Roll film holder and 4x5

[gonzalomoreno]

Hello,

My LF system is a Calumet 400 with a Schneider 180 and a 90mm

Angulon. I mainly (99%) work (as amateur) with B&W. When I got the

camera (second hand) I also got a nice 6x7 roll film holder for the

4x5 camera, which I have never used.

My question is simple: Why should I use for a 6x7 roll film holder in

a 4x5 camera? I mean, after carrying camera, lenses, filters, tripod,

film, film hoders, loading tent, etc, etc, etc; and taken the time to

place the tripod with the camera on top, focus, measure the light,

decide which filter to use (if any), why should I produce a 6x7 cm

image and not a 4x5 in.?

 

Gonzalo

[steve_levine]

The 6x7 back on a 4x5 camera does several things. First off it allows you to have full movements with a roll film camera.(Something "no" roll camera offers.)

 

Second, it allows you to use only the center/sweet area of your glass. This assures the best resolution available.

[ellis_vener_photography]

good question . there are several good reasons but none may aplly to you.

[digidurst]

I use mine because roll film is cheaper, I can load it in the field without a changing tent,

and it's handy for when I need/want to bracket my shots. I don't do a lot of big prints so

having the big negative isn't all that important to me. I just like the movements that my LF

offers and having a roll film holder offers me the best of both worlds.

[pvp]

Selection of films in 4x5 is more limited than in rolls. You can get ISO200 and ISO400 (!) transparency films in rolls. Also chromogenic (C-41 process) B&W film with its ultrafine grain.

 

The "sweet spot" theory is not entirely true if you use front tilts and swings, but even then it takes more movements to reach the edge of the image circle so still usually valid. A corollary is that, when using a roll film back, you'll have movements available even with older lenses that have no excess coverage on 4x5, like your 90mm Angulon...

 

Unless you're planning mural-sized enlargements, MF films are often more than adequate. Certainly up to 16x20, nobody is likely to complain about overenlargement.

 

In short, the roll film holder expands the versatility and usefulness of your camera, without forcing you to invest thousands in another system.

[brian_ellis16]

"The 6x7 back on a 4x5 camera does several things. First off it allows you to have full movements with a roll film camera.(Something "no" roll camera offers.)"

 

Doesn't this beg the question? A 4x5 camera allows you to have full movements with 4x5 film as well. The question he's asking is why he should use his full movements with roll film rather than 4x5 film.

 

Some people use a 6x7 roll film holder because they want the large format camera movements but don't want to load and unload sheet film and/or process sheet film, others buy them because they don't want to be restricted to a relatively few number of photographs (given the limits on how many sheets of film you can carry around with you), there are probably other reasons as well (I don't consider the "sweet spot" idea mentioned above to be one of them, lenses don't get noticeably sharper and sharper as the area used gets smaller and smaller, anything within the circle of good definition will be fine). The reason I bought one was to have some form of film available on a long trip in case I ran out of sheet film without having to carry my entire medium format system along with me.

[conrad_hoffman]

Let's say someone handed you a bunch of stuff to photograph for a catalog. You need some movements, but you don't really need 4x5 film, and having a focal length a bit longer than normal is a plus. Perfect application for the roll film back, as film will be cheaper, processing easier, and handling time a bit faster (it's easier to load a roll in daylight, than load film holders in the dark).

[ronald_moravec1]

My employer asked me to photograph some locomotives for display pics.

 

I don`t want to hassle with 4x5 color neg development and buy a large quantity of film and I NEED perspective control.

 

6x7 Calumet back is the answer.

[leonard_evens]

Some people are set up for medium format film processing and printing. They may want to do view camera work but not want to get a new set of tanks, a 4 x 5 enlarger, and whatever else would be necessary for processing 4 x 5 film. The best solution in that case would be a 6 x 9 view camera or a 6 x 9 technical camera such as a Linhof or Horseman, but a 4 x 5 camera with a 6 x 7 or 6 x 9 roll film back may be less expensive.

[profhlynnjones]

Hi Gonzalo,

 

Among other things I'm the co-designer for the 120/220 roll holder with Bill Ryan, Ken Becker, Art Netzel, and Ben Booko. It is incredibly good with absolutely flat film positioning. We disigned this for the use of view cameras with swings and tilts where huge enlargements were not needed and you could get 10 or 20 exposures without changing film. It was introduced at the PPA convention in 1966 together with the new 8x10 enlarger and 220 roll film designed by Bill Ryan and me with the help of some others and Kodak was proud to indroduce the film at that time.

 

Lynn

[j.lewis.photo]

I'm surprised that nobody mentioned the reason that I'm thinking of buying a roll film back for my 4x5. Correct me if I'm wrong but you get a substantial (1-2 stops) increase in depth of field. As an amateur studio still life photographer, this would allow me to achieve more depth-of-field when needed(at the cost of diffraction of course), or simply use a smaller aperture to achieve equal depth-of-field to 4x5 while using less light. Doing macro work with lots of bellows extension, and shooting at f/64 on 4x5 makes it very difficult to get enough light often times, even with 2400w/s.