6x7 roll film back on Graflok

[folsombob]

I am considering adding a 6x7 roll film back to my Crown Graphic, with the Graflok back.

I am looking at the Horseman 454 6x7cm, 220 film with 20 exposures or possibly the 451 6x9cm, 120 film with 8 exposures. The Horseman tends to get very favorable comments for is solid build, flat negative, and lower price (compared to Linhof).

1) I have read that the entire Horseman unit only fits after removing the ground glass. It would appear so, just by looking at it. Is this true for all roll film backs?

2) At B&H, for the product "Features" section is the following: "Film plane registry is 4.85mm from the face of the holder". Does this mean the focus will be a little off? Does this affect focus at all?

3) Any suggestions or special considerations? I've read something about using an acetate plate to show where the 6x7 opening will be. Does this usually come with the product when purchased new?

Thanks!
folsombob

[Joseph Dickerson]

folsombob,

The only roll film holders that fit under the ground glass are the various Calumet/Cambo models.

The Horseman, Wista, Graphic, Linhof, et al, require the gg to be removed. There may be a few cameras that are the exceptions. The Galvin I think had a larger "gap" than most. If it matters the Cambo/Calumets will take 120 or 220. Not so with the Horseman or Wista, not sure on the Linhofs. Maybe Bob Solomon is around?

The newer Calumet/Cambo models are reliable with good film flatness, the return bend is after the film gate, older ones can be problematic with some overlap issues. Cambo started making them for Calumet some time ago. I think the Cambo made ones have a black film winding knob. The earlier ones have silver winding knobs (at least mine do).

I use Wista, Horseman, and Cambo. Removing the gg is not as big a hassle as you would think.

Joe D.

[Allen in Montreal]

I am not certain of the differences between your crown graphic and my speed graphic, but I can (and do often with a Wista 6x9 back) clamp a standard roll back on the speed graphic easily. If you wish to get a slide in back, Sinar also makes them and they can be found on the evil fairly often. They have fixed versions and a variable 6x6,6x7,6x9,6x12 version. no doubt the slip in versions are faster to use but the clamp on in the graflok back work just fine too.

[folsombob]

I use Wista, Horseman, and Cambo. Removing the gg is not as big a hassle as you would think.

Joe D.

Thanks, Joe.
I have read that the older Cambo/Calumet models were problematic; thanks for the tip on the newer models.

You're right about removing the Graflok back, I more curious than anything else.

I've heard the Horseman model mentioned was reliable -- have you used that particular model or something similar?

folsombob

[folsombob]

I am not certain of the differences between your crown graphic and my speed graphic, but I can (and do often with a Wista 6x9 back) clamp a standard roll back on the speed graphic easily. If you wish to get a slide in back, Sinar also makes them and they can be found on the evil fairly often. They have fixed versions and a variable 6x6,6x7,6x9,6x12 version. no doubt the slip in versions are faster to use but the clamp on in the graflok back work just fine too.

Thanks, Allen.
I would think the two cameras are the same in regards to the Graflok back. What a great invention!

BTW, at B&H, for the product "Features" section is the following for the Horseman 454 (as mentioned above): "Film plane registry is 4.85mm from the face of the holder".

Does this mean the focus will be a little off? Does this affect focus at all?

folsombob

[rdenney]

Thanks, Allen.
I would think the two cameras are the same in regards to the Graflok back. What a great invention!

BTW, at B&H, for the product "Features" section is the following for the Horseman 454 (as mentioned above): "Film plane registry is 4.85mm from the face of the holder".

Does this mean the focus will be a little off? Does this affect focus at all?

folsombob

All the Graflok/International backs were designed to the same standards, so any roll-film holder that is designed for 4x5 Graflok or International back applications will work. I have an MPP 6x9 holder, a Wista 6x9 holder, a Graflex 6x7 holder, a Shen-Hao 6x12 holder, and a Sinar Vario. The Vario is a slide-in model, but it also has grooves for Graflok/International clips after removing the ground glass. The Sinar is the best of the lot in terms of slickness, and now the prices on used ones are coming down into the humanoid range. The Graflex-made 6x7 holder (an RH-10, I think) is the poorest of the lot. The Shen-Hao 612 holder is quite decent and accurate, but it is a red-window advance system and works only for 120 film. It requires a Graflok mount. The Wista and the MPP are similar (and similar in design to the Horseman and Linhof despite variations in build quality), but the Wista is a little less clunky and a little smoother in operation--it has an advance lever. It also leaves actual space between the frames, which the MPP does not. Both require a Graflok.

For a hand-held application when focusing is being done by a rangefinder, I would prefer the Graflok style, I think, because it is less bulky. For view cameras where all the composing and focusing is done on the ground glass, the slip-in style is slicker.

Rick "keeping the Shen-Hao for some-day mating to a Speed Graphic" Denney

[Oren Grad]

"Film plane registry is 4.85mm from the face of the holder".
Does this mean the focus will be a little off? Does this affect focus at all?

