ARCHIVIST
Well-known
I am still concerned about the use of non-Graflex backs on my Century Graphic.
I like the finish and build of the Horseman backs (later style). Can anyone tell me for sure if the film plane is in the same position as the Graflex backs - in other words is it correctly aligned?
I would very much like to use the later style Horseman backs.
Regards
Peter
I like the finish and build of the Horseman backs (later style). Can anyone tell me for sure if the film plane is in the same position as the Graflex backs - in other words is it correctly aligned?
I would very much like to use the later style Horseman backs.
Regards
Peter
FrankS
Registered User
Hi Peter,
I've used a 6x9 Linhof roll film back on my 4x5 Speed with no issues. Mind you, I was taking landscape shots at mid apertures, nothing close-up and wide-open where a discrepancy would manifest itself.
I've used a 6x9 Linhof roll film back on my 4x5 Speed with no issues. Mind you, I was taking landscape shots at mid apertures, nothing close-up and wide-open where a discrepancy would manifest itself.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
It should be perfect fit and register. Why, after all, would anyone depart from this?
On the other hand, there are sometimes variations, as a result of sloppy manufacture. I'd be inclined to trust both Graphic and Horseman on this, and have cheerfully swapped MPP, Horseman and Calumet backs on a wide variety of 4x5 cameras. Graphic rollfilm backs, less cheerfully: they are really not very nice.
Cheers,
R.
On the other hand, there are sometimes variations, as a result of sloppy manufacture. I'd be inclined to trust both Graphic and Horseman on this, and have cheerfully swapped MPP, Horseman and Calumet backs on a wide variety of 4x5 cameras. Graphic rollfilm backs, less cheerfully: they are really not very nice.
Cheers,
R.
ARCHIVIST
Well-known
Thanks guys.
I thought I had the Graflex backs mastered until the flatness issue manifested itself right in the middle of the frame!
I will bite the bullet anf buy a Horseman back, later style, and see how it goes.
I showed my little Century to a friend over a birthday drink and she said "oh, I was given one of these 20 years ago, still have it - I'll never use it - would you like it?" So, I obtained another Century. It had a Schneider Angulon 65mm on it. What a nice birthday it was.
Regards
Peter
I thought I had the Graflex backs mastered until the flatness issue manifested itself right in the middle of the frame!
I will bite the bullet anf buy a Horseman back, later style, and see how it goes.
I showed my little Century to a friend over a birthday drink and she said "oh, I was given one of these 20 years ago, still have it - I'll never use it - would you like it?" So, I obtained another Century. It had a Schneider Angulon 65mm on it. What a nice birthday it was.
Regards
Peter
erik
Established
The Horseman backs work great, I've used both 6x9 and 6x12 backs, no problems. You will see a marked improvement in flatness with these. RB backs work great too, if you want a 6x7. Go with confidence.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Peter,
Flatness is a bar steward with ANY rollfilm back, especially if you have left the film in the camera long enough to acquire a 'set', e.g. overnight. You have to assume that the first 'wound on' frame may be at risk, i.e. if you're on frame 4 and wound on last night, frame 5 is at risk.
Some backs are much better than others, with Graflex easily the worst. Zeiss did a lot of research on this, and I think Linhof backs came off best, but I don't remember.
Cheers,
R.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Old Linhof roll film backs have a Z-shaped film feed where the positive and negative bending cancel out, provided that you don't leave the film in there to set - they are excellent in regular professional use where a roll won't last for more than a few minutes, but for casual use they might be even worse than less complex film holders.
The more modern slide-under Linhof and Sinar roll film backs made from the late seventies on are as free from flatness issues as possible - but given that they were (and often still are) more expensive than a Hasselblad body complete with 120 mag, that should be expected. These feed the film straight off the spool and only bend the film after it has passed the exposure window, so they are immune against the film setting around any rollers.
Reasonably contemporary "international" sheet film holders do not really interfere with planarity, unless the holders are worn or warped - their fundamental design had to hold 8x10" flat, and the 4x5" versions are nowhere near the limits of the principle. Loading habits (don't make bends or creases in the film) are more likely to pop the film out of plane. Besides, some cheap sheet film types come on thin acetate with a weak backing and have a tendency to bend in adverse weather - you may need high-grade strong Estar based film in extreme climates.
The more modern slide-under Linhof and Sinar roll film backs made from the late seventies on are as free from flatness issues as possible - but given that they were (and often still are) more expensive than a Hasselblad body complete with 120 mag, that should be expected. These feed the film straight off the spool and only bend the film after it has passed the exposure window, so they are immune against the film setting around any rollers.
Reasonably contemporary "international" sheet film holders do not really interfere with planarity, unless the holders are worn or warped - their fundamental design had to hold 8x10" flat, and the 4x5" versions are nowhere near the limits of the principle. Loading habits (don't make bends or creases in the film) are more likely to pop the film out of plane. Besides, some cheap sheet film types come on thin acetate with a weak backing and have a tendency to bend in adverse weather - you may need high-grade strong Estar based film in extreme climates.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Also Calumet, but the very long leader always makes it a bit nerve-wracking to load 'em as far as I am concerned: the beginning of the film is getting parlous close to daylight by the time the tongue is in the take-up spool.
Even then, film flatness ain't brilliant in any RF back. There's too much variation in film/paper sandwich thickness, and the rolling of the film itself introduces bowing. Humidity and temperature matter too. Alpa is conviced that it's better to take a strip out of the middle of a 6x9 back than to use a 6x12 back, simply because 6x9 can be held a lot flatter.
In practice, though, it's one of those things you can get too excited about. I've very, very seldom had problems, but then, I always shoot 2-off whenever possible. When I was an assistant my gaffer pointed out that half a roll of film is cheap insurance against processing marks, subject movement, etc.
Cheers,
R.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
ARCHIVIST
Well-known
This is fantastic information. Thank you all.
I will consider the Mamiya backs but my love of 6x9 may win out and I feel that I will buy two Horseman 6x9 RF backs of the later type.
Regards
Peter
I will consider the Mamiya backs but my love of 6x9 may win out and I feel that I will buy two Horseman 6x9 RF backs of the later type.
Regards
Peter