Jump to content

best roll film format


michael_ford1

Recommended Posts

<p>I guess one needs to ask why shoot roll film with 4x5 at all? The answer might be what leads to your answer. The most viable reasons would seem to be possibly saving money versus sheet film, the price of a good scanner for the format and/or the desire for tighter shots without cropping due to the available lens selection.</p>

<p>The downside is that if you like the look of using wide lenses this becomes more problematic with the smaller format on a view camera, especially a more technical one like the 45D. You can only get so wide even with a recessed lensboard with a camera of this design. I don't know the specs of the camera specifically, but around 75mm might be all the wider it will accommodate--which is essentially a normal to slightly wide on all of these formats but the 6x12, where the horizontal will be more like a super-wide lens. If this fits with how you shoot, it might make some sense, but if you haven't used a recessed lensboard, something I loathed to be honest, you might find you will hate it as much as I did.</p>

<p>Then, of course, it is a matter of what format you like in your final images if you have a preference in that regard.</p>

<p>Considering all of these points should give you your answer, it is very individual.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I use a 6x7 and 6x9 roll film holder in my 4x5's, and prefer the 6x7 if I need extra shots, and the 6x9 for quality. I like the proportions of the 6x9 a lot. But most of the time, the roll film holder is being used for technical/architectural photography where I need perspective control. Otherwise, I use my Hasselblad, Fuji 6x7, or Fuji 6x9 cameras. I think Sinar makes or made a roll film holder with adjustable frame sizes, in mid-roll. It was very expensive at the time.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I use 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9 at various times; the 6x7 is popular because it proportionally the same as 4x5 or 8x10; the 6x9 gives you a little more width or height when you need it and want to avoid cropping quite so much; the 6x6 just works for some shots; the 6x12 is a panoramic layout which would sometimes be handy, though I don't have a holder in that size. I'm actually most fond of the 6x9 simply because I do architectural work and often can use a little more width. Get them all and use what works! :)</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The Toyo Omega 45D has an international back? then may I suggest you look into the Chinese Da Yi 6x12 roll film back for 4x5. It has masks for all the formats you ask about. The film is advanced manually and positioned by watching the frame numbers on the backing paper, in the same method as the good old days. With one purchase you can have your cake and eat it. <br>

Copy and paste this into either Google or Bay search field:<br>

<strong>6x12 612 Roll Film Back Holder for Linhof Wista 4x5</strong><br>

For me, as I've used various 6x6 cameras for many years, I'm accustomed to the square format, but feel in no way bound to adhere to this. When it comes to creating an image, unless a commissioned painting, I am bound by no one to anything.<br>

Occasionally when finalising a composition in the darkroom, the format will resemble the proportions of 6x7, or just a tad less, about 6x6.5, because I like it, but it really depends on the subject. For the Linhof I may even check out the Chinese multi-format holders mentioned above. I have some Super Rollex 6x7 backs, but need a later model Technika than my 1954 Technika III to use them, and besides would rather be able to use a sliding back with any roll film magazine on a view camera, which for me again requires a later model. Given that I do manage a later Technika, This will then call for a 65mm lens if I'm to use a 6x7 roll film, because the Angulon 90 isn't wide enough - something you may need to consider too. And for that Toyo, you may need a wide angle bellows, at least a recessed lens board with a wide angle lens. Others with more experience can fill us in on that point.<br>

Just for fun, here's a scan of a neg I found a while back. The exposure was made on Kodak Safety Film on New Years Day 1977 at the summit of Mt.Buffalo in Victoria, Australia. The film then lay around for 14 years before being processed. That's 14 years of Aussie heat waves and as many damp, chilly Melbourne winters , not in a "Cool dry" place as advised on the wrapper. ;-) The format shown here is a crop from the 6x6 Yashica frame. I'm going back this December, at least with the Hasselblad and a 50mm lens, because I'd really love to nudge those sides out. I have other frames from the same day also requiring a little more breadth. After paying for airfares for 3, I doubt if there'll be funds for any of the additional Linhof gear spoken of, so I'll happily settle for a bundle of loaded 4x5 slides and the old Technika III as is.<br>