Film plane register varies among different brands of rollholder. Here are some data that were originally posted on the old Medium Format site. That site has been down for a while, so I'm taking the liberty of reposting here:

Model Type / Formats / Depth
Cambo slide-in / 6x4.5 / 4.95mm
Cambo slide-in / 6x7, 6x9 / 4.95mm
Cambo slide-in / 6x12 / 4.95mm
Horseman clip-on / 6x7,6x9 / 4.95mm
Horseman clip-on / 6x12 / 4.95mm
Linhof S-Rollex clip-on / 6x7,6x9 / 4.85mm
Linhof Rapid Rollex slide-in / 6x7 / 4.85mm
Linhof Techno-Rollex clip-on / 6x12 / 4.85mm
Sinar Zoom slide-in / 6x4.5 to 6x12 / 4.85mm
Sinar standard slide-in / 6x7, 6x9 / 4.85mm
Toyo clip-on / 6x7,6x9 / 5.05mm
Wista clip-on / 6x7, 6x9 / 5.10mm
Wista Type DX / slide-in 6x7, 6x9 / 5.10mm

I don't know what accounts for this variation, because in theory the ground glass on all of the 4x5 cameras that these rollholders were intended for should be in the same place. Perhaps the different manufacturers made very different assumptions about roll film thickness and flatness.

You'd have to run some calculations with the depth of field / depth of focus formulas to identify usage scenarios in which discrepancies of this magnitude would be a problem.

PS: To respond more directly to the question: in practice, most people just use the holders without worrying about this.

[rdenney]

Perhaps the different manufacturers made very different assumptions about roll film thickness and flatness.

It would be flatness, not thickness. The thickness has been standardized since the days of the Rolleiflex Automat.

On the other hand, their may be a correlation between the above list and the ability to handle 220 film, which has no backing paper.

Rick "whose 1953 Rolleiflex 3.5 still senses film thickness--with backing paper--perfectly" Denney

[Oren Grad]

On the other hand, their may be a correlation between the above list and the ability to handle 220 film, which has no backing paper.

There isn't. Although I stripped out those data for simplicity, there's no difference in the spec listed for the 120 vs 220 versions of the Horseman holders, and the Cambo and Sinar holders are "switch hitters".

'Tis a mystery.

[Allen in Montreal]

.......
To respond more directly to the question: in practice, most people just use the holders without worrying about this.

Indeed,
I have owned the Sinar Vario, a Horseman 6x7 and Wista 6x9 (which I still have) and have never seen soft frames out of any of them and I never gave it thought as they were sharp.
I do miss the Sinar Vario at times.

[Joseph Dickerson]

Hi Again,

I'm using the Horseman 6x12cm holder. I have used a 6x7 Horseman in the past and found all of them to be solid and reliable. Horseman is really well made stuff. Had a 45 LE once and it was solid. Heavy and bulky but definitely solid, as was the Horseman VHR I owned for a brief period. It was sold only because my size "extra-Large" fingers had difficulty with it's size "extra-Small" knobs.

The only really klunky roll film holders I've ever worked with were all built by Graflex.

Joe D.

[Ginette]

An Adapt-A-Roll 620 Holder will fit under the ground glass and have a good reputation for flatness. Come with 2 darkslides that permit 6x6 and 6x9 neg sizes. You can use 120 fillm but need a 620 for the take up spool. See it here http://graflex.org/speed-graphic/adapt-a-roll.html

[folsombob]

PS: To respond more directly to the question: in practice, most people just use the holders without worrying about this.

Hi Oren and Rick
Thanks for the feedback. I think Oren's answer is the one I was hoping to find ;-)

folsombob

[Wayne Crider]

What format? 4x5?

"Any suggestions or special considerations? I've read something about using an acetate plate to show where the 6x7 opening will be. Does this usually come with the product when purchased new?"

I made my own template out of yellow acetate then marked my 4x5 GG with corners only. Beyond that I found using a rollfilm back annoying and sold mine off years ago. Just more weight. I can understand it from a perspective of getting emulsions not available in a speed/type if really required, but after using one for a little it sat in the drawer. I much rather spend the money on the larger film and just crop if need be. I rather liked my old RB67 for 6x7 what with the back that you can rotate, but the lenses were substantial and in the end I decided LF could be just as light and fast, especially with a Graphic.

[folsombob]

Beyond that I found using a rollfilm back annoying and sold mine off years ago. Just more weight. I can understand it from a perspective of getting emulsions not available in a speed/type if really required, but after using one for a little it sat in the drawer. I much rather spend the money on the larger film and just crop if need be. I rather liked my old RB67 for 6x7 what with the back that you can rotate, but the lenses were substantial and in the end I decided LF could be just as light and fast, especially with a Graphic.

Thanks Wayne,
I've been considering the rollfilm back for a few reasons: no dust (or minimal), more shots in a small package, less bulk (although recently I have acquired some Grafmatics via eBay), less cost per frame, less time (no loading holders), and less bother (not having to reload holders on the road or on the trail).

Other than that, I see your point ;-)

I have considered getting into the medium format realm, but that would require a complete new gear arsenal, and I'm not prepared to do that now.

Besides, I really love shooting with my old Crown Graphics (both of them), and am beginning to use an older Sinar. Of course, my money comes from digital.

folsombob

[Wayne Crider]

Well I was actually thinking the same way as you concerning using a rollfilm back till I went out with it a couple of times and that was that. I liked the idea of developing the rollfilm in a daylight tank and not sitting in the dark with deep tanks. I've since changed things around a little to make the 4x5 developing routine a little faster with getting the tanks to temp so now it's a little easier with less wait for things to cool down.