Linhof Rapid Rolex rollfilm back

[glenn_kroeger]

I am interested in a roll film back that can slip under groundglass. I have used Calumets in the past with poor results (fogging, questionable film plane alignment). The Sinar is a bit too large, both physically and financially. HP Marketing has no literature on the Linhof Rapid Rolex backs, so I am wondering if anyone has seen or used one? Comments about construction, film path, and handling would be wonderful. Thanks

[al_james]

I have not used one but the fellow I bought my Linhof from swore by

them. He claimed that the film flatness was superior to the standard

rapid rolex backs, (although HP marketing thought otherwise), they are

lighter. They are pricey but are apparently a good product.

[john5]

The super rollex {graflock type} are the super flat roll film backs.

Probably the best out there,though I haven,t tried them all. As for

the rapid rollex {film holder like} ask Bob Soloman at HP Marketing

he usually replies to Linhof questions on this board but is probably

at Photokina at the moment. As for the Calumet roll film holder, they

are made by Cambo. Never,never,never,X 100 buy one,never. Just

because somebody has one that works does not mean that your's will.

If Linhof's design is similar to Cambo's make sure that it is

returnable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

John

[sal_santamaura]

I spoke to Bob Solomon about the Rapid Rollex backs quite a few years

ago. To paraphrase his comments from memory: "The film path

necessitated by a back that slips under your ground glass means there

is no way it can hold the film as flat as you'd like. Super Rollex

backs are much better in this regard.

[bill_glickman]

Glenn, what is wrong with the Toyo backs? I use them and find they

work quite well, film flatness is excellent. I think they are

availble in 6x7 and 6x9 and will fit in a Toyo AII. You just need to

be a tad careful since they are a bit fat, so put them a bit

carefully..

[bill_glickman]

Just as an update...Sal was nice enough to correspond with me off

line...and from what he has explained to me, I too have become

convinced that using roll film backs that do not have straight travel

paths is risky business. (none exist) Leaving film around the roller

for even short periods of time, even at small angles can leave slight

buckles in the film when it enters the exposure area. Sal has a good

way to overcome this, and that is too shoot every other frame, and

waste the others. I would find this not cost effective and may stay

away from using RFH unless I am convinced I can get around this

problem. The Toyo roller has almost a straight path, but the roller

that gets the film straight will make the film vulnerable to this

buckling. I am surprised this has not been addresed by any of the

larger RFH makers like Horseman. Roll film sure is convienent to

use...

[sal_santamaura]

To expand a bit on what I told Bill, film flatness becomes a problem

when using short focal length lenses, large apertures and significant

enlargement. One's personal criterion for an acceptable circle of

confusion, as well as the type of shooting being done (e.g. movements

may permit placing the plane of focus in a position where not much

depth of focus is required), combine to determine how much roll film

can deviate from flat before a lack of print sharpness becomes

evident. Everyone should perform their own tests before concluding

this issue is or is not important to them.