Why use cut film in a medium format camera?

[saman13]

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.

 

[dpurdy]

It won't give you a larger neg. The neg size is determined by the camera's opening for the film gate inside the camera. The advantages are single exposures instead of whole rolls of film and flatness of the film. Generally sheet film lies very flat while roll film tends to fight flatness.

 

[chip j]

+1

 

[Max lisch]

Not only is the film flatter, but, arguably more importantly, the film can be developed individually. Rather than shooting a roll of 120 and push processing the entire roll, each shot of cut film can be developed differently.
I'd personally just shoot 4x5s, but I can see some advantages to shooting smaller cut film

 

[zozur]

Yes its true that you can use 4x5 film, but in some parts of world 4x5 enlargers are hard to get or expensive. So with 2x3 sheet film you can have some "half-frame large format" experience.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... more importantly, the film can be developed individually. Rather than shooting a roll of 120 and push processing the entire roll, each shot of cut film can be developed differently.
...

Exactly. For devotees of Ansel Adams' Zone System, you want to expose each sheet appropriately for the scene and develop each sheet individually. In simplest terms, based on the contrast in the scene and the range of the contrast, you tailor your development for a sheet so that you'll have a negative of optimal density.

If you use a roll of film rather than single sheets, the development for that roll likely will not be best for all frames on that roll if the scenes vary greatly in contrast. Some people use three rollfilm backs: one for low contrast scenes, one for normal, and one for high contrast scenes. The rolls in each back are then developed accordingly.

 

[saman13]

Yep, that makes sense. Of course the negative isn't larger. I suppose only making one shot before changing films is an advantage to some and a negative (no pun intended) to others.
Well, I don't think I'll be running out and buying those single exposure backs anytime soon.

 

[saman13]

Exactly. For devotees of Ansel Adams' Zone System, you want to expose each sheet appropriately for the scene and develop each sheet individually. In simplest terms, based on the contrast in the scene and the range of the contrast, you tailor your development for a sheet so that you'll have a negative of optimal density.

If you use a roll of film rather than single sheets, the development for that roll likely will not be best for all frames on that roll if the scenes vary greatly in contrast. Some people use three rollfilm backs: one for low contrast scenes, one for normal, and one for high contrast scenes. The rolls in each back are then developed accordingly.

This makes perfect sense. Maybe one day I'll have the patience to put that much effort into a single exposure! I need to work on keeping my thumb out from in front of the lens first, though.

 

[AgX]

Another advantage is to use different types of films, without having to change rolls and to sacrifice not yet exposed film.

With cameras using spooled film, be it rollfilm or 35mm film, typically one sits with the film loaded. At best one can rewind the film, exchange it and later load it again and with blind exposures advance to the yet unexposed part. This is not possible with all camera modes, definitely not with rollfilm cameras as they transport only in one direction. There are though some rollfilm cameras (based on the Hasselblad modular design) that offer exchangable rollfilm backs. There are relatively even less 35mm film models that have interchangable backs or the ability to transport the film into another cassette and even cut the film within the camera.

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

Agree with all of the comments here.

 

[bdial]

A cut film back would also make it possible to use a home-brew emulsion or perhaps wet plate, if you were so inclined.

 

[mweintraub]

I'm interested in getting one of these setups for my C3. Based on my research, it's 2.5 and 3.5 films for the Type D holders. Looks like there aren't much available in terms of that size.

What does "Type J for one-quarter of 4.75” x 6.25” sheet film" mean? What size is the film for the Type J holders?

