Super Speed Graphic with a "23" Graphic Roll Film Back question

[Carterofmars]

Hi- I have a Super Speed graphic with the graflok back. If been dying to use this camera but feared the sheet film, holders, etc. Can I use a "23" Graphic Roll Film Back for 120? Is the image made any worse for not using sheet film?

Thanks Joe

 

[kuzano]

Yes.... look for the roll film backs with pin rollers...

Yes.... look for the roll film backs with pin rollers...

Hi- I have a Super Speed graphic with the graflok back. If been dying to use this camera but feared the sheet film, holders, etc. Can I use a "23" Graphic Roll Film Back for 120? Is the image made any worse for not using sheet film?

Thanks Joe

They certainly made roll film backs in all the 120 formats up to 6X9 which have the larger base on the back to fit the Graflok. The 23 is 6X9 as you probably know. Many of the ground glass screens have markings for the 23 format, assisting in focus. You can use the range finder if you have the proper cam for the lens you have mounted. Nothing changes simply because you have a roll film back. You can mark your existing back by putting the holder base in the camera, and with the film holder cartridge removed, mark your GG with a soft pencil. The film is held in the center of the 4X5.

Now, here's a "not widely known" tip on the film backs. Later Graflex or Singer roll film backs had an addition inside for improved film flatness. Some think the lever backs were the answer, but that's not true. Regardless of the knob/lever or mfr (graflex or Singer), the improvement was the addition of a pin roller at each end of the film opening. The rollers (2) where chrome and about 3/32 diameter across the ends of the opening. These rollers assisted in flattening out the sideways roll in the film. I have had roll film backs in both knob (which I prefer) and lever (which have levers that develop weak return springs and hang out, catching sleeves and such). Likewise, I have had lever backs that did not have the pin rollers. So, I never make my decision based on the lever or knob, but on the pin rollers.

It's often difficult to find the pin roller backs, as they were a late addition, coincidentally about the time the levers arrived. with or without the pin rollers, film flatness is less of an issue with roll film than with full 4X5 sheets, marginally.

Frankly, even the non-pin roller backs worked well. You may want to check with Fred Lustig in Reno Nevada. He was a Graflex employee for a long time and acquired all the Graflex parts when they shut down. He's still active. He installed a bellows for me on a Super a little over a year ago. I don't have his number handy but he's listed in the Reno telephone listings.

No real down sides, plus you get perspective controls on your roll film. Some say this isn't a huge plus, but on a vertical for foreground/background focus, you can see the difference. Also, it certainly makes a difference to have rise/fall for verticals on architecture.

Also, regarding sheet film handling. One of the solutions to be able to shoot 4X5 without the handling, cleaning and loading issues of individual sheets and holders is to use preloaded film envelopes called Readyloads by Kodak and Quickloads by Fuji. They each made holders for the envelopes. All the Readyload holders had issues until the last model, called the Readyload Professional, which had indents in the sides for Graflok tabs and a spring loaded pressure plate and best of all, no light leaks. The Fuji Quickload backs have always been very good, and take all the film envelopes, as did the last Readyload Professional. The ready/quick loads also do not require dark for loading and usually eliminate the dust problem and fastidious cleaning needed in regular film holders.

I have a Readyload Professional and use both the Kodak and Fuji envelopes with no problems. There is also a Polaroid back that can use the Kodak/Fuji envelopes. Best option is the latest Fuji Quickload back when you can find them. The rumored misbehavior on the early Kodak holders usually keeps the price down on the Readyload Professional Kodak back with it's improved function.

You can still find a few emulsions in the pre-loaded envelope system. Best advantage of the Ready/Quickloads is that you never touch the film. If you don't process your own film, you simply take/mail the envelopes in for processing. The dark slide is part of the envelope, at the time of capture and then closing it again until processing takes place.

 

[Carterofmars]

Also, regarding sheet film handling. One of the solutions to be able to shoot 4X5 without the handling, cleaning and loading issues of individual sheets and holders is to use preloaded film envelopes called Readyloads by Kodak and Quickloads by Fuji. They each made holders for the envelopes. All the Readyload holders had issues until the last model, called the Readyload Professional, which had indents in the sides for Graflok tabs and a spring loaded pressure plate and best of all, no light leaks. The Fuji Quickload backs have always been very good, and take all the film envelopes, as did the last Readyload Professional. The ready/quick loads also do not require dark for loading and usually eliminate the dust problem and fastidious cleaning needed in regular film holders.

