What issues or concerns should I consider when using roll film backs?

[hoffy]

I've been thinking of getting my hands on a roll film back to use on 4x5. I'd ideally like to get a 6x12 (seems fair, right? 5 inches is just over 12cm), but notice that they are hard to come by.

I did read something written quite a few years ago, that film flatness is an issue and you'd "be better off getting a dedicated panoramic camera".

Are there too many tradeoffs using such a back on 4x5? Would indeed I be better putting money into a dedicated panoramic camera (considering that they are going to cost a far sight more than $500 or so to buy a roll film back).

Considering this would be my first foray into either panoramas or film backs, I am curious to hear peoples opinions.

 

[BrianShaw]

Film flatness is often discussed. I’ve not had that problem with Graflex lever-wind backs in 6x6 or 6x7.

 

[Paul Howell]

I use film backs on my MF systems, Kowa and Mamiya Universal, 6X6, 6X7, 6X9 and have no problems with film flatness, don't understand why that would be an issue with 4X5 camera, maybe s a brand or model of back dedicated to a specific camera or 6X12 being longer?

 

[hoffy]

I use film backs on my MF systems, Kowa and Mamiya Universal, 6X6, 6X7, 6X9 and have no problems with film flatness, don't understand why that would be an issue with 4X5 camera, maybe s a brand or model of back dedicated to a specific camera or 6X12 being longer?

Maybe its the long film format. I suppose, the whole point of this is to go wide, hence why I thought 6x12. No point using a 6x6 or 6x7 on a 4x5 camera

 

[BrianShaw]

Couldn’t you mask 4x5 to get the panoramic format? Might mitigate the film flatness concern.

 

[hoffy]

Couldn’t you mask 4x5 to get the panoramic format? Might mitigate the film flatness concern.

Yes, I have considered that.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

6x12 that's pretty penny although some new options from China don't seem that way, but I cannot speak on their quality in any way.

Have you thought of first trying 6x9 before gong to 6x12? I would recommend Toyo backs, although Horseman and Wista would be good choices too. Certainly no flatness issues with any of these.

 

[grat]

I have a Shen-Hao 6x12 back that I picked up used at a good price. Has a full-length pressure plate, and seems to keep the film relatively flat. Comes with masks for 6x4.5(??!), 6x6 and 6x9. Unfortunately, real life has intruded, and I haven't had a chance to try it out.

I've also got an older version of their 6x17 back (with it's own ground glass), and that doesn't have any noticeable issues with film flatness-- it also has a large pressure plate, rails, and a one-way film winding mechanism that allows you to tighten the film a bit. It's effectively the same back as the Shen-Hao 6x17 view camera.

 

[MARTIE]

I've shot quite a bit of 6x12. And just like any other format, if you find the right subject / composition, it's perfect. Although, more often than not, especially at the beginning, you may find your compositions stronger by chopping off some of the left and right hand sides or top and bottom depending on orientation.
6x12 roll film holders eat film and certainly when wet printing, you'll find yourself chopping paper as nothing seems to match the 1:2 ratio.
On purchase, make sure the back has a snug fit and that the light baffle is in order with the darkslide out. Try not to damage the delicate darkslide. Check that the wind-on is smooth that the tension is good and the frame counter works. And check that the spacing is correct. Happy hunting!
Sorry, attached is a photocopy scan of an 8x10" wet print.

 

[grahamp]

I have two roll film backs, a 6x9 Cambo and a 6x12 3D printed one (Edgar Kech design). The 6x9 is mostly used when I expect to enlarge only a portion of the 4x5 frame (poor man's telephoto), I need to really push movements, or just want to use a film stock I don't have in 4x5. The 6x12 is not really panoramic - that really seems to come into play around 2.5 to 1 ratio - but it is the largest common roll film format that fits a 4x5. I like the 6x12 on my 4x5 point and shoot because of the capacity and portability.

Some roll film backs bend the film in tight curves, which can be a problem if the film is left unused for a while and the curve gets set. Though that argument has also been leveled at the 'L' path of film in the Rolleiflex-style cameras. I tend not to leave film in a roll film holder very long, so I have never had a problem with film flatness. Maybe I am just lucky!

