Film Loaded & Thoughts About Film Packs

[graywolf]

Just got 25 sheets of Arista EDU 100 4x5 loaded, and two outdated film packs on the way.

Let's see, 45 minutes setting up the darkroom and loading the film in into holders, or three minutes to daylight load a film pack? The film pack puts 12 to 16 sheets of film in the space of 2. I think I will save about the same percentage of time unloading holders and loading reels as I do loading film.

I also have a Premo developing tank coming. It is supposed to be the number 2, which I think is for 4x5 film, if not it will be no great loss. I really wanted it to look into making a plastic version of it. They hold 12 sheets tortilla style.

I also want to look into the possibility of making fresh film packs as a cottage industry. I am thinking there may be several ways to go about that. Most likely cheapest would be drop in reloads.

A drop in reload would be the correct sized film taped to the paper tabs, where you would just go in the dark room or changing bag. open an empty film pack and drop in the reload.

Full film packs would require having new metal packs fabricated. That will be quite expensive these days, I am sure.

The third method would be to have plastic film packs made to fit standard 4x5 film, old film packs have slightly larger than 4x5 sheets of film in them. These could be sold assembled, or as a kit with the pack, and paper tabs, while you supply the film. I suspect that it would have to be limited to 8 sheets though instead of 12.

The first two methods would require some minimum order for the special sized film and would only be economical to do one emulsion, probably 400 speed B&W (I would prefer slower, but do not imagine many others would.

Think what it would be like to be able to carry three to six 12 exposure daylight loading packs in your pockets.

So, if it is so great why did they stop making it? Because they wanted to sell 100,000 packs a year, not just a thousand. These days I think most film manufacturers would be glad to sell me 12,000 sheets of film a year, but not be willing to assemble the packs.

This is something I have been thinking about for the last 20 years, but only with crowd financing on the internet has it become doable.

What do you guys think, might you be interested in buying it if I was to make it?

 

[hamradio]

I think the Grafmatic has adequately replaced the pack for those wanting multiple frames in a small package. True, it can't hold as much film, and is a slight bit more of a hassle to load. However, you get normal sheets (not the thin base of pack film). This stuff is too time consuming to process for me to want to burn more than six sheets at a crack, anyway...

 

[Luddite Frank]

Does anyone still use the "Bag Mags", with the leather boot ?

 

[hamradio]

I don't think you can get a bag mag for anything besides a Graflex back, can you?

 

[DNG]

I have been scanning my dads 4 by 5 - and I have noticed that he would use both film packs and sheet film.
I know this because when he used the film packs, that 4 by 5 film had to be trimmed a little bit less than
a quarter of an inch lengthwise to fit in my Epson 4 by 5 holder.

I would think an 8 pack film holder would be popular for people using these cameras.and
I understand why you would use a 400 speed film that speed is popular even with smaller formats.

 

[EdSawyer]

thoughts

thoughts

While it would be cool, Grafmatics are the only realistic choice these days. Film pack film was coated on a thinner base, and more of a pain in the ass to handle as a result. Good luck getting 4x5 coated on that kind of base nowadays. The only feasible option I could even imagine would be if you could still get 5" rollfilm (what packfilm was made from) anymore, and cut it down yourself. 5" rollfilm might still be made - not sure.

 

[graywolf]

A Graphmatic is as thick as a film pack holder. You still have to load it in the dark. And worst, for me, is that they are not very good for hand held shooting as the slide is sticking out six inches when it is ready for shooting; that is not a problem with the camera on a tripod, but it is terribly inconvenient when hand holding the camera.

Loading pack film into tanks, was not a problem for me back in the 12 exposure days. I can imagine the super thin polyester based 16 exposure sheets being a bit of a problem. However, I admit I had left film packs behind by the time they had come out, so never had any experience with the 16 sheet packs.

I read the instructions for the Premo, later Kodak, film tank. It was interesting. "Load the film in the carrier. Drop the carrier into the filled tank. Screw on the lid. Half way through the development invert the tank, ONCE. When the film is developed, remove it from the carrier and finish processing in your regular trays." YEP, that is what it said! Stop bath and hypo in the sheet film trays (grin). I wonder if the stop bath tended to eat up the tin can constructed tanks? I have not received that tank yet, it is going to be interesting to inspect it.

I mention those instruction because a lot of people seem to have problems with sheet film daylight developing tanks. Most of those problem come about because they never read the instructions. Come to think of it most people treat a film developing tank like a cocktail shaker, not a good idea even with 35mm.

I use both the Combi-Plan and the Yankee Agitank, both of which many people say are useless, with no problems. Others use them without problems too.

Ah, well!

 

[newspaperguy]

There was/is a reason that only cut film holders survived! (actually, many reasons.) Basically, every other system has more pain than gain.

Used a lot of film packs shooting sports , back in the day... and vividly recall the PITA of processing that floppy film.

 

[Corran]

I shoot a lot of 4x5, but, wouldn't bother with such a thing myself. I don't have a problem carrying 6-12 DDS holders for a day of shooting, with maybe some of my dwindling Quick/Readyloads for color/additional film sometimes.

 

[Nokton48]

Another issue with filmpack is that there was an unsharp area where the film was "pulled around" the front of holder. So a strip along the edge would be out of focus.

