6x9 or 6x12 film holders

Do you think it is practical using 6x9 or 6x12 film holders with a 4x5

handheld camera ?

I have toyed with the idea of getting a 6x12 back off and on but usually just

shoot 4x5 and crop. When a client wants roll film to save money, I just shoot

with a 6x7 back and rarely use it for personal work because I want the

maximum image... for you, this is a personal preference. If money is the issue

and 4x5 film is out of the question sometimes, get one of the backs. They do

come in handy sometimes...

Another viewpoint. Personally I love the 6x9 format. I own a 6x9 back which I

infrequently use in the studio and almost never use in the field bu tthen I do not do

any handheld work with my 45 field camera. OTOH I own and use extensively a Fuji

GW690II. Given the size and portability tradeoffs between the Fuji and a

handholdable 45 (e.g. Graphic, Technika or similar) I vote for the Fuji. Same

oustanding crsisp optics that Fuji is famous for in LF and a nice bright easy to focus

rangefinder, also very nice ergonomic fit and I can easily handhold the beast down to

1/8. Since movements are not as important when you are handholding (if important

at all ) the Fuji is something to consider and a decent used one can be had for 600 or

so.

 

Shooting 6x12 is another matter entirely and a 6x12 back, even at ~450 for a nice

used one, is still one of the least expensive ways to get into wide format or

panoramic (a 6x12 back is not a true panoramic) photography.

Yes, definitely.

No, since outside of cost, I don't see why one wouldn't just get a 120 rollfilm adapter. Much simpler dealing with a roll of film that will allow 8 exposures rather than itty-bitty pieces of cut film.

 

I'm curious what your application is that inspired this question.

David,

If I shoot 6x9(2 1/4 x 3 1/4) I prefer the itty bitty pieces of cut film. No issues with film flatness, and the ability to somewhat zone each and every exposure. The differences between my roll film 6x9, either Zeiss Ikon "C" or Graflex roll film back and my sheet film (2 1/4 x 3 1/4) Graflex is quite noticable. The cut film is very sharp, the roll film not. Same camera in the case of the Graflex.

 

It (6x9) not being one of my favorite formats, it's not a big issue. I'll take 6x6 for most roll film shooting or go up to 3x4 or 4x5.

 

tim in san jose

Tim, your sharpness issue may be with the specific back (s) you are using as opposed

to rollfilm backs in general. You will find many discussions in the archives here and

elsewhere about the flatness of older backs such as the Graphics.

Perhaps, but I have examined both the "knob" type and the "lever" type roll film holders and mine are identical in construction in respect to the rollers.

 

The Zeiss Ikon is a standard folder with pressure plate. I suspect the difference is thickness of film base over the span that a 9cm gives you. The support you get on a 2 1/4 film holder is much greater and the film base is substantially thicker.

 

Perhaps Apples to Pears, but so far that has been my experience.

 

tim

One thing that's being overlooked is the opportunity to buy a much larger variety of roll films than sheet films. If you want to hand hold you can get ASA 400 and 800 120 roll films in color. There's none of that available in 4x5 sheet film. I find this a very good use of my 6x12 film holders (I tend to crop down from 6X12 for 6X9 or 6x7 but that's just my preference).

Yes! If you work with a Linhof. The differences in sharpness between sheet film holder and roll film backs are not an issue, because both are made with the highest standard in technology and precision.

Well, that may be true, but it doesn't exempt even Rolls-Royce Linhof backs from flatness problems which are inherent to roll film. No matter how good the holder, roll film will always have a tendency to curl which cut film (usually) doesn't.

 

Having said that, I think the amount of non-flatness we're talking about in rollfilm may be overblown here, unless one is shooting with the lens wide open. Any appreciable stopping down, in my view, will take care of lack of flatness in all but the worst cases.