Why use cut film in a medium format camera?

[grahamp]

Pictures (late model for C330): http://grahamp.dotinthelandscape.org/mamiyamisc.html
http://grahamp.dotinthelandscape.org/mamiyamisc.html
Scroll past the first few images. Most of these holders came with three dark slides. Apart from using unusual emulsions - for microfiche? - the only other real use is where mixing up images on roll film might be a problem. Individual sheets can be separately identified and processed.

 

[OptiKen]

I had the chance to pick up (4) of the type D holders for a very good price and ended up not getting them for want of a good reason.
Now I wish I hadn't been so hesitant.

 

[Nokton48]

I use 6.5x9cm sheets of Foma 100, Orwo NP20 and NP22, and Ilford FP4+ in my Plaubel Makina III and IIIR, and my three Plaubel Makiflexes. I also shoot full frame Makiflex negs (9x9cm) onto 9x12cm films. Most of this film has come to me from Europe, 9x12cm being the most easy to find. I process the sheets in a Jobo Multitank 6 with sheet film reels on a Unicolor Uniroller.

Sheet film is more expensive to shoot than rolls, but I enjoy the process, it's a lot of fun to do.

75 sheets of Fotopan FF 6.5x9cm just arrive to me from Bulgaria:

6x9cm Fotopan FF by Nokton48, on Flickr

 

[Bill Burk]

I keep thinking that if you ran a portrait studio, it was more convenient for retouching to have individual sheets.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Foton materials were manufactured in Poland (though of course they may come by way of another country). The text on the box is in Polish.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Gosh knows why in this day age, unless you just happen to own the gear, can't find a substitute roll-film back, and can use one of the few films still cut that size. As far as retouching and portrait studios, they generally used 11X14 or 8X10 film for that. Anything small would have been hell to work with.

 

[removed account4]

they generally used 11X14 or 8X10 film for that.

i don't know drew
i worked for a lady who had been making portraits since the great depression
and she regularly retouched split (3.5x5 x 2 ) and full 5x7 through the time when
she retired in the 1990s. every rule has its exception, and a lot of portrait photographers
didn't shoot 11x14 or 8x10, but 5x7 ...

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

And of course there were professional retouchers of school portraits who worked on long rolls of 40mm color neg film.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I thought the silver bullet for shots of zitty high school kids was a soft-focus filter. Wish they had used one for me! But I wouldn't classify that as a studio trade.

 

[Ian Grant]

Foton materials were manufactured in Poland (though of course they may come by way of another country). The text on the box is in Polish.

Foton were taken over and merged with another company - from memory Foma, technically I think the Foton company still exists trading as Foma Polska, Last time I did some research Foton were still coating Xray materials and some chemistry was being made as well.

Ian

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Here's their account of their status, and there's also a short history page in English--

http://foton.com.pl/en/about-us/

The box in the photo I was originally responding to is from when they actually made film. It looks like now they are a distributor for X-ray materials.

 

[AgX]

Last time I did some research Foton were still coating Xray materials and some chemistry was being made as well

Foton stopped manufacturing long ago.

 

[Nokton48]

Here is my latest shipment just arrived from Bulgaria.

DSC05884[1447] by Nokton48, on Flickr

This is fun stuff to shoot and use. I have 60+ Plaubel 6.5x9cm sheet film holders so why not load them up and use them??
A pile of these holders is HEAVY but an indivdual holder in the Makina III or IIR makes for a much more compact package, than using roll Plaubel holders.


DSC05884[1447] by Nokton48, on Flickr



FOTON FF no 1 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Test photo made by dealer in Bulgaria, FOTON FF 6.5x9cm, Mamiya RB67 sheet film back, Orwo A-03 8:15 @ 22C shot at ISO 50.

FOTON FF no 2 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Looks pretty good for such old film stock. I wonder what developer to use with FOTON FF?

 

[mweintraub]

I got the back attachment and holder. It's a cool system. I can't wait to try it out.

 

[nosmok]

I have a few single exposure holders and a pack film adapter for my Makina III as well, and some film to put in them. Need to try them all out soon; the Makina III is not much fun to rangefinder focus with a roll back on, that's for sure!

 

[Nokton48]

Plaubel Makina III 190mm by Nokton48, on Flickr

I should mention that Foma 100 and Ilford FP4+ are my two main go-to films in this 6.5x9 cm format. But it is good to have a choice! I think old film is fun to shoot! And usually it is FINE to use in my experience. The slow stuff, at least.

 

[jim10219]

There is nothing gained using sheet film. It is not like there are emulsions only available in sheet film much less in 2-1/4"x3-1/4".

