Fujifilm PA-145 Polaroid back centering

[Dumb Handsome]

Reading about Polaroid 405 holders and looking at mine, it was a shock to discover they're not centered on any 4x5 camera. Is the Fuji PA 145 better in that regard? I want to use Polaroids with my Technika's rangefinder and type 2 Universal Viewfinder with a 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 mask, which means the back must be centered. Custom machining is also an option, but one I would like to avoid.
:rolleyes:

[StoneNYC]

By centered do you mean the entire thing or 3/4ths? The format size is smaller than 4x5 so you have to have one side be "to the edge" in order to pull out the film, they are all designed that way.

Only the smaller formats like a back that fits on a 6x6 for example will be both off center horizontally and vertically.

Make sense?

If you want it totally centered get a PA-45 and FP-100C45 film imported from Japan as those are all 4x5 instead of the 3.25x4.25 ones. Will cost more of course.

[Dumb Handsome]

If that's the case, the easier thing might be to have a mask custom cut for the Technika viewfinder to match the Polaroid off centering.

[Ari]

Search Google; there is a Polaroid 405 mask somewhere online that you can download and print.

[koh303]

Polaroid used to give a mask negative with each back (i guess so did fuji). As a rule of thumb:
1CM from the right up and down - 2CM from the left. Use a chinograph (china pen) to mark your GG. Mine has had those 4 corners marked on every camera i owned. If you really wanted to you can mark the whole frame...

[photonsoup]

I have a 405 that centers the smaller image of the instant film in the 4x5 back. I've only seen this one, all the rest are off center. I believe that the ones that Alpenhause makes are the centered type.

[koh303]

I have a 405 that centers the smaller image of the instant film in the 4x5 back. I've only seen this one, all the rest are off center. I believe that the ones that Alpenhause makes are the centered type.

Those are from MP3/MP4 and other scientific applications which have no side rear frame restriction. They only fit some 4X5 camera backs (most if not all folders are out of the question)...

[alpenhause]

Those are from MP3/MP4 and other scientific applications which have no side rear frame restriction. They only fit some 4X5 camera backs (most if not all folders are out of the question)...

Mystery Solved? I had always wondered why the 405 backs I was making were "centered" and not so common, mine work well on my 4x5 Polaroid conversions but often would not work on a lot of Graflex cameras.

I knew the "centered" version 405 I have was definately made by Polaroid, I just did not know what version it was called if it indeed has some version designation by Polaroid.

Thanks for the Info koh303!

I now have the proper drawings for both versions of the 405, the "Centered" version and the more common off center 405 version to produce accurate and proper 405 face plates on the Fadal CNC mill.

I just need a source of many Polaroid CB-103 black plastic film holders in near mint shape.

[konakoa]

Reading about Polaroid 405 holders and looking at mine, it was a shock to discover they're not centered on any 4x5 camera. Is the Fuji PA 145 better in that regard?

I have a Fuji PA-145, and no, it's not centered with the ground glass either. Bought it new in the box and there was no mask. I made a mask for the ground glass by cutting up a red lighting gel. Laminated the gel for extra rigidity then cut out the center of the gel matching the exact placement of the instant film for precise framing. No help for your rangefinder but the improvised mask on the ground glass works well.

[StoneNYC]

I have a Fuji PA-145, and no, it's not centered with the ground glass either. Bought it new in the box and there was no mask. I made a mask for the ground glass by cutting up a red lighting gel. Laminated the gel for extra rigidity then cut out the center of the gel matching the exact placement of the instant film for precise framing. No help for your rangefinder but the improvised mask on the ground glass works well.

Now I have to check, I swear mine is centered. Or at least centered on 3 sides, the 4th side where the holder hangs over obviously can't be centered as far as I know?

[koh303]

Now I have to check, I swear mine is centered. Or at least centered on 3 sides, the 4th side where the holder hangs over obviously can't be centered as far as I know?

stone - read my post above for dimension ruling.

