Before you start badmouthing people for trying to answer your question, maybe you could ask it clearly enough that folks can understand.
WHAT film do you want to shoot in your 4x5 camera?
Before you start badmouthing people for trying to answer your question, maybe you could ask it clearly enough that folks can understand.
WHAT film do you want to shoot in your 4x5 camera?
Check with Freestyle. They used to carry all kinds aerial lenses and very wide roll film to go in the aerial camers. Perhaps they would have an aerial camera that could be adapted to an 8X10 so you could use roll film. Perhaps a tad heavy, but so what. I'm sure S.K. Grimes can handle the adaptation if Freestyle happens to be out of stock. Really rapid shooting as I recollect the aerial cameras were electric.
I believe Bruce is asking whether anyone has built/modified a roll-film holder so that it would "hold" 4x5 or 5x7 sized film (in rolls) for use in this special "4x5 or 5x7 inch sized" roll film holder.
So, he wants to shoot 4x5 or 5x7 inch film (in rolls) on a camera, say... and 8x10 or 11x14 camera.
Bruce, correct me if I'm mistaken here, ok?
.
FWIW, the reason why people are discussing film here is because there's no sense in building/modifying a roll film holder if there IS NO roll film in 4x5 or 5x7 sizes available. But, apparently, it IS available.
So, now, what Bruce wants to know is... "why can't/shouldn't/don't we build a roll film holder to take these sizes and mount them onto a "larger format camera?"
Bruce, am I correct here?
Frankly, I think a roll of 4x5 or 5x7 film would weigh a ton! And, to mount such a holder onto a larger camera would require a LOT of strengthening on the back end of the camera.... not to mention all the Sherpas that you'd need to haul such a beast around!
Cheers
Life in the fast lane!
In answer to your question, was there a camera that used 4 x 5 roll film, the answer is yes. It was a No. 4 cartridge Kodak made in the years 1897-1900. The film size was 104.
Roy
Many years ago, there were latge rollfilm holders usually used on Graflex cameras, so were made for the Graflex, not Graphic, back. There were several problems. It is difficult to keep 120 size film flat and even harder in lzrger sizes. (The big aerial cameras often had pressure plates or vacuum to eliminate this problem. One reason they werre most common on Graflex cameras is that the holders werre too thick to slide in like a double-sided film holder.
Even earlier, there was the Eastman-Walker rollfilm holder made in a range of sizes, some very large. They are seldom seen and prized by collectors..
FWIW, Folmer Graflex made a 4x5 roll film camera for the military in WWII. It was called the Fairchild K20. I think there was also a K25 model. While this doesn't help you much in that it is not a roll film adapter, I wonder if one could use the mechanism from a K20 on a view camera. I am not the slightest bit handy with this sort of thing and would never attempt it myself, but I do have a few pictures of the K20, if you are interested.
I am aware of a camera that was made around the 50's that used 5inch wide roll film (intended to be cut from longer aerial rolls. The space in the camera allowed for a ~2Inch diameter spooled or unspooled unbacked film. It had a film guide and spring backer plate like 35mm cameras and a take up spool. Load and unload in the darkroom only. But it was a box camera, no tilts or swings. Sort of a box within a box allowing focusing from about 8 feet to inf. The camera notched the edge of the frame when the photos were taken. Only advantage I can think of: faster time between shots. The winder was apparently geared for speed in winding and required strength. I don't know who made these or from what country. I saw negs processed in Indiana, but photos were taken in Europe. The dead giveaway: processed in pairs! The person processing elected to cut at every other notch. At the time, (the early 70s) I only knew enough about photography "to be dangerous", so I don't anything else, just remember the 11 inch long film pieces fit in the same trays for 11 x 14 and had 2 photos on them. I only saw the film - did not see the camera - it was only described to me.
At the time I thought this was commonplace, but havn't seen anything like it since.
"Guys, guys, guys. I didn't ask about film. I'm not interested in aerial cameras. This is about roll film adapters for conventional view cameras. Try to stick to the topic at hand please.
Since no one has actually answered the questions I asked, I have a new one. Has this never in the history of view cameras been tried? That would be hard to believe."
Your question remains incredibly obtuse.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Okay, so what exactly do you want to do? What I want to do is learn. I just want information.
WHAT film do you want to shoot in your 4x5 camera? I'm not looking for any particular film or format. I'm just asking for information. I don't necessarily want to do anything with that information. Simple curiosity.
So, now, what Bruce wants to know is... "why can't/shouldn't/don't we build a roll film holder to take these sizes and mount them onto a "larger format camera?"
Bruce, am I correct here? Mostly. I don't want to build anything. I just want to know if these was ever done, and if not, why not. Just simple curiosity.
Frankly, I think a roll of 4x5 or 5x7 film would weigh a ton! It wouldn't have to. It wouldn't have be a 100' roll. Ten 4x5 frames is only a bit more than 50" long. How much would that weigh?
Even earlier, there was the Eastman-Walker rollfilm holder made in a range of sizes, some very large. They are seldom seen and prized by collectors..
Yes! This is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you Ernest.
Folmer Graflex made a 4x5 roll film camera for the military in WWII. It was called the Fairchild K20.
Excellent. I'll look this up. Thanks Don.
Bruce Watson
Your question remains incredibly obtuse.
There is little doubt of that! Yet, a couple of people got it. If I were any good at expressing myself with words, I'd probably do a lot less photography. Sorry if I inconvenienced anyone by being obtuse.
Bruce Watson
Bookmarks