I have a Readyload Professional and use both the Kodak and Fuji envelopes with no problems. There is also a Polaroid back that can use the Kodak/Fuji envelopes. Best option is the latest Fuji Quickload back when you can find them. The rumored misbehavior on the early Kodak holders usually keeps the price down on the Readyload Professional Kodak back with it's improved function.

You can still find a few emulsions in the pre-loaded envelope system. Best advantage of the Ready/Quickloads is that you never touch the film. If you don't process your own film, you simply take/mail the envelopes in for processing. The dark slide is part of the envelope, at the time of capture and then closing it again until processing takes place.

Wow, this is really interesting and I think I may start dusting off the Super Speed! Regarding the Fuji Quickload backs: what is a fair price for one of these in your opinion?

I'm a little excited here.

And, the quality of the image produced is the same as if using traditional sheet?

How about focusing? The drawback is not having the big ground glass. Too bad I'll not have the feel of composing on the glass. Or will I still have that option? Do all my composing and focusing and then final step of inserting the Quickload back and exposing.

 

[venchka]

However, Kodak no longer makes ReadyLoads. Fuji may have stopped making QuickLoads as well. Investigate before moving forward. At $5 ea., or less, and reuseable, a dozen or so holders will last a lifetime. Loading/unloading is easy. Individual exposure and development for each sheet makes sheet film much better.

 

[Spavinaw]

Sure you can use a Graphic roll film back. If you have a Super Speed Graphic with the original 1000 shutter then you have a 135mm lens. If you get a 6X9 eight exposure back, the normal lens should be about 100mm. Therefore, with your 135mm lens you will have a slight telephoto effect. A 90mm lens for your camera would cure this. If you get a Graphic or equivalent Singer back, try to get one with a lever wind rather than knob wind. The lever wind models have a couple of extra small rollers in the film path that are said to help keep the film flatter. I understand a few of the knob wind models also have these rollers, but you have to look at one to be sure. Anyway, the main difference obviously is you will have a smaller negative to work with if not using the full 4X5. There are probably other differences, but I think size is the biggie (pardon the pun).

 

[Spavinaw]

The roll film back has a dark slide. Focus on ground glass with hooded back in place. Remove hooded back. Attach roll film back. Remove dark slide. Take picture. Insert dark slide. Remove roll film back. Replace hooded back. Repeat!

 

[Carterofmars]

However, Kodak no longer makes ReadyLoads. Fuji may have stopped making QuickLoads as well. Investigate before moving forward. At $5 ea., or less, and reuseable, a dozen or so holders will last a lifetime. Loading/unloading is easy. Individual exposure and development for each sheet makes sheet film much better.

This important. A little less excited now 🙁

I have to find out if these have been discontinued or not. The holders are roughly 40 bucks I'm seeing. It will be worth it to me anyway. I just want to experience this graphic just once.

For years I wanted a Toyo Field 45A. If I thought holders like this would be around for a while longer I wouldn't hesitate getting one.

I can't believe that something as beautiful as large Format photography could be in danger of extinction. Does the whole world want instant gratification from an iPhone!!! There must be millions that would want to pursue large format (or and medium format for that matter). Frankly you have to be wealthy to pursue digital medium format.

 

[kuzano]

Very broad subject here....

Very broad subject here....

1) I rarely pay attention to the "availability of film" issues. I am not a professional, so I can pretty much wait until "found" film is available. For instance, I purchased 160 envelopes of quick and readyload on eBay for $120 plus shipping. Many different emulsions, many expired but kept frozen, etc. If I get one out of five keepers I'm in the ball park of purchasing new. HOWEVER, my rate of success on using dated film successfully is considerably higher than that. I look for sellers on eBay who have considerable feedback at 99.5% or better.

2) The Toyo 45A is one of my favorites. The 45A in good user condition has sold in the $500 $600 area for the last 5 plus years. I purchased one for $225 on craigslist in near mint condition. Just sold it to a buyer in the Federation of Russia for $500 plus shipping

3) LF is going to be around for some time. Prices on equipment are steady and actually rising in ULF (11X14 and up). New LF cameras are being constantly produced even now... Shen Hao, Chamonix and many of the better known names. Demand is good.

