Roll film holder recommendations

[Leonard Metcalf]

Have been thinking of getting a roll film holder for my 4 x 5 camera (it has a universal back). Which holder do people recommend... light weight and ease of use would be a consideration... and film flatness...

[Ted Harris]

Leonard if you dwrach the archives you will find several discussions on this subject. I believe there is some concensus that the Horseman backs are the winners for solid design, ease of use and good film flatness. The Wista holders are similar but not so easy to find. The Linhof holders may hold the fim flatter but they are somewhat mroe expensive and do not come up ont eh used market quite so often (if you are shopping used). All of these are they types that 'lock on' to a universal back after you have removed the gg holder. I use the Horseman 6x9 myself and have also used the Horseman 6x7.



The holders that slide into the back (ala the Calumet holder) have always seemed fidgety to me. I have also used the graphic roll film holders and strongly recommed against them. Thye jsut don; treliably hold the film flat. I gave up on the Graflex XL system as a result of the unreliability of the film holders. I understnad that you can get the backs modified to reduce this problem but it just doesn;t seem worth the chance to me even though they are cheap.

[Ralph Barker]

In addition to the basic design (under GG vs. replace GG) and how the holder supports the film, how long you leave the film in the holder will have a substantial effect, I've found. I have the fidgety Calumet holder, which has a fairly tight film radius at the end. As such, if the film is left in the holder for any time, a bend sets in that affects flatness on subsequent exposures. The Toyo under-GG model has a somewhat larger film radius, which probably would reduce that problem.

The usage of back nomenclatures has always confused me, however. To me, the "universal" back is one where the GG is not easily removed, and thus would require an under-GG rollfilm holder. The easily removeable GGs I always considered to be Graflok types, where the GG portion of the back is attached via the slider bars at top and bottom.

[Frank Petronio]

Readyloads are cheaper and better in the long run.

[Kirk Gittings]

For commercial architectural use I run 4 new Calumet 6x9 roll film holders. The ones with the felt strip for collecting dust. They work well for all but the most critically huge enlargements. Though I have never had a complaint from a client, I can see some sharpness problems in enlargements over 16x20. One we use for a "test" roll of trans. which is run first at the lab. One is for the brackets run later. One is for color negs. as a backup or C prints. One is kept open if we need to jump to a different film for an odd shot. I've been using them for primary use for about ten years. We cycle them by replacing one a year. In ten years we have run approx. 3,000 rolls thru them with very few problems. Film never sits in them for more than a day and maybe that is why they work so well for us. They are a bargain at the price.

[Ernest Purdum]

Ralph, there has long been confusion about back nomenclature, not the least being how to spell Graflok. Regarding "Universal" this is a name which I think was started by Linhof. In their use, at least, it means a back with the same capability as the Graflok, but avoids the use of somebody else"s tradename. In a relatively recent Linhof brochure the back is called a "guicklock" type. If someone has used "universal" to describe a spring back, I haven't noticed it.

[Jean-Louis Llech]

I don't agree with what Ted Harris wrote : "the Horseman backs are the winners for solid design, ease of use and good film flatness".
His opinion carries its own contradiction when he adds : "The Linhof holders may hold the film flatter but they are somewhat more expensive and do not come up on the used market quite so often".
- A light weight is not very important, because the difference between the heaviest and the lightest holders is but a few ounces.
- Ease of use may seems important, but when you've taken the practice to use a holder, it seems less important.
- The main criteria are first, film flatness, then, something you don't mention, I mean a correct image spacing.
After these I would take into account ease of use, the price and finally the weight.
If you use an important photographic accessory like a film support, it must be the best to guarantee the highest quality for your images.
What would be the importance of the weight of the holder if your images are not flat, or if the space between images is irregular ?
You will use a light holder, easy to load, not very expensive, but if you obtain bad images, will you have achieved your goal ?
I agree that Horseman's and Wista's are good film holders, but undoubtedly Linhof Super Rollex are the best ones. Best quality of fabrication, solidity, ease of use and most of all film flatness and good image spacing.
Just buy one, if you are in a budget, not two or three, but buy a new one. And buy a Linhof.

[Andre Noble]

This last one sounds like an advertisement. (pronounced "ad-ver-tessment")

[David A. Goldfarb]

Used Linhof Super Rollex holders in good working order from the 1970s (look for the tan leatherette) tend to run about $150-300, and are well worth it, in my opinion. Newer ones will be more repairable, if repair is required, and tend to be another hundred dollars or so on the used market.

Avoid the early Rollex backs with the knob wind. They will have frame spacing problems with some films, even in perfect condition.

[Jean-Louis Llech]

No, André, not an advertisement, as I payed all my rollfilm holders, and they are quite expensive.
Just an opinion ! (pronounce "experience")