<strong><br /></strong></p><div>00ZIaY-396493584.jpg.9fc62b084ba54d76deb64362f5b555ae.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>A deviation from the original question, but about the image above, it was one of the first scans I made with the Epson V700, so I was a real novice. (not much further advanced now I'm affraid) ... but if you look at the slash through the forest, you just make out some power line pylons. With a loupe, I can see the actual cables on the film. Ever so fine, but they are there. Now hey, what does that say about the the film, the lens of the old 124G, and the scanner? .. and all I used the crappy plastic negative holders that came with the scanner. No fancy 'wet scanning'. The discolouration down the sides of the image is due to the 14 years of light leaking through the edges of the backing paper. I can't wait to get back there with some fresh film, both Portra and Velvia.<br>

But yes, I agree with the comments, the bigger the better. But with careful working method, a sturdy tripod, shielding the camera from any breeze, spotlessly clean lens and UV filter, appropriate shading, you can achieve some very good results with moderate sized film format.</p><div>00ZIar-396499584.jpg.34812019ddbe4cbce3f63cfcf852438e.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I looked at all the roll film options and decided to experiment by using cropping on my 4x5 negs, never did buy a roll film back. If I want a 6x12 slice I simply crop in the scanner or enlarger, gives the unexpected benefit of extra rising front as I can cut the slice I want, not the one the holder inflicts on me.<br>

Kevin, glad to hear someone else having fun with a Technika 111, I've had my late version 5 for nearly thirty years and still love it.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Still using my Sinar Vario (6X4.5, 6X6, 6X7, 6X9, 6X12). This back let you select the next frame's format and the format mask will reposition itself and then you can wind the film to the next frame with proper spacing(those Swiss). It is also a slip in back like a 4X5 holder; does not require any removal of ground-glass and clips<br>

It came with ground glass mask for Sinar back which doubles as a viewing mask that let you select the format/focal length by holding it in front of your eyes.<br>

Each shot has an optimal format and focal length base on composition. The ability to select the exact format is great in the field.<br>

120 film something that I can handle myself with my Jobo and Nikon 9000.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>"4x5 and 8x10 have a<strong> 1:1.25</strong> ratio."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not to nitpick, but <a href="http://www.mamiya-usa.com/mamiya-7-ii.html#Specifications">Mamiya</a> 6x7 cameras have a <strong>1:1.24</strong> ratio (69.5 x 56), so 6x7 can be pretty darned close to 4x5/8x10 (I was unable to find image area of the 6x7 rollfilm backs).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"You left out 6x17" - 17cm won't fit on a 5"x4" camera, but what has been left out is 6cm x 8cm. </p>