Edit: Ok, just found this in the C330 single exposure manual:

 

[bsdunek]

I've used these in my Mamiya Super 23 with sheet film holders. Fun! http://www.freestylephoto.biz/1832016-Rockland-Colloid-Tintype-Parlor-Kit

 

[mweintraub]

I've used these in my Mamiya Super 23 with sheet film holders. Fun! http://www.freestylephoto.biz/1832016-Rockland-Colloid-Tintype-Parlor-Kit

This is awesome. Thanks

 

[saman13]

I've used these in my Mamiya Super 23 with sheet film holders. Fun! http://www.freestylephoto.biz/1832016-Rockland-Colloid-Tintype-Parlor-Kit

This was my first thought when I saw the single exposure backs. Pocket sized tintypes (Tinytype?). I've shot a tintype on 4x5 and it's seriously fun. Although I am not quite sure about the two types of backs Mamiya offers. Will both of them work with film that is still available today? Which one would you use if you wanted to do tintypes? And are there compatibility issues between the backs for a Mamiyaflex C2 and say a Mamiya C220?

 

[Sirius Glass]

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".

 

[mweintraub]

This was my first thought when I saw the single exposure backs. Pocket sized tintypes (Tinytype?). I've shot a tintype on 4x5 and it's seriously fun. Although I am not quite sure about the two types of backs Mamiya offers. Will both of them work with film that is still available today? Which one would you use if you wanted to do tintypes? And are there compatibility issues between the backs for a Mamiyaflex C2 and say a Mamiya C220?

From j gather, there's a back holder and the individual sheet film holders. Similar to large format.
The c220 doesn't have interchangeable backs, but not sure about the C22.

 

[removed account4]

its easier to shoot paper negatives

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I have both options with my Linhof 2x3" Technika. Sometimes I may shoot rollfilm when I'm using the camera press-camera style, shooting handheld and focusing with the rangefinder, and use sheet film when I'm using the camera as a view camera, on a tripod, focusing with the groundglass, mainly so I can control development of each frame individually. Or I might shoot rollfilm in color and B&W with zone system controls on sheet film. I have three rollfilm backs, so I could also designate them for different development times, but Linhof rollfilm backs are bulky and heavy, so it depends on how much I'm planning to shoot and how far I need to walk with the camera.

 

[voceumana]

It used to be that many specialty films were available only in sheet film format, such as orthochromatic continuous tone (as opposed to document high-contrast) films. Making these films available to medium format users was obviously considered advantageous to some camera manufacturers, in addition to the other reasons mentioned above.

Fewer such specialty films are available today, so this is, perhaps, less of a reason than it used to be. Film flatness (especially with glass plates) and individual development of an image remain important at times.

 

[Ian Grant]

It goes back to the German Avus style cameras made by most manufacturers which came in a few formats 6.5x9 being the smallest, 9x12 the most common.

Just like you can find photo's of US press photographers en-mass with Speed Graphics (and the odd other Press camera) you can find the same with Continental European press photographers with their Avus style camera, some using 6.5x9. They could have used a Rollex or similar 6x9 roll film backs but by using plates or cut film they could send images/pates or film back to the newspaper quickly, important when meeting print deadlines.

In more modern times often we (when I worked commercially) needed to shoot something and get fast turn around and prints quickly, Using MF for a one off or maybe 2 images and wasting the rest of the film, it just isn't always cost effective, hence the sheet film back option for a few MF cameras.

Ian

 

[mweintraub]

I just bought a kit off eBay, Wish me luck.



I just PM'd you, local buddy.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

If you're a hard core Zone System guy, you can shoot for N+ and N- easier. You can also do the same thing with 120 cameras with switchable film backs.

 

[darkroommike]

It won't give you a larger neg. The neg size is determined by the camera's opening for the film gate inside the camera. The advantages are single exposures instead of whole rolls of film and flatness of the film. Generally sheet film lies very flat while roll film tends to fight flatness.

There are a couple of Mamiya 6x7 models that can shoot 7x7 on cut film or larger in the case of the Universal. supposedly there is a 4x5 adapter for the Universal that will do 9x9 or a bit more.

 

[darkroommike]

There was also a customized Fidelity 2x3 holder with "rail slots" milled into the sides so it would directly engage the 6x7 graflok back of the RB67. I have a couple of them (somewhere).