4) Caution is good, but there's still plenty of time to enjoy the benefits of LF... ie image quality and the joy of the art.

5) Most people will piss away enough money to enjoy LF photography on many other less rewarding pastimes.

6) While the envelope films may not work out for you, sheet film is really not as big an issue as you are "projecting in your mind".

7) There is still the roll film advantage. Focus on the roll film back using the ground glass is the same as for 4X5 or larger. You use a loupe to magnify for focus. You are just using it within the frame lines of the 6X9. Focus on the ground glass, lock the camera movements down, including focus, slide the film holder (even the quick/ready loads) under the ground glass, or in the case of the Rollfilm holder, remove the gg attachment and insert the holder (same with roll film holder), pull the slide, take the shot, re-insert the slide. This, of course presumes the other steps, meter, set shutter/aperture, compensate if need be, etc.

8) You asked before about quality of image... roll film vs. sheet/envelope 4X5. None other than variations in differing emulsions. None other than the evident difference in a small negative vs a large one.

Yes, it's a tricky time to make these film decisions, but I think its going to be around a long time, but will be changing.

I've never been a one emulsion, or even a half dozen emulsion person. There's probably not one film I would say I will never shoot again. Furthermore, I will never be the kind of person who whines that film is dead because they quit making/processing Kodachrome.

Part of the allure of film photography for me is the need to resolve issues like changing emulsions.

NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT, DIGITAL CAPTURE IS STILL CHANGING THE RULES FASTER THAN DIMINISHING FILM CHOICES. PARTICULARLY IN THE POST PROCESSING REALM.

Here is a link to a large format forum that will answer many questions for you. Your roll film questions won't be as popular on this forum, since it's not quite large format. However you will find out whatever you want to know about LF cameras, movements, etc, on the larger home site of this link:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/search.php?searchid=4694026

And back to the Toyo. If you are careful in selection of a 45A, you will have a good camera, with excellent capabilities that I am sure you can retrieve your money from over the next couple of years. I've bought and sold about ten of them in the last five years and always broke even or made a profit.

I wish I hadn't sold the last one, but I made $275 on it. Now, keeping eyes out for another one, or any Super Graphic. I have a Super that I stripped down to about 4 pounds and kept all the movements. That's as close to a Toyo field camera that I can get.

SPECIAL NOTE....
There are 12 sellers right now on eBay with just Fuji Quickload film. There is a Quickload holder on a Buy It Now for $39.95. Two years ago Fuji Quickload holders easily sold for $100, and new ones still do. There are currently 27 sellers of Kodak Readyload (lots of Ektachrome) Various B&W in both mfr listings.

 

[Carterofmars]

I found this very interesting string on film and it's longevity or lack thereof.

It's on the same forum suggested by Kuzano: Large Format Photography. I've been a member since 2009 but only 5 posts 🙁

Kuzano: I saw those holders on eBay and I'm going to purchase one with some film. Now I need a sufficient tripod. Under 300.00 hopefully. I have a post under hardware inquiring about good tripods for medium format RF'ers. Maybe I'll just get a big one to support Large format and Medium format.

Always wanted to shoot LF.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

"There must be millions that would want to pursue large format"

Although I love 4x5 (and have several 4x5 cameras), there have never been "millions" who shot large format. They are inconvenient to shoot and the film is inconvenient to process. The results are beautiful, though.

Give the 120 back a try. It will give you the large format experience with much easier processing.

 

[Carterofmars]

1)

And back to the Toyo. If you are careful in selection of a 45A, you will have a good camera, with excellent capabilities that I am sure you can retrieve your money from over the next couple of years. I've bought and sold about ten of them in the last five years and always broke even or made a profit.

What do you think of the JUNGWOO 45 4X5 FIELD CAMERA ?

 

[kuzano]

Jungwoo....

Jungwoo....

What do you think of the JUNGWOO 45 4X5 FIELD CAMERA ?

The seller on eBay selling the Jungwoo camera seem quite good. He sells a lot of Toyo's. The Jungwoo looks more like it's modeled more after one of the technical cameras.

I don't know the camera and have never seen one. I guess I'd be tempted for ending prices in the same ball park, I'd opt for the Toyo. However, that's a personal bias for me. I'd seriously wonder, even if the Jungwoo was less expensive, if I could recover my money on resale. I've only seen a handful of the Jungwoo's listed and from Korea.