<p>My "23" Graphic rollfilm-holder is nominally 6x8cm, but actually measures 56mm x 78mm; an aspect ratio of nearly 1.4:1. That's close to that of the ISO A series paper format, and an aspect ratio that I find quite pleasing for landscapes. Not quite as wide as the overused 35mm film or 6x9cm 3:2 ratio, but wider than 5x4 or 6x7.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Michael, I would suggest slowing down. We all have lots of gear we bought on impulse and rarely use--if ever use. Play with the camera as 4x5 and see how it fits what you do. Expand its capabilities as you recognize YOUR needs. Each person responding here has their own set of needs and way of working and none may even be similar to your own. Move slowly and save the money for what you determine you need to move forward.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>John A., Sorry, I couldn't resist having a shot at a couple of your remarks.<br /> You say: "We all have lots of gear we bought on impulse and rarely use--if ever use."<br /> I haven't ;-) But it is a worthy caution.<br /> Then: "Expand its capabilities as you recognise YOUR needs."<br /> Yes, but Michael has a <strong>need</strong> roll film capability, that's why he is asking us.<br /> Further: "Each person responding here has their own set of needs and way of working and none may even be similar to your own."<br /> Of course John, and that is why he is here, inviting us to share our experiences - and that is why we are here, doing just that. It's a primary function of the forum.<br /> To this: "I guess one needs to ask why shoot roll film with 4x5 at all?"<br /> Well there must be several thousands of photographers around the world who will have an answer, because there isn't a major professional large format camera system that has not provided for medium format capability, with all manner of adaptors and roll film holders. In fact this segment of the industry increased with improvements in film quality from the 1980s onwards, to the extent that now, there's hardly been a better time to use film, given that you can find a reliable lab. In fact, the response to film quality created such an intense focus on roll film that not only did Linhof develop their already existing medium format technical cameras, along side the 4x5 and larger, but other manufacturers, such as Cambo and Arca Swiss introduced completely new 6x9 models. This was also the era when Hasselblad introduced the FlexBody, and soon after, the ArcBody. And now with MF digital backs to take the baton, there's no turning back.<br /> The 6x9 monorail cameras such as Cambo Ultra, Arca Swiss, are typically more expensive than certainly those companies' entry level 4x5 models. So for anyone wanting to use roll film, with the benefits of technical/view camera movement, the cheapest option is to select a used 4x5 such as Michael Ford's Toyo Omega 45D, ask us folk for a few tips and go for it.<br /> Back to <strong>the best roll film format</strong> question.<br /> Michael Axel mentioned the Sinar roll film holder with frame sizes adjustable mid-roll. Yep, the Sinar Vario and it certainly was expensive, both to buy and repair. Danny Wong gives us a neat description of his Vario, which he uses, and it's benefits. A colleague of mine had one that needed repair, but in stead I found him a Hasselblad body to Sinar adapter, which he made good use of.<br /> The Chinese Da Yi offers a similar choice of formats, but which need to be set when loading, and is not designed for change mid roll. Whilst Sinar and Da Yi offer a range of format options, to compare them would be like comparing a Roman sun dial with a Swiss watch - both give accurate time, but are from different worlds of technology. A new Da Yi is about a third of the price of a good used Sinar Vario, and with the mechanical simplicity of a Kodak Box Brownie, there's little that can go wrong.<br /> I wonder why there has never been a camera format made to the proportion of the <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=golden+section&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=507&prmd=ivnsb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ZhlpTqrWEuKi4gSl9YzcDA&sqi=2&ved=0CE0QsAQ.">Golden Section.</a><br>

Or has there ..</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Kevin, my comments are just to raise questions based on the title of the thread and the words of the OP. Most of us buy things, once we get settled into this thing, when we recognize we need them--to solve a problem or give us the ability to do something specific-- and generally people buy things they don't need when they buy them before they have identified a use for them.</p>

<p>When such an open ended question is asked then I believe the question needs to be more considered. A question like "which 6x9 film back do you recommend" indicates something different than such a non-specific question as we have in the OP. It appears the OP is new to his camera and it might be good to get used to it before moving in other directions with it.</p>

<p>When I suggested that each person responding may work differently, I brought that up because most didn't suggest why they chose their preference and may or may not have images that one can see or identify with the back. It is a suggestion that someone's opinion is personal to what they do and how they work and may have no bearing on another's own needs or interests. I am not suggesting anyone's opinion isn't valid, it is just how much does it really apply to the OP's needs.</p>

<p>Seriously, my comments were to just give another perspective to the question that is being asked and to raise what are pertinent questions to the decision.</p>

<p>Hope that helps...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>"I wonder why there has never been a camera format made to the proportion of the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.google.com/search?q=golden+section&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=507&prmd=ivnsb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ZhlpTqrWEuKi4gSl9YzcDA&sqi=2&ved=0CE0QsAQ." target="_blank">Golden Section.</a> Or has there...."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>39x24 (Golden Section) is very close to 36x24 (<a href="http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com/golden_rectangle.html">the most popular photo format in history</a>) and I've always heard that the latter was designed to reflect the former.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"Hope that helps..." ? Whatever helps you feel better.<br>

Da Yi film back mentioned above: A revisit to the information on this item reveals that there is no 6x7 format. What a pity. It's the one that I would probably have used the most. However, there are masks and corresponding frame number viewing windows for 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x9 and 6x12.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...