Strange thoughts about roll film holders

[graywolf]

Ok, I said strange thoughts, so here goes.

I was thinking I wanted a roll film holder for my 4x5's. Then, I thought again, and realized that I have a few roll film folding cameras that work real well. They tend to be smaller and lighter than a 120 roll back for a 4x5 camera. It would also be available to use when I did now want to carry the bigger camera around with me.

So why not just drop one of those in my camera bag, and if I find I want to shoot 120 film, just use it?

 

[FPjohn]

Movements? Yours FPJ : )

 

[Spanik]

Accurate framing and focussing? Available focal length?

 

[esearing]

Not so strange. I carried an Agfa Isolette PB20 with 620 spools in my 4x5 kit which only had one speed 1/50th (regardless of which one I used). I would have to transfer the 120 film to the 620 spool in a dark bag.

http://mattsclassiccameras.com/agfa_plenax.html gives a good overview of the one I had

A TLR may be a good alternative too.

 

[bmattock]

Different lenses.

 

[graywolf]

movements: have 4x5 film for that.

framing & focal lengths: ditto.

most likely camera: Hapo 66e (aka Mess Baldix). 120, Pocket sized, light weight, uncoupled range finder. Mine has limited shutter speeds B+ 1/25-1/200. I also have an Iskra, too heavy & bulky, super good lens. My only 6x9 (Kodak Monitor) needs a new bellows. A point here: a decent folding camera seems to cost about the same as that roll holder.

TLR: have Yashiamat, too bulky.

4x5's are the Crown Graphic and a Toyo 45G.

My opinions. No more valid than yours, just an example of my thinking about this.

 

[bmattock]

Why ask when you already have an agenda? Do what you want.

 

[graywolf]

Actually, I did not have an agenda. Those thoughts came from thinking about what you guys said, applied to my own outlook. I just figured it would be interesting to hear others thoughts, as I have never heard it propounded.

And someone may come up with a good reason why or why not.

 

[ww2photog]

I've thought about 6x9 roll film camera with movements, Baby Speed Graphic and Linhoff come to mind that do handheld well. Arca Swiss, Alpa pretty pricey but full movements. Plaubel ProShift seems to be a nice compromise.

 

[Nokton48]

It's funny but I just got in the mail today a wind-knob Graphic 22 back for 4x5.
Cost me all of $35. Why not try one on the Graphic if you are so inclined?
Shooting with a 4x5 Graphic is not the same experience as shooting with a folder.

 

[graywolf]

Well, after a week of thinking about it, the only reason I can see for using a roll film back on a 4x5 for me is if I wanted to shoot color film with movements. To save money in other words.

Next might be if one needed to shoot lots and lots of film, but why carry a 4x5 in that case?

Roll film holders seem to make sense on 6x9 cameras. And (Nokton48) shooting the Graphic is lots of fun, but to me the big negative is part of that. And if a good roll holder crossed my path at that $35, I would buy it too.

With the Graphic I usually carry 6 sheet film holders (12 shots), and no spares. With 120 I usually have the roll in the camera and one spare roll with me. When I did shoot 35mm, and I do have one kit plus lots of color film left, I used to carry 2-3 extra rolls. With the digital cameras I am usually ready to quit after 200 shots, or so... Well, to be honest I do not remember ever shooting 200 shots of a subject in my life.

 

[Tijmendal]

Wouldn't you be able to shoot panoramic photos with the roll film back?

 

[oftheherd]

Well, after a week of thinking about it, the only reason I can see for using a roll film back on a 4x5 for me is if I wanted to shoot color film with movements. To save money in other words.

Next might be if one needed to shoot lots and lots of film, but why carry a 4x5 in that case?

Roll film holders seem to make sense on 6x9 cameras. And (Nokton48) shooting the Graphic is lots of fun, but to me the big negative is part of that. And if a good roll holder crossed my path at that $35, I would buy it too.

