Film Holder brand? Does it matter?

[Tony Flora]

I have to confess that I did not actually hear that wood film holders were "prone" to light leaks. I made that assumption after reviewing listings on ebay and searching this forum. A large percentage of the listings on ebay say "no light leaks" and there are several threads on this forum about how to test for or repair light leaks.

[Frank Petronio]

There is a Sinar holder that uses a special adhesive sheet to hold the film absolutely flat. And there are vacuum holders than require a pump to suck the air out, flattening the film against the base.

Once you get to that level of anal prescision you have to start measuring the thickness of the film and calculating whether you want to focus on the emulsion or base. Layered color materials just throws some people into fits.

[C. D. Keth]

Wood holders don't generate static electricity when pulling the darkslide and hence less dust

Hah! Another person with my opinion (fairly substantiated, in my case) on wood holders. The plastic ones just seem to collect dust like a TV screen.

[C. D. Keth]

Once you get to that level of anal prescision you have to start measuring the thickness of the film and calculating whether you want to focus on the emulsion or base. Layered color materials just throws some people into fits.

I'd love to meet someone that particular in LF.

It used to be with motion pictures (which obviously have much higher tolerances due to the wildly higher enlargement ratio for projection vs. paper prints) that you would adjust the flange focal depth depending on the film you wanted to shoot. The flage focal depth for color films was about .01mm less than for B&W because, the idea was, you want to focus on the middle layer in color films to get best average focus on all layers and on the only layer for B&W. Since the middle layer would hold a position slightly closer to the lens than B&W emulsion, this adjustment was often made.

[paulr]

Wood holders are just prone to being older ... which means there's a better chance that the tape or trap has had time to wear out. If these are both ok, then there's no problem with wood ones.

I have a few wood ones ... they do seem a little easier to get dust free.

[eric mac]

I have an assortment of used fidelity and lisco and have some that leaked, but most are ok. I did pick up a couple Toyo holders and these are the bee's knees compared to the others as far as fit and build. They are a little more expensive and are less frequently seen used.

Eric

[Jim Rice]

I experienced some dark slide dimensional differences between brands and eras in 4x5. Not wanting to experiment in 8x10, I'm sticking to Fidelities, since these are the first I've aquired.

[Andrew O'Neill]

For us poorer folk, lisco fidelty...used...from ebay.

[John Kasaian]

IMHO the thing that really matters is if the film holder works. To know that, you've got to test the things.

[Tony Flora]

Thank you all for the responses. I have been doing some searching for information on the web and It seams like wood holders are a less dusty option then plastic, due to the static electricity generated by the plastic rubbing on other materials with a positive charge. However, it appears that storing film holders in an anti-static bag up to the moment of exposure can reduce the amount of built up static electricity associated with plastic holders. Here is an interesting link http://www.school-for-champions.com/..._materials.htm.

It seams from your feedback that light leaks are not a common problem to any particular material and that testing and visual inspection should be performed. Also, film flatness does not seem to be a large concern with cut film holders.

Thanks again.