Does anyone still make "pack-film" for 4x5 ?

[Luddite Frank]

Just picked-up a nice 4x5 Super Graphic over the holidays, which came with several Riteway holders and two film-pack adapters.

Does anyone still make pack-film in 4x5 ? Will it work in Kodak holders ?


Thanks ! 😎

Luddite Frank

 

[sevo]

No, not since the eighties.

 

[Morca007]

Which holders are they? Fuji makes peel-apart 4x5 for use in the 550 holder, and you can use the smaller fuji packs in the 405 holder.

 

[sevo]

Which holders are they? Fuji makes peel-apart 4x5 for use in the 550 holder, and you can use the smaller fuji packs in the 405 holder.

Instant pack film is a different beast that needs entirely different holders. Ages ago, you could buy sheet film in packs as well.

 

[venchka]

All of the above is true. Any make or model numbers on the holders?

 

[Luddite Frank]

All of the above is true. Any make or model numbers on the holders?

They are:

"Graphic Film Pack Adapter". cat. no. 1234(?)


Thanks,

LF

 

[Luddite Frank]

See revision to previous post.

Thanks !

LF

 

[venchka]

A paperweight. Relic from a bygone era. I recall a job once when I was in the US Army. Develop and contact 3000+ sheets of Tri-X film packs. Yuck!

 

[oftheherd]

A paperweight. Relic from a bygone era. I recall a job once when I was in the US Army. Develop and contact 3000+ sheets of Tri-X film packs. Yuck!

Did you have to extend your enlistment? 😀 😀

 

[spyder2000]

No sheet film packs any more but I have an interesting device - it's a Grafmatic film holder (1268). It has six sheet metal inserts (septums) that it cycles through internally as the user cycles the dark slide. (It numbers them as well unless a prior user removed the number wheel.)

Deliberate double exposing requires you make both exposures sequentially (without operating the dark slide) or cycling through all the septums to get back the one you want.

 

[Dwig]

Instant pack film is a different beast that needs entirely different holders. Ages ago, you could buy sheet film in packs as well.

Its true that the Polaroid film packs are a different size than the standard film packs, but the film pack format was the design inspiration for the Polaroid pack.

Film packs held 12 or 16 sheets of roll film thickness film, each with a long paper tongue. You changed sheets by pulling the tongue out which moved the film exactly the way pulling the white tab does on the classic Polaroid pack. The difference was that you didn't get the second yellow and black tab to pull the film and print sheet through the processing rollers, which didn't exist. The exposed sheet just stayed at the back and the next shot was taken.

When all were exposed, you opened the pack in the dark, removed the stub of the paper tongue, and processed the sheets. Some people would "rob the pack" to remove a few exposed sheets before the whole pack had been exposed, but this was poor practice, problems with film flatness on the remaining shots would be common.

The standard film size/packaging numbers were 520, 522, and 523 for the 2-1/4 x 3-1.4, 3-1/4 x 4-1/4, and 4x5, sizes respectively (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_formats). A pack of Tri-x in 4x5 would thus be marked TX523, just as 35mm Tri-X in the standard cassette becomes TX135, where 135 designates that the film is in the standard cassette.

 

[vdonovan]

Dwig, thanks for this background. As you describe it, the Polaroid pack film cartridge was clearly inspired by the sheet film pack. It's nice to get some insight into Edwin Land's design process. I'm a big user of Fuji Instant pack film and each time I burn a shot I admire the power and simplicity of the system.

Its true that the Polaroid film packs are a different size than the standard film packs, but the film pack format was the design inspiration for the Polaroid pack.

Film packs held 12 or 16 sheets of roll film thickness film, each with a long paper tongue. You changed sheets by pulling the tongue out which moved the film exactly the way pulling the white tab does on the classic Polaroid pack. The difference was that you didn't get the second yellow and black tab to pull the film and print sheet through the processing rollers, which didn't exist. The exposed sheet just stayed at the back and the next shot was taken.

When all were exposed, you opened the pack in the dark, removed the stub of the paper tongue, and processed the sheets. Some people would "rob the pack" to remove a few exposed sheets before the whole pack had been exposed, but this was poor practice, problems with film flatness on the remaining shots would be common.

The standard film size/packaging numbers were 520, 522, and 523 for the 2-1/4 x 3-1.4, 3-1/4 x 4-1/4, and 4x5, sizes respectively (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_formats). A pack of Tri-x in 4x5 would thus be marked TX523, just as 35mm Tri-X in the standard cassette becomes TX135, where 135 designates that the film is in the standard cassette.

 

[venchka]

Grafmatics are alive and well. When all is right with them, they are great. Cost about $75, give or take. Beware of missing/bent/ septums-the metal part that holds each sheet of film. 6 sheets total. Each sheet numbered 1 to 6. A very good way to carry some color film in an otherwise B&W world. Or the other way round.

 

[Nokton48]

I still have some Graflex Film Packs. It was a pain to develop the sheets, because it was as thin as regular roll film, but in the sheet sizes. There was alot of film curl along one edge because of this, and the image was pretty unacceptably soft along this edge, due to the film curl, as it went around the pack.

Grafmatic backs work with regular sheet film (without those problems) and work just great. Graflex Bag Mags are the same idea, just earlier design. Both work well.