graywolf
Well-known
The very thin films were in the 16 exposure packs, thinking about it they were probably intended to be developed in the 70's version of the Kodak B&W Versimat Processor. those were mounted in the darkroom wall, you fed your sheet film into it and it came out on the lightroom side processed and dry. Those were about $10,000 in 1970 dollars, or what ($100,000) of today's dollars? The polyester film was so thin that if it had been celuloide film would have torn easily.
I just posted a couple of photos on the blog where you can see how a film pack is constructed:
http://graywolfphoto.com/journal/2015/01/18/film-pack-construction/
The film in that 12 exposure film pack of Plus X is about the same as 120 Plus X film in thickness. About 1/3rd the thickness of regular 4x5 film, thin but not unhandily thin.
The sheets in the film pack are 101mm x 135mm, while the regular 4x5 Plus X in my file are 99mm x 125mm.
I wonder why I have such a hard time finding this info on the web and had to waste $20 to get it? The pack of film certainly looked shootable.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Tom, thanks for all the info. It does look doable, though the film thickness could be an issue. Unless you wanted to shoot Arista's ortho litho film, which has a thinner base than standard sheet film, but comes in standard 4x5 size; being ortho, you could cut it down to size as needed in the darkroom under safelights.
~Joe
~Joe
mbisc
Silver Halide User
I think folks that regularly go backpacking or out traveling with their 4x5 (and dearly miss readyloads etc.) would be a good audience, assuming the technical details can be worked out (e.g. I would want regular film stock, even if that means only 8-10 shots per pack). Kickstarter is a good way to find out if there is a market, as the folks from Wanderlust Camera, Ferrania & New55 have found out...
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
I would love to see film packs for lf rangefinders come back. Unfortunately I think you are looking at a very, very small market. Not only does your customer need to shoot 4x5 large format film, they need to want to shoot it like a press photographer from the 30s, 40s and 50s would have. There are only a very few of us who are foolish enough to waste that kind of money shooting large format film like a 6x4.5 medium format.
I have shot old, expired TriX in 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 inch press packs but I have never been fortunate enough to find it in 4x5.
I used to have a converted Polaroid 110B which was essentially a hand-held 4x5 rangefinder. Never was a hassle using regular film holders, since the rest of the camera was just so easy to use.
graywolf
Well-known
I just stole a sheet from the pack and tried loading it into my daylight tanks (CombiPlan & Federal), it slid in slick as can be. Actually it is easier to load than the stiffer regular 4x5 film.
That is exactly as I remember it. The film in the 12 exposure packs is nothing like the stuff in the 16 exposure packs.
99.9% (of the 0.01% who are still using film) of the people out there are not interested. You do not have to tell me you are one of them, only if you are interested.
That is exactly as I remember it. The film in the 12 exposure packs is nothing like the stuff in the 16 exposure packs.
99.9% (of the 0.01% who are still using film) of the people out there are not interested. You do not have to tell me you are one of them, only if you are interested.
graywolf
Well-known
For a reality check, people are trying to sell TXP 16x Packs for $49.95. Old, 50 year out dated, Plux-X 12-expose packs seem to be going for about $20.
I was hoping that I could produce new 12x film 4x5 packs of 400 speed B&W for about the same as a 25 pack of B&W 4x5 goes for. That is for 12x exposures that are daylight loadable, and removable from the camera and about the same size as one 2 sheet film holder.
You could shoot each of those 12 exposures twice as fast as could one shot from a standard film holder, because you only have to have the dark slide in to remove the film pack adapter. It would be quite easy to shoot up the whole pack in a minute if you had to.
With the film packs a press camera becomes handier to use than most medium format cameras.
I was hoping that I could produce new 12x film 4x5 packs of 400 speed B&W for about the same as a 25 pack of B&W 4x5 goes for. That is for 12x exposures that are daylight loadable, and removable from the camera and about the same size as one 2 sheet film holder.
You could shoot each of those 12 exposures twice as fast as could one shot from a standard film holder, because you only have to have the dark slide in to remove the film pack adapter. It would be quite easy to shoot up the whole pack in a minute if you had to.