If you are going to reduce the effective format size of the camera you are going to carry, then you need to gain something in flexibility or materials. And that 'something' is not enough to justify the cost/logistics of a camera designed/dedicated to that format. You have to look at what you intend doing, and how much of it.

 

[MattKing]

I have a pinhole camera that lets me choose between 6x6, 6x9 and 6x12 format at the time I load the film - just choose where to insert the would pieces.
It is wonderful to have the flexibility of choice, every time I change film.
That would be the advantage to me of roll film backs vs. a fixed frame panoramic camera like the X-Pan.

 

[mshchem]

I picked up a Calumet (Cambo I think) 6x9 roll film holder. It inserts like a regular sheet film holder so you don't need to remove ground glass. It's slick.

 

[ic-racer]

With 6x9 film back I try to use all 8 images, rather than storing the back with film in it. The frame in the gate is usually good, but the next one (that has curved over the rollers) is the one that won't hold flat if it had been held in position for a few months.

 

[gone]

If you mask the 4x5, there's still a lot of film there and you can make huge prints. Or, just use a dedicated pano camera. MF lenses are sharper than LF lenses in my experience, the latter are more about coverage, but it would seem that its easier to keep 4x5 flat than 6x12.

 

[Bashful71]

If you haven't, think about how you're going to focus and compose. I've fiddled with making a paper 6x12 mask for the ground glass, and have recently acquired a GG with 6x12 frame Iines included.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

How much sheet film can you buy for the price of a roll film holder? Figure your break-even point and then ask yourself if just using sheet film and cropping wouldn't be the better option.

If you plan on shooting the 6x12 format exclusively (or primarily), then maybe a dedicated camera would be in order.

If you like to mix aspect ratios like I do, then a 4x5 sheet of film and cropping to whatever aspect ratio you desire when printing is pretty flexible. I print panoramas in all kinds of aspect ratios from 4x5 sheet film all the time. Grainless 9x18 inch prints on half a sheet of 16x20 paper; or maybe I want 10x18, or 7x18 or whatever - no problem. And I just carry some good old 4x5 film holders.

I used a 6x9 roll film holder for the first few years of my LF journey just because I didn't have a 4x5 enlarger. Once I acquired one, the roll-film back has been in the drawer... For me, there's no reason to lug around the extra weight of the roll-film back and another bunch of roll film when I can remain flexible and make photos in just about any aspect ratio I like with sheet film. Besides, I really hate developing 120 film; loading reels, hot edges from surge unless you're really careful and good with agitation, backing-paper damaging the emulsion (a current problem), etc. It's so much easier just developing sheets in trays.

Best,

Doremus

 

[grat]

I was rather surprised to notice that my Chamonix has horizontal lines for 120 film, and corner marks for 6x12, 6x9, 6x7, and 6x4.5.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My problem with the roll film backs on a 4"x5" or larger camera is that the whole reason to go to large format is to USE large format. Press cameras are designed to be used handheld and for fast camera work. Once you are carrying around a press camera, the use it for what it was intended and gain large format experience, not dragging a large camera for a small negative. What is next? A 35mm half frame adapter of a press camera?

 

[grat]

How much sheet film can you buy for the price of a roll film holder? Figure your break-even point and then ask yourself if just using sheet film and cropping wouldn't be the better option.

That's the beauty of photography-- I respect your opinion, but disagree with just about everything you said.

The biggest reason for shooting 6x12 to me is the variety of film stock available. Sure, most of what I really shoot is available in 4x5, but the idea of throwing away 45% of a sheet of Ektar just.... Oi. And if I were in this to break-even, I'd sell all my gear and go back to digital.

If you plan on shooting the 6x12 format exclusively (or primarily), then maybe a dedicated camera would be in order.

If you like to mix aspect ratios like I do, then a 4x5 sheet of film and cropping to whatever aspect ration you desire when printing is pretty flexible. I print panoramas in all kinds of aspect ratios from 4x5 sheet film all the time. Grainless 9x18 inch prints on half a sheet of 16x20 paper; or maybe I want 10x18, or 7x18 or whatever - no problem. And I just carry some good old 4x5 film holders.

I used a 6x9 roll film holder for the first few years of my LF journey just because I didn't have a 4x5 enlarger. Once I acquired one, the roll-film back has been in the drawer... For me, there's no reason to lug around the extra weight of the roll-film back and another bunch of roll film when I can remain flexible and make photos in just about any aspect ratio I like with sheet film.