X-ray, Regent Royal’s Hard Dot, lithographic film, Harmon Direct to Positive, instant film (with some modifications to the film holder), hand coated emulsions, wet plat collodion, darkroom printing papers, and many more. That makes it a good option for the more creative photographers out there wanting to extend their range beyond the more traditional options. For the more technically oriented photographers, it gives them the option to select the perfect film and developer/development combination for each shot.

 

[ic-racer]

This also...https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/instax-mini-film-fits-2-1-4-x-3-1-4-film-holders.156089/

 

[k.hendrik]

maybe this too... https://www.flickr.com/photos/77846450@N00/18048569815/in/dateposted-public/

 

[Arklatexian]

X-ray, Regent Royal’s Hard Dot, lithographic film, Harmon Direct to Positive, instant film (with some modifications to the film holder), hand coated emulsions, wet plat collodion, darkroom printing papers, and many more. That makes it a good option for the more creative photographers out there wanting to extend their range beyond the more traditional options. For the more technically oriented photographers, it gives them the option to select the perfect film and developer/development combination for each shot.

Just what is wrong with using 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 sheet film or even cut down 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 sheet film just because it is fun and you want to? Also if you are still trying to take pictures when you are in your 80s like I am, the smaller cameras are much lighter to lug around than 4x5, 8x10, etc. Use what you want to use and let others worry about the "practicality" of everything. You are NOT forced to use what everyone else says is "proper". I hope your photography is a hobby. For gosh sakes, ENJOY it.......Regards!

 

[trendland]

I am a complete newcomer to medium format so bear with me. I've only shot medium format once as a project in school with my professor's Pentax 67. I just purchased my first medium format camera, a Mamiyaflex C2 with 135 F/4.5 (it hasn't even arrived in the mail yet). Being very excited to start shooting with it, I've been doing as much research as possible on this camera and the Mamiya C TLR line.
One thing I came across was the availability of single exposure backs for these cameras. This lets these cameras use 2-1/4"x3-1/4" cut film or glass plates if I understand correctly. My question is: Why? Is it because of the slightly larger negative size? It doesn't seem very reasonable to give up the convenience of roll film for a marginally larger negative. If that is what one is after, wouldn't you just use a 4x5 camera?
Although, the first thing I thought of when I saw those backs was the possibility of pocket-size tintypes. That might actually be pretty cool.

I am not sure about the reason of using the film you mentioned. But I remember well the pola back. Since some time my ideas of using this back is : It was used from proffessionals who wasn't experienced with exposure of film.... with regards
Notice : If you exposure bw - you have a good tollerance, c41 have this tollerance not as great as bw. But with both media you can get the very best characteristics just if your exposure is correct. With E6 films the tollerance is often less than 1/3 stop. Exposure series will help in case of doubts.

 

[Nokton48]

Just what is wrong with using 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 sheet film or even cut down 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 sheet film just because it is fun and you want to? Also if you are still trying to take pictures when you are in your 80s like I am, the smaller cameras are much lighter to lug around than 4x5, 8x10, etc. Use what you want to use and let others worry about the "practicality" of everything. You are NOT forced to use what everyone else says is "proper". I hope your photography is a hobby. For gosh sakes, ENJOY it.......Regards!

Of course I think you are right on with this. Use it because you want to. I use it because it is different, and fun. And a few sheet holders are much more compact than a bulky roll film holder (at least on my camera). Those are reasons enough for me.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Why don't camera manufacturers make cameras with roll 4x5 film?

But seriously, I've printed aerial photos shot on 8" film.

 

[John Wiegerink]

There is nothing gained using sheet film. It is not like there are emulsions only available in sheet film much less in 2-1/4"x3-1/4".

That's true, but it is much easier to do N-1, N or N+1 development. I use Kodak holders for my Kodak Medalist II camera with EFKE 25 in 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 on occasion and it's really, really good. I'm on my last box of EFKE and wish I had bought 15 boxes before it disappeared. Oh well, so much for hindsight. I have a sheet film setup for my Hasselblad, but almost never use it since with interchangeable backs I can have one back for N-1, one for N and one for N+1. Plus, film flatness is no problem on my 'blad. JohnW

 

[John Wiegerink]

Why don't camera manufacturers make cameras with roll 4x5 film?

But seriously, I've printed aerial photos shot on 8" film.

I know you have this as a kind of humor question, but I'd like to see it myself. Anyone who has shot wit a Kodak No.3A autographic and the better lenses like the Kodak Anastigmat 170mm f7.7 know what I'm getting at. JohnW