[StoneNYC]

stone - read my post above for dimension ruling.

Ahh "side rear frame" I think of the side facing the lens to be the front not the rear, so I didn't read it the way you meant it, now I see what you mean. Thanks.

[Dumb Handsome]

Steve (AKA Alpenhaus),

Do you have another batch of centered 405 backs coming on the way, and can you tell me if these work particularly well with Technika Cameras? I would also like to know if I sourced some parts whether you could have one or two made?

I am using this system in both traditional and non-traditional ways, so shooting with the rangefinder and viewfinder is important in many situations, especially making portraits on Polaroid. New Type 55 in 4x5 is going to be a stellar, but I'm also interested in FP3000 in 3/4 for lower light situations. I would prefer to use the center, sweet spot of the lens rather than the edges if possible.

The Tech V's rangefinder is bright and very accurate (when cams are made for a specific lens and body). The late 60s / early 70s viewfinder adjusts for focus breathing (!). I want to incorporate these into my practice with it.

[koh303]

Do you have another batch of centered 405 backs coming on the way, and can you tell me if these work particularly well with Technika Cameras? I would also like to know if I sourced some parts whether you could have one or two made?


Cant answer for Aplenhouse, but, a centered back will not fit your linhof. It will not clear the side of the camera.

[Dumb Handsome]

Koh,

It seemed like with some machining and modification, it might fit centered, but you sound like you have some experience with 405's on the Technika System? A custom mask for the Technika's viewfinder may be more in line for my uses, and I'll just have to put up with a little softer image than if it were in the center.

My big concern is not with getting accurate ground glass focusing so much as syncing with the rangefinder and viewfinder. When I want really accurate and perfect focusing and composition, Polaroids (excluding Type 55), aren't the best choice for my time and effort. In planned shoots with people where feedback and rapport do matter, my experience with Polaroid film has been very positive, and something I want to integrate into my Technika setup.

[B.S.Kumar]

Reading this thread made me take out my Polaroid 405 back from storage. I rarely use Polaroid film, and I kept this as a "just in case I want to use it" kind of thing.

As you can see from the photos, the opening is centered in the 4x5 frame. The curious thing is, there seems to be a 7mm spacer between the main body and the surface that mates with the camera back. It will not fit under the groundglass of any of my cameras, but will fit perfectly using the Graflok locks. The spacer would move the film plane back, but I think the four screws seen in the first photo could be removed, and the spacer itself could be removed.

Does anyone have any idea what this particular back might be made for? There's a sticker inside that says "Modified in Japan".

Thanks,
Kumar

[koh303]

It seemed like with some machining and modification, it might fit centered, but you sound like you have some experience with 405's on the Technika System? A custom mask for the Technika's viewfinder may be more in line for my uses, and I'll just have to put up with a little softer image than if it were in the center.
1. If you can show me or anyone else, and demonstrate a visible, even under scrutiny a drop in preformance of a 4X5 covering lens, between the second to last 2cm in the frame, i will say that this is cause for concern, and you should get a different lens.
2. The range finder, and more then that, the view finder on LF cameras is only a general suggestion, and is far from accurate by any means. All rangefinders are like that. Ever try to get exact framing with a mamiya 7? I am sorry, i just dont get what the problem here is. You will never get "exact" or "accurate" anything with a linhof unless you use the GG.
3. A 405 back might clear the technika. An MP3/4 back will not. Unless you machine the camera, saw the rangefinder unit off and make extensive modifications to the other side of the back, making the camera useless for anything other then that back, it will not work, but you should buy one of those "centered" holders and try it. Its the best way to find out it does not work.
4. If you are willing to invest so much effort in this, why not just use a regular pack film camera (or any manual conversion if you want to shoot with manual control), and use the 4X5 when you want to shoot film?