Yes pack film was a PITA to process, due to it's thin nature and general floppiness.

 

[graywolf]

Something is wrong with either my memory, or other folks'. The old 12x stuff from 1960's when I was using it was about like today's Fomapan 120, not all that thin at all. In fact some 4x5 sheet film today is thinner than that.

An unsharp edge where the film was pulled around? Hey, the film does not go around that curve until after it has been exposed.

Well, as I mentioned in another thread, I have some old stock film coming. Hopefully the only problem with be that it is fogged due to old age. I think I will wait until I have that stuff in hand, and I have refreshed my memory, before arguing any further.

 

[x-ray]

While it would be cool, Grafmatics are the only realistic choice these days. Film pack film was coated on a thinner base, and more of a pain in the ass to handle as a result. Good luck getting 4x5 coated on that kind of base nowadays. The only feasible option I could even imagine would be if you could still get 5" rollfilm (what packfilm was made from) anymore, and cut it down yourself. 5" rollfilm might still be made - not sure.

I agree, Grafmatics are a good choice. I usually carry 4 when I go out although I still use conventional holders sometimes.

I never liked film packs because the film was so thin and hard to handle. The only time I used packs was for aerial work.

As mentioned, building and loading your own packs would be a pain and finding film on a thin enough base would be difficult.

Bag mags are ok but can be problematic at times. I had a couple of Graflex SLRs that I had several bag mags for. Regular holders in good shape are hard to find so bag mags are a good alternative if you find good ones. I lucked out and found some near new ones.

Ready load packs from Kodak and Fuji were attempts at conserving weight and space but didn't work too well under humid conditions and cost was high

 

[x-ray]

Something is wrong with either my memory, or other folks'. The old 12x stuff from 1960's when I was using it was about like today's Fomapan 120, not all that thin at all. In fact some 4x5 sheet film today is thinner than that.

An unsharp edge where the film was pulled around? Hey, the film does not go around that curve until after it has been exposed.

Well, as I mentioned in another thread, I have some old stock film coming. Hopefully the only problem with be that it is fogged due to old age. I think I will wait until I have that stuff in hand, and I have refreshed my memory, before arguing any further.

I scanned some of my a aerials shot on TX packs the other fat and it's about the same thickness as 120 PX or TX. It's very thin compared to sheet film. I don't think sheet film could make the bend in transport after exposure.

 

[hamradio]

A Graphmatic is as thick as a film pack holder. You still have to load it in the dark. And worst, for me, is that they are not very good for hand held shooting as the slide is sticking out six inches when it is ready for shooting; that is not a problem with the camera on a tripod, but it is terribly inconvenient when hand holding the camera.

If you push the darkslide back in, it slips behind the septum/sheet of film you're exposing 🙂

I just wish I had a graflok back and could lock the Grafmatic in.

 

[Particular]

I never used a film pack so I can't comment on that.
Quick/Ready loads do not help the OP with hand holding, but they are a real weight saver. I've recently bought some expired quick load film with the intention of trying to reuse the sleeves and load fresh film in them. Perhaps they are not even too hard to recreate.

Better than that would be if the http://new55project.blogspot.com project would make the blank, or even pre-filled sleeves available. Quick loads are very similar to the polaroid 55 sleeves, so if they can make one they can make the other. I believe it has been suggested to them by another member.

 

[x-ray]

Reusable sleeve that work in a Polaroid 4x5 holder or fuji/Kodak holder would be the trick. Something out of black plastic with replaceable parts.

 

[EdSawyer]

The grafmatic slide is never hanging out the side. It's always retracted, either when shooting or afterwards. They are super handy for handheld shooting, that's all I do. If you really want to waste film you can cycle them at the rate of about 1 frame every couple seconds.

 

[sevo]

Does anyone still use the "Bag Mags", with the leather boot ?

I have one bag mag, for the Graflex. But seeing that I also have a Grafmatic for it, and nowadays use a modernized Mentor (with Linhof/Graflok back) as my main LF SLR, I don't think I have used it for years...

 

[graywolf]

Well the film pack adapter with 10 sheets of unexposed film and 2 exposed sheets came in the mail today. The adapter can be used as a grafloc back without the ground glass or like a film holder under the ground glass.

Without the ground glass it turns the camera into a daylight loading film pack camera. With it it works a regular holder, but holds 12 sheets of film instead of 2. I think with practice one could fire off a shot a second if they needed to. Even without practice I can run it through faster than my Sunpak 611 strobe can cycle. I shot a short video to put on my blog, but I have forgotten how to use my editing software, so back to the books before it shows up on the blog.

I also have an unopened film pack that I shall disassemble to see exactly how they are made.

Tomorrow is supposed to be very cold, so it will be a few days before I get to shoot the rest of the film in the partial pack and see how it works out in the dark room.

 

[graywolf]

The grafmatic slide is never hanging out the side. It's always retracted, either when shooting or afterwards. They are super handy for handheld shooting, that's all I do. If you really want to waste film you can cycle them at the rate of about 1 frame every couple seconds.

If that is the case, there was more wrong with the one I had, beyond the obviously missing septum. Luckily I bought it from a brick & mortar store and had no problem retuning it. But I never bother trying another after my experience with that one.