With the film packs a press camera becomes handier to use than most medium format cameras.
mbisc
Silver Halide User
I'd be in, and exactly for the reasons I stated before: I don't need the shooting speed of 12 sheets per minute 
, but for the dramatically lower weight & bulk when travelling or backpacking. Together with my (future) Travelwide 90, I'd have a true P&S 4x5
, but for the dramatically lower weight & bulk when travelling or backpacking. Together with my (future) Travelwide 90, I'd have a true P&S 4x5 sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Ignoring the costs involved in procuring the needed materials and tools, and assuming that you somehow get started: What do you hope to make, per hour, working in total darkness? Kodak supposedly dropped the last packs from their catalogue when the last employees who could load them retired, so there obviously are massive skills involved.
graywolf
Well-known
I believe that the blind ladies, and the scuttlebutt was there were three of them, only did the final assembly of the the film packs. I just wrote the following for a friend that is interested:
"Now I imagine that Kodak et al cut the production rolls into strips, then loaded 12 strip rolls into a machine along with the backing paper, Then those machines fed a backing paper cut off 135mm of film, automatically ran a strip of glue on the sheet of film and feed it on to the backing paper 12 at a time, then piled one on top of the other. The blind ladies working in the dark put the safety paper into the box, then the pile of 12 glued paper and film strips into the box, laid the backing plate with spring on top of them, folded the paper over the backing plate assembly and closed the box. The metal box was then sealed into the light tight foil and the foil package put into the retail box."
As the story goes Kodak made the 523 (4x5) Film Packs until the aging ladies reached retirement age, then ceased production. 2-1/4x3-1/4 and 3-1/4x4-1/2 were dropped in 1976 (the other sizes except 4x5 were dropped in 1946) according to the film Wiki. The 4x5 about 10-12 years later. As far as I know Kodak was the only company still making Film Packs at that time.
Considering that Kodak probably had to sell 10,000 Film Packs a year to make a profit, it is a wonder that they continued making them that long. Remember that 4x5 went out as a news camera about 1955 or so. So likely the only ones buying many film packs after that was the military.
The question is can 500 to 1000 4x5 Film Packs a year be sold to us die hard film users? One of the problems is that there are enough people around that remember the super thin film that was used in the 16x packs (which came out about 1970) who never used a 12x pack who bad mouth film packs loudly. From all accounts they were right, it was miserable stuff to work with, I think it was brought out trying to compete with 35mm that had 36x available. I remember the 72x Ilford Autowinder 35mm film from the same period on the same film base. It was about as thick as lens cleaning tissue, I quickly decided that carrying two SLR bodies was preferable to using the Autowinder film.
HOWEVER, the 12x Film Pack stuff was not like that! It was on the same film stock as 120 film is. As I said in the above post, I tried a sheet from the 12x Film Pack and it loads easier into the developing tank than regular 4x5 does, just as I remembered it from the 1960's. Stiff enough to work with, but not too stiff.
oftheherd
Veteran
The last time I remember developing 4x5 film packs was in the photography portion of an investigative school I was in while in the US Army. I didn't find it an problem. I don't remember any feeling that the film was uncomfortably thin. I wanted to use it when I got my Super Press 23, but it was more expensive than roll film due to the cost of the adapter and film so I never jumped.
I don't have a 4x5 RF, but do have 9x12 (and 6x9 non-RF folder) RFs that came with complete or partial film packs. I keep telling myself I should use up the partials and develop them, but haven't convinced myself to do so yet.
I would not be interested in 4x5 film packs myself, but I might be in 9x12. However, I would consider that even less likely than film packs in 4x5.
Good luck for all those that wish for 4x5 film packs. It could be a fun nostalgic trip. I just don't see an advantage over cut film holders, at least for my photography.
graywolf
Well-known
Nor do I see any advantage over roll film in the same sizes.
The problem with 9x12, unless your camera is new enough to have a universal back, is that there are many different backs I can not imagine it would be viable to make something for them. On the other hand if it has and international back 4x5 film holders, included the Film Pack Adapter will fit.
One of the advantages of the 4x5 Film Pack Adapter is that it will fit both Grafloc/International backs and 4x5 spring backs.
BTW. Linhof at one time made 5" aerial roll film backs, about like a giant 70mm back. I ain't seen any for sale though.
The problem with 9x12, unless your camera is new enough to have a universal back, is that there are many different backs I can not imagine it would be viable to make something for them. On the other hand if it has and international back 4x5 film holders, included the Film Pack Adapter will fit.
One of the advantages of the 4x5 Film Pack Adapter is that it will fit both Grafloc/International backs and 4x5 spring backs.
BTW. Linhof at one time made 5" aerial roll film backs, about like a giant 70mm back. I ain't seen any for sale though.
oftheherd
Veteran
I agree film packs for 9x12 coming back are unlikely. If someone figures out a way to reuse any I would be interested as I have two in 9x12 and one in 6x9. But it would only be for nostalgia as I have about 25 usable cut film holders and 3 or 4 that need the film inserts. I just haven't gotten around to having inserts made.