My big concern is not with getting accurate ground glass focusing so much as syncing with the rangefinder and viewfinder. When I want really accurate and perfect focusing and composition, Polaroids (excluding Type 55), aren't the best choice for my time and effort. In planned shoots with people where feedback and rapport do matter, my experience with Polaroid film has been very positive, and something I want to integrate into my Technika setup.
Now i am sure i do not understand the problem.

[koh303]

Reading this thread made me take out my Polaroid 405 back from storage. I rarely use Polaroid film, and I kept this as a "just in case I want to use it" kind of thing.

As you can see from the photos, the opening is centered in the 4x5 frame. The curious thing is, there seems to be a 7mm spacer between the main body and the surface that mates with the camera back. It will not fit under the groundglass of any of my cameras, but will fit perfectly using the Graflok locks. The spacer would move the film plane back, but I think the four screws seen in the first photo could be removed, and the spacer itself could be removed.

Does anyone have any idea what this particular back might be made for? There's a sticker inside that says "Modified in Japan".

Thanks,
Kumar

This is not a 405 back. Its a CB03/universal pack holder with some 4X5 bracket. Probably used in some industrial camera/microscope set up.
How will you ever get an image in focus when the film plane is so far removed from the focal plane?

[B.S.Kumar]

This is not a 405 back. Its a CB03/universal pack holder with some 4X5 bracket. Probably used in some industrial camera/microscope set up.
How will you ever get an image in focus when the film plane is so far removed from the focal plane?

Possibly. What made me curious is that the back fits the Sinar perfectly. I didn't know industrial cameras came with Graflok backs!

[Dumb Handsome]

2. The range finder, and more then that, the view finder on LF cameras is only a general suggestion, and is far from accurate by any means. All rangefinders are like that. Ever try to get exact framing with a mamiya 7? I am sorry, i just dont get what the problem here is. You will never get "exact" or "accurate" anything with a linhof unless you use the GG.




Sheeeeeeesh. You're a picky one. I do use the ground glass for shifts and tilts, but am not married to that use alone. It's nice that the engineers who designed the Technika system realized that it's rangefinder would need to be accurate enough for press and studio work. It's exceptionally on-target, beyond anything else I ever have used, including well maintained Leicas. With a cam (steuerkurve) machined exclusively to the lens and body, I've taken many pictures with a sharp point of focus at less than a foot, wide open, with a 135mm f6.3 lens. Polaroids give the added advantage of being able to see if focusing was correct right on location.

Even the Kalart on the old Graflex I used a decade ago was quite accurate. The Technika was designed to be versatile, (comparatively) fast machines to be used for a wide field of applications, including high speed press work, as was the Graflex. It's incredible to see 178mm F2.5 Ektar shots done on the Graflex, with really remarkable accuracy, focused with the relatively crude Kalart.

It's a pet peeve of mine that the application of this feature is so disregarded. It was designed for and utilized by working professionals (as opposed to artist-scum like us). WeeGee and his creed were as talented and dedicated to bringing new forms of photography to the world as much as Edward Weston and company.




4. If you are willing to invest so much effort in this, why not just use a regular pack film camera (or any manual conversion if you want to shoot with manual control), and use the 4X5 when you want to shoot film?



Why carry two camera systems if the Linhof is faster, sharper, and more accurate in this use? Plus the conversions don't have accurate rangefinder focusing down to under a foot. (Like I said, my experience has been overwhelmingly positive with rangefinders, dffrn't strokes for dffrn't folks, etc). The point of Polaroid to me is good rapport and feeling with friends and acquaintances in staged settings, rather than forcing them to be frustrated waiting for "art". Both types of of Fuji-instant film have recoverable negatives which can be scanned afterwards on an Imacon.

It seems that the solution has been found: have a mask made for the Technika's universal viewfinder that is roughly in alignment with the Polaroid 405's position, and find a cellophane outline for the Ground Glass for extra accuracy. Should work great.