With the Graphic I usually carry 6 sheet film holders (12 shots), and no spares. With 120 I usually have the roll in the camera and one spare roll with me. When I did shoot 35mm, and I do have one kit plus lots of color film left, I used to carry 2-3 extra rolls. With the digital cameras I am usually ready to quit after 200 shots, or so... Well, to be honest I do not remember ever shooting 200 shots of a subject in my life.

I have roll film holders for 4x5 and 9x12 (and for 6x9 but for 129 film) but seldom use them. To me the advantages of roll film holders are that if I want a bigger negative than 35mm, but at less cost than 4x5 or 9x12 sheet film. Also I don't have to carry a roll film camera to get it. But I have a Zeiss Ikon 6x9 roll film camera that is small and compact and light, and has a really nice Novar lens. It just hasn't seemed necessary to use the roll film holders. Now if I wanted to use movements, of course they would be useful. But I don't need that often.

 

[KM-25]

I use a pair of Horseman 6x12 roll film backs for my 4x5 and love them for a variety of reasons.

1. Often times I am on long days out with many miles and using roll film backs helps keep me loaded with ready exposures because I don't reload 4x5 cut film holders in the field.

2. Dust, no matter what I do, dust with cut film holders seem to be an ongoing issue and the roll film holders rarely have this problem. I don't use photoshop and only wet print from film so this is a big deal.

3. The aspect ratio of 4x5 is a little too square sometimes and a 6x12 option is really nice to have, I use the film backs to 4x5 holders about 50/50 for this reason.

I love my 6x12 roll film backs, they make my 4x5 system all the more versatile.

 

[Corran]

I also use a 6x12 back on my 4x5 often, especially on trips when I might want that aspect ratio. Lately I've been fitting both my 4x5 and 6x17 in the bag though.

 

[graywolf]

Wouldn't you be able to shoot panoramic photos with the roll film back?

I would just crop the 4x5. If I was serious I could cut a slot in a dark slide to mask the negative to the panarama format. How about 24mm x 120mm?

Of course that does not save you any film. An old way was by cutting a one side off a dark slide. That way by flipping it over you could get two shots on one sheet of film. Of course, if I was not looking for one, I would have not problem finding a photo on google to show you what I am talking about, but since I am looking I can not find one.

 

[Corran]

I have one of the cut slides for my 8x10.

 

[Steve M.]

I'm not sure why you'd want to do it either, although having a folder loaded w/ a different B&W film than the 4x5, and a roll film back loaded w/ colour, would cover all the bases. My dim memories of shooting 4x5 were that if you needed movements, then you should use 4x5. A 4x5 camera w/ a roll film back is still a 4x5 camera. It's big, heavy and slow, especially if you don't have a rangefinder on it and have to focus w/ the GG.

I always brought a Rolleicord w/ my 4x5 when I went out, and always preferred the shots from the TLR to the 4x5. Invariably I would miss the cloud or shadow I wanted because it took so long to set up the 4x5 on a tripod, while w/ the TLR I could just snap off a handheld shot at a high shutter speed (Tri-X) and get what I was after very quickly. But some people are born LF shooters. Not me.

 

[graywolf]

Steve, remember that this is the Large Format Rangefinder Forum. Hand held and rangefinder focusing can be assumed, unless otherwise stated. Some times I feel like they should have called the the Press/Technical Rangefinder Forum. Probably Hand Held Sheet Film Cameras would be most accurate of all, because most of us consider both rangefinders and tripods as optional equipment (I think).

 

[KM-25]

Steve, remember that this is the Large Format Rangefinder Forum. Hand held and rangefinder focusing can be assumed, unless otherwise stated. Some times I feel like they should have called the the Press/Technical Rangefinder Forum. Probably Hand Held Sheet Film Cameras would be most accurate of all, because most of us consider both rangefinders and tripods as optional equipment (I think).

Gee....sorry I wasted your time...🙁