35mm film in Medium Format camera

[alpenglow]

Has anyone tried to use 35mm film in a medium format camera that does not have a

dedicated 35mm back, and is not a Holga? I love the effect that comes from

rigging up a Holga to use 35mm film so that the image bleeds onto the sprocket

holes. And I was wondering about trying this same idea in a "higher end"

camera, like my RB67 or a TLR. I'd like to secure the 35mm canister more

securely than the foam-tension Holga technique. Is there something I can stick

into the ends of the canister that will properly mate with the 120 spool holders?

 

Thanks,

Mike

[bueh]

I did it once with a Graflex <b><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009UvN">Miniature Speed Graphic</a></b>.

[evan_goulet]

I did it in a Holga (I know you said you didn't want to hear from us, but...). I whittled and carved a 120 spool down so that both of it's ends fit snuggly into the 135 cassette cylinder, and such that the cassette was in the center of the spool ends. It seemed to hold the tension fairly well, and is definitely much sturdier than the foam methods I have seen.

[BrianS1664879711]

Rolleikin.

[jeff_drew4]

Pentax 67 has had 35mm kits appear occasionally. I have never bothered with the idea as the expense was not worth it for me. I have many 35mm cameras and got into MF gear for the rollfilm benefits. I do have a super-slide back for my Hasselblad which gives a smaller image on a standard roll . . . have not used it in decades as the 35mm transparency films have really improved.

[shambrick007]

I used <a href = " method on my Mamiya TLR. Results <a href = "http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=725736">here</a> .

[richard_oleson]

A cheaper alternative to the Rolleikin is a Yashica 635, a TLR that came with a 35mm adapter kit. Be sure that you actually get the 35mm kit with the camera, many have become separated over the years.

 

I believe that there was also a 35mm kit for the even cheaper Ricohflex TLR, but that will probably be harder to find and less rewarding to use.

[kevinteo]

It might be possible to use a Mamiya 7 with a panoramic adapter kit and omit the film mask.

Not sure about the film flatness though.

[alpenglow]

Wow... thank you all so much. Here I thought I was trying something new... Haah... I should have known better. I was all set to start filing down a 120 spool like Evan suggested, and I even thought about the idea that Mark mentioned of wooden dowels, but I think Sheldon's idea takes the cake. I've got to start looking for an old Bic Biro pen. That seems like the easiest solution, and your results are beautiful (and exactly what I was after). I love the look of having the image bleed into the sprocket holes which can't be done with a regular panoramic/25mm adapter. Brilliant. I'll give it try.

 

Thank you all soooooo much!

 

Mike

[q.g._de_bakker]

Mike,<br><br>The easiest solution would be to scan a blank strip of 35 mm film, and use that as a layer in any picture you like. No need to try hardware adjustments (unless that is what you wanted to do most of all, of course. ;-)).

[leicaglow]

Have you seen this panorama solution for Hasselblad 70mm backs from a seller on fleabay?: 120211430027

[Uncle Goose]

The Flexaret's IVa (no rewind option on this one), V, VI and VII can take a 35mm adaptor, I have one lying around that came with a Flexaret but I never used it, since I rarely do color I don't see the advantage for it.

[richard_oleson]

QG, that was intended humorously, right? You could just buy a picture frame that looks like a string of sprocket holes, too....

[q.g._de_bakker]

Richard,<br><br>Not quite.<br>Myself, i don't see why one would want to use 35 mm film in a larger format camera. And if it is only the perforated look you are after, i.e. want bits of the image missing, there indeed are far easier ways of making that happen (including the edge imprint of your liking) than 'reengineering' an MF magazine to take 35 mm film. Why, you then get to choose too, at leisure, what image gets 'the treatment', and what part of the larger (and still usable as a whole) image wil be used.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Richard,<br><br>Just to show how stupifyingly easy it is, i just rigged up a 6x9 camera back to ... uhm... i just did it my way, and while doing so proved that Portra 160 NC makes a good B&W film too.<br><br><img src="http://home.tiscali.nl/qnu/PN/Strip700G.jpg">

[richard_oleson]

Surely it's easy, but it's also easy to cut photos out of National Geographic. I assume the poster actually wants to create these images in his camera. Photoshopping an image of a strip of film onto another image seems to me a bit like cheating on a test: the answers come out the same, but the process to get there was different.

 

I'm sorry, I guess I'm just not into the modern way of thinking.