[koh303]

Polaroids give the added advantage of being able to see if focusing was correct right on location.
While it would have been interesting to analyze and break down the rest of your post , this little bit is my favorite:
If you are shooting hand held, with a rangefinder, you will have moved quite a bit between loading and unloading the polaroid back, then loading the film holder for the polaroid to be any reference for focusing.
If you are working on a tripod, why not just check the focus on the GG before loading in a film holder? It must be cheaper, faster, and far more useful, if you wanted to confirm the focus before shooting actual film.

If the point is to have giveaways or create "rapport", i am not sure how the focus confirmation comes into play, but i am sure yo have your reasons.

Good luck with your mask.

[Dumb Handsome]

4x5 without a tripod? Now that I can agree is totally silly and scandalous in our present age where digital tech that does handheld infinitely better. It remains doable in a pinch, maybe with flash, but totally is the worst thing for getting the super hi-res we all crave. I suppose Fuji FP3000 is so grainy it doesn't matter.

[StoneNYC]

4x5 without a tripod? Now that I can agree is totally silly and scandalous in our present age where digital tech that does handheld infinitely better. It remains doable in a pinch, maybe with flash, but totally is the worst thing for getting the super hi-res we all crave. I suppose Fuji FP3000 is so grainy it doesn't matter.

??

Have you ever used FP3000B? Definitely not grainy.

You could handhold 8x10 if you wanted to, it depends what you want out of shooting, and the only thing silly or scandalous is this post. Lol.

I don't say that to be mean, I just think you've lost perspective of creating art vs doing commercial work. Sometimes we do something not because it is easy, but BECAUSE it is a challenge, there's a satisfaction in the accomplishment and it isn't about how easy digital is, it's about creating something with your hands.

If we wanted easy, we would all be shooting collages and stitching them in Photoshop and no one would be using LF at all.

[photonsoup]

4x5 without a tripod? Now that I can agree is totally silly and scandalous in our present age where digital tech that does handheld infinitely better. It remains doable in a pinch, maybe with flash, but totally is the worst thing for getting the super hi-res we all crave. I suppose Fuji FP3000 is so grainy it doesn't matter.

I thoroughly enjoy 4x5 handheld with my Crown Graphics and an Aplehause Polaroid 900 conversion. Older people especially like the portraits I give them taken on an old Crown. The younger crowd thinks the Fuji instant stuff is really sick (sick=cool=groovy=neat, I think that's the proper translation).

I am tired of spending so much time at a computer. For me analog photography is about personal enjoyment. I still take lots of digital photos, but it's not as much fun.

To box in your thought process about art and creativity is what is actually silly and scandalous. Try to be a little more open minded and think outside that box.

[Dumb Handsome]

I am tired of spending so much time at a computer. For me analog photography is about personal enjoyment. I still take lots of digital photos, but it's not as much fun.

To box in your thought process about art and creativity is what is actually silly and scandalous. Try to be a little more open minded and think outside that box.

Ha ha, this is really funny. I'm very, very loose shooting 95% of the time, medium and large format have always killed the fluidity of my practice, so the last five years I've been doing most of my work on (good quality) compact 35mm cameras, scanning the film, and more recently, very small digital cameras with some nice resolution (which are as nice as handheld medium format used to be as far as cropping / pulling out a usable image from a big negative, it's really great!). Being able to push mastering way beyond anything I could get in the darkroom, and quickly looking at photos in sequence are some of the better aspects of this approach.

Everyone should be free to do what they want to, but for me, shooting handheld is better covered with digital, what with image stabilization and other tricks. The Technika's anatomical grip does make it really tempting to experiment, though, I just probably won't shoot handheld under 1/250 of a second. The high resolution and shifts make "slowing" down really worth it for specific types of photos, but not the end all.

[koh303]

This has been nailed in, but just for kicks:
the rangefinder is there for handheld use when the GG is not an option.
If you are not shooting hand held, why are you so concerned about a minor aspect of the frame shift in the view finder (which has nothing to do with the actual frame anyways)?
Even in most if your "high quality" cameras you say you use, at best you get a 92% representation of the frame in the view finder...