True-- on the flip side, I have a 4x5 camera with several nice lenses, I carry 1 or 2 grafmatics with 4x5, and I can throw in a couple rolls of 120 and an extra film holder, and now I can shoot films that aren't available in 4x5, and can shoot any of the various medium formats without wasting film. I've got the equivalent of 2 or 3 different cameras in one bag.

Besides, I really hate developing 120 film; loading reels, hot edges from surge unless you're really careful and good with agitation, backing-paper damaging the emulsion (a current problem), etc. It's so much easier just developing sheets in trays.

I develop my 4x5 in either the SP445 or a Paterson as well. And I don't have these issues with 120-- I guess I've been lucky (not entirely true-- I think I had a backing paper problem with some Berger Pancro 400). I think I might have to give in and try some tray development-- I've got these glass half-plates sitting here, and while I might be able to squeeze some quarter plates into the SP-445, I don't think the half-plates will fit.

 

[Ai Print]

I have a couple of Horseman 6x12 roll film backs and love them.

I am really quite surprised how no one has mentioned a really big advantage of them over cropping a sheet of 4x5 film to fit. Unlike cut film holders, you can unload and re-load roll film backs in daylight. With 4x5 holders also in tow, I’ll often bring one of the backs with me on a long hike in which I can only manage maybe 6 film holders on the jaunt. It keeps me working and able to really make a nice range of images.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

That's the beauty of photography-- I respect your opinion, but disagree with just about everything you said. ...

Don't get me wrong; there are a lot of good reasons for using a roll-film holder on LF cameras too, many of which you mentioned. With color film, the expense alone makes a difference. And, if one makes a lot of, or primarily, panoramic images, and in color, then the 6x12 back is likely a good investment. If, on the other hand, one only makes the occasional black-and-white panoramic image, then maybe not. It's a matter of weighing needs, convenience and expense. What works for me only works for others who work like I do (and maybe not even then ). So, feel free to disagree with everything I say

Doremus

 

[hoffy]

Thanks for all the comments.

For me, to shoot panoramic, I am thinking colour film and to be honest, that in itself is a big expense on a LF camera.

I like the idea of a pano MF camera, but I am not sure I would be that invested to put down that amount of coin on one.

 

[removed account4]

hi hoffy

look at what @Vaughn does when he makes panoramic views with his cameras ( 11x14 &c ). He don't use no stinkin' roll film back but a dark slide he's modified to split his film in two. A few years ago I remember seeing a video of a beautiful roll film panoramic back sold out of China and being demonstrated at one of the various LF trade shows. Talk about a work of art, it looked beautiful and I am guessing cost as much as a new LF camera ( If you have that rare Ebony, Im sure spending the amounts of money a new Toyo AF might have cost is nothing to spend on a sweet roll back ). .. but a series of dark slides cut for various pano formats sounds much more fun to enlarge too .. I used to have a 35mm Kodachrome Recomar back I'd use on my 4x5 gear to be able to use vintage 19th century glass on small format film. It was fun strapping on that birch back and popping the ground glass to focus, but I sold it probably 12-15 years back and sadly I have been thinking small frames on big sheets again. I might take my own advice and cut a series of 35mm (and 1/2 frame and 110 frame ) darkslides masks to shoot tiny formats portraits using vintage wollensak portrait lenses, sweet lever stop semi hemispherical, or meniscus ... its too bad you can get glass like that for a pen FT...

good luck ( and have fun) !
John

 

[hoffy]

good luck ( and have fun) !

This is the thing! Have fun!

I'm curious to see how the dark side method works. Does the holder position, so that you are shooting on the edge of the film, but still using the sweet spot of the lens?

 

[abruzzi]

the dark slide method basically takes a spare dark slide a cuts off the top half of the slide material, so when it is inserted it covers the bottom half. If you want to center the lens you will have to use front rise, or rear fall. After that shot is taken, the other half is still blank, so that is shot with the modified dark slide flipped so it now covers the top, and in that case to center the lens, you need to lower the front. If the lens covers 4x5, then you don't really need to do the rise/fall thing unless you really want to use the center of the lens. That might be useful for wides to limit the fall-off inthe corners.