume of new film cameras if this improves, maybe the price will follow it?

 

[koraks]

No worries; I understand. I think much of the price comes down to virtually non-existent demand, really. That doesn't do much for the price point of a product that relies on high-volume production methods.