Other than physical size of the holders, I only know of two types of holders. The majority of those I have a thin slit on each side of the back of the camera, and the holders fit into that based on a thin tab down each side of the holder. I also have a film pack holder and 3 or 4 cut film holders which have very thick sides and must fit into a much larger slit down the sides of the back of the camera. I don't know what cameras they fit.
All of the brands of 9x12 I have take the holder with the thin tabs down the side. I have Agfa, Bee Bee, Voigtlander, Zeiss, Kodak, and maybe one or two other brands. Holders I have are Zeiss, Voigtlander, some French of some kind, and maybe 2 or 3 others, but I don't have them in front of me so I don't remember. Most are the same size, but I do have some very short ones that still seem to fit.
I have asked before, but if anyone knows what cameras the 'larger' sided holders fit, I would appreciate knowing.
graywolf
Well-known
A thought. I can see no real reason for view camera users to be interested in Film Packs. I mean they leisurely take one shot at a time. That means the extra time to replace the dark slide, flip the holder over, and remove the other dark slide is not a problem.
But for us who use rangefinder cameras handheld, all that time may mean missing the next shot. Also we can change the Film Packs just by removing the completed one and putting a new one in the adapter without having to remove the adapter (if you have replaced the ground glass back with the adapter), quicker than you could change a roll of film.
But for us who use rangefinder cameras handheld, all that time may mean missing the next shot. Also we can change the Film Packs just by removing the completed one and putting a new one in the adapter without having to remove the adapter (if you have replaced the ground glass back with the adapter), quicker than you could change a roll of film.
graywolf
Well-known
After a bit of work I have loaded a short video on youtube showing how the Film Packs work. Be sure to watch the last 30 seconds or so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkYB7F2KUzw&feature=youtu.be
Be aware that I have a lot to learn about making "good" videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkYB7F2KUzw&feature=youtu.be
Be aware that I have a lot to learn about making "good" videos.
oftheherd
Veteran
Thanks. I had forgotten that it was necessary to tear the paper as opposed to just pulling it out all the way. But I think I mentioned before I haven't used film packs since about 1967.
graywolf
Well-known
I do not know from experience, but I was told, back in the day, that if you did not tear off the tabs; you could get light leakage form the hanging tabs spreading the light trap open.
wcarroll
Newbie
I appreciate all of the information on the film packs. I've never used a film pack since they are a bit before my time, but my father used them with his Speed Graphic. I still have his Graflex film pack adapter and even a couple of very old but still-sealed film packs. So, I have been curious about how they work. A while back I was scanning some of his negatives and found that some of them would not fit into the scanner's film holder without trimming. I now know that these negatives came from a film pack! I don't recall being annoyed by the negatives being thinner, only that they required trimming.
It would be interesting to see what results come from shooting and processing one of the old NOS film packs. And I do believe that there would be some interest in newly-produced packs. I would definitely give them a try if they were newly made. That said, I also have a Grafmatic to try which serves a very similar purpose.
It would be interesting to see what results come from shooting and processing one of the old NOS film packs. And I do believe that there would be some interest in newly-produced packs. I would definitely give them a try if they were newly made. That said, I also have a Grafmatic to try which serves a very similar purpose.
oftheherd
Veteran
That makes sense. It has been so long I just assumed when you pulled them, the paper came out altogether. At least that is what I thought I remembered. I last used film packs in late 1967. Before that I used a few with my father's 9x12 in late 1957-early 1960, but mostly with the 9x12, I used 828 film with an adapter my father made from a cheap plastic camera and peg board type material (no holes of course).
47 years on with little use even then, small details are easily forgotten.
graywolf
Well-known
Nope, the tabs are 3.5 inches wide the film and backing 4 inches. That leaves a 1/4 inch shoulder on each side that stop them from pulling out of the housing. The guys who designed these Film Packs back around 1900 sure knew what they were doing. It is truly elegant engineering.
Corran
Well-known
Tom, if you are really interested in pursuing this, I would highly suggest making a thread over at the Large Format Photography Forum and a poll to boot. You might want to figure out the cost and how you'd manufacture them too for the interested.
Frankly I think the # of photographers shooting handheld 4x5, and a lot of it, numbers in the dozens or maybe a hundred or so tops, but I could be wrong. Hence the poll. Even then they might not be interested despite their shooting habits, like me.
Personally I have over 1000 sheets in my freezer so I wouldn't be even thinking about it before I shot all of that!
Frankly I think the # of photographers shooting handheld 4x5, and a lot of it, numbers in the dozens or maybe a hundred or so tops, but I could be wrong. Hence the poll. Even then they might not be interested despite their shooting habits, like me.
Personally I have over 1000 sheets in my freezer so I wouldn't be even thinking about it before I shot all of that!