For a less expensive camera, I find the Super Graphics a bargain considering the movements included. A good complete, fully operational Super Graphic can run $400 to $500, but usually with a lens/shutter of the era. A run out user Super (the kind I often strip down) with a good bellows can be had for $200 to $250.

But then you have one of those.

Frankly, I have never used a Super Graphic handheld with rangefinder focus and not likely to. I'm comfortable with tripod shooting and having a camera a bit lighter.

 

[venchka]

I always buy film from users on film forums. Cold stored, good to go, haf of retail new price. Last buy was 100 sheets of HP5 for $45. My 24 holders were all in the $5 range. My Pacemaker Speed Graphic with a super sharp 127mm Ektar lens & 5 holders was $100.
Stop fretting. Just do it.

 

[Carterofmars]

Stop fretting. Just do it.

I know.... 🙂

I'm looking at my Super Speed Graphic's lens: 135mm Optar Rodenstock. A bit dusty. Is this lens worth a CLA?

 

[Mr_Flibble]

I use a Graphic 23 roll film holder on my 4x5 Anniversary Speed Graphic and don't recall ever having an issue with film flatness.
127mm f/4.7 Ektar with Ilford XP2 film sample

 

[kuzano]

Film flatness is for the very picky....

Film flatness is for the very picky....

I use a Graphic 23 roll film holder on my 4x5 Anniversary Speed Graphic and don't recall ever having an issue with film flatness.
127mm f/4.7 Ektar with Ilford XP2 film sample

Sorry, it wasn't my intent to point out film flatness as any significant issue. It's somewhat like "pixel peekers" with digital.

For the most part, sheet film and roll film don't exhibit significant differences pertaining to film flatness, but some people can be rather "anal" about it. As far as I know, the best backs for flattening the rolls out of medium format are K style backs (S curve) on the Mamiya Press camera's, because of the reversing of the roll in the film path, and the long path. However, one has to be really particular to find film flatness issues in MF film usage.

My intent was to point out the addition of the pin rollers to serve toward further flattening of the film. If there were absolutely no flatness issues, why add the rollers?

 

[Mr_Flibble]

My apologies, my comment was not aimed at you Kuzano. It was meant as a general comment directed at Carterofmars. That he does not need to worry too much about using roll film holders.

I assume the film flatness issue only really comes into play with a very shallow DOF like when using the SG for macro photography.

 

[sevo]

I use some of the later XL roll film holders with other cameras (RB67, Plaubel Makiflex) - these are my only Graflock 220 holders. Not up to the build quality and class of the Mamiya RB holders, but that is a matter of comfort that does not affect the images they produce. If there were sharpness issues, these must have been dealt with by that holder generation.

 

[Carterofmars]

Also, regarding sheet film handling. One of the solutions to be able to shoot 4X5 without the handling, cleaning and loading issues of individual sheets and holders is to use preloaded film envelopes called Readyloads by Kodak and Quickloads by Fuji. .

So I'm clear, I can use either the Readyloads or Quickloads with a Fuji Quickload holder?

Thanks

 

[sevo]

So I'm clear, I can use either the Readyloads or Quickloads with a Fuji Quickload holder?

No. The Quickload I and II holder hold only Quickloads.

Both were invented to fit the Polaroid 545 holders which were back then standard in every studio - these are the only ones I've ever owned. As far as the dedicated sleeve-only holders are concerned (which are lighter and more compact, but lack the rollers for the - now extinct - Polaroid sheets), Quickloads fit both Kodak and Fuji holders, Readyloads only fit Readyload holders.

See http://www.largeformatphotography.info/holders.html#readyloads for a reference - but some of that page is outdated or questionable, especially references to planarity problems. Many later contributors could not reproduce sharpness issues particular to some system combination - it is more likely that the problems reported back in the earlier days of the systems were due to bad holders or bad film batches.

In any case, there is only QL film still being made, and even that is hard to get. Kodak killed the last remains of the Readyload system more than three years ago, and by now it is history long enough that unexpired ones are getting hard to find.

Quite a few Fuji films are still available in Quickload, but you'll usually have to order them directly from Japan (e.g. from japanexposures), as most (or even all?) Fuji branches abroad don't carry them any more.