[alpenglow]

Thanks Q.G. for the idea, and I'm glad that solution works for you... no denying that it looks good. But I'm in the same camp as Richard since I too am not looking for an "easier" way to do it. The process of making the image in the camera brings me more satisfaction.

 

Thanks again everyone for the ideas!!

Mike

[q.g._de_bakker]

Richard,<br><br>The processes being different is, of course, the very point!<br><br>Myself, i never really understood people who prefer the more difficult/troublesome way above the easier way, only to arrive at the same (!) end result. After all, we are creating images, not playing with hardware, aren't we?<br>If you can't see the process (and remember that photography is a visual medium), it's not part of the image it eventually leads to.<br>If - the process itself not being 'visual' - it still has some intrinsic value, which would justify calling anything else that produces the same a "cheat", it is confined to the game the photographer is playing with his hardware. And he or she is the only person present, the only person 'in the know' about what is happening, so the only person who can find satisfaction in it. After we already lost the 'visual' bit, so much for that other part of "visual medium" too.<br> So it's a veritable "a boy and his toy" thingy. (So now i have answered my own question: we are playing with hardware! ;-))<br><br>But do not get me wrong: i do not belong to the puritan, strict camp. If you can find enjoyment in whatever you do to and with your camera, it is, of course, fine!<br>I just wanted to offer an easy way to achieve the same (image).<br><br>And as an 'by the way': i don't think it is "modern" to view means to an end as exactly that: means to an end.

[richard_oleson]

we're just playing with different hardware. one is a camera, one is a computer. personally, i enjoy the former MUCH more than the latter, but that's just me.

 

Images can be made in many ways. I can take a photo of a landscape, or a painter can make an oil painting of it. My way is easier, this hardly invalidates his... and no matter how many brush strokes I may photoshop into my digital print, I believe there will still be some intrinsically greater value in his end result than in mine. It won't be because his is a more accurate representation, or has greater resolution, or more faithful colors.... mine will win on all those counts. But there's still something - maybe part of it is just because of the extra work that he put into creating it - that will make his painting forever more valuable than my photograph. Similarly, I think a gum bichromate 3-color hand contact print from a set of 4x5 negatives has a higher value than a technically superior print shot on a Pentax K1000 with Kodacolor and developed and printed at Wal Mart.

 

If my only goal was to end up with an image, I would need neither camera nor photoshop, because there's hardly anything in the world that someone hasn't already photographed... I can just cut and paste whaterver I find. But if my goal is to actually create the image, then I think that the methods I use do enter into the equation.

 

I suppose you're right regarding modernity: I think these two world views have existed side by side through history.

 

Thanks for an interesting discussion.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Richard,<br><br>I don't think that it is that we are playing with different hardware. It is about whether we regard that playing with hardware as a goal in itself, or not.<br><br>I think your comparisons are missing the point.<br>Paintings and photographs are very, very different. I don't think we need enumerate the ways in which they differ, but that we will agree that they certainly differ in many ways more than just how easy it was to make either.<br><br>And exactly that was (and is) my point: if, like it is here, the final result is indeed not different, and all that differs is the way the thing was made (<i>"If you can't see the process"</i> and all that), the only possible reason i can see for chosing a particular way would indeed be an 'economical' one: what method provides me, the one who has to do things, the least bother/the most pleasure.<br><br>You say your goal is not, solely, to end up with an image. And i respect that.<br>But it of course does not wash that if you do, you would not need a camera, etc., because someone else might already have made an image before.<br>The difference i see between your and my appraoch is that i want to create the <i><b>image</b></i>, and you want to <i><b>create</b></i> the image. Means and ends, and all that.<br><br>Speaking of which: i'm not right about modernity. I haven't said anything about modernity. On the contrary: i mentioned that the idea of using tools, means to achieve an end, has nothing to do with being "modern" or not. "Modernity" does not fit in anywhere in all this. ;-)<br><br>And another by the way (which i forgot earlier):<br>Mike, it actually is not a solution that works for me. I never do this sort of thing. ;-)

[bradey]

i like my k1000 :( lol!

[michael_przewrocki1]

where can i find the ebay-seller of the special 70mm back?

Have you seen this panorama solution for Hasselblad 70mm backs from a seller on fleabay?: 120211430027

i also have the idea to use 35mm(unperforated film) in 70mm cartridges. but its only on the paper.

that pentax 67-35mm-insert can be bought from ebay seller buyitjnow.

this would expecially very intersting with polachorm and polapan slide films. its a pity that these films are out of production. outdated film film will dry-out. useless.