Why do you shoot medium format with your 4x5" equipement ?

[Clement Apffel]

Recently I've been thinking about buying a calumet C2 6x7 roll film back for my 4x5".

And to make my decision, I'd like those of you who shoot 120 film with large format equipement to share their reasons here.

Of course I have my reasons, but I'm always curious to read other's reasons and choices, as I always learn tons of details I would never think of.

thanks !


PS : if ever you have reasons NOT to shoot 120 with your 4x5", I'm also interrested

[David Aimone]

1. Especially with color, since I don't develop my own.
2. Not a particularly good reason, but a 300mm lens on 6x7 is more of a zoom lens than on 4x5.
3. Less film holders to carry.
4. Easier to change film in the field than changing film in film holders.

Having said all of that, I don't use my roll film back too often.

[IanG]

Haven't used my 6x9 Wista back for a while but I bought it and used it when out for longer backpacking sessions as a backup to give me greater shooting capacity.

Main reason I've not used it in the past 5 years is I've been working mainly hand held in Greece & Turkey and rarely run out of film in a day, and I left the 6x9 RF holder back in the UK but I also shoot with a 6x6 TLR so that effectively replaces it - I've found I like the square format.

Ian

[RJC]

I use colour film currently more than I use B&W (only just getting back into monochrome after a 30 year gap). The cost of buying, processing and get a good professional scan of 4x5 film makes me really consider if a particular shot merits the expense. If I'm not quite sure I'll opt for shooting it on 120 which I can scan myself on a Nikon Coolscan. If I need movements I'll use my 6x7 back, otherwise I'll press a Mamiya 7 into service.

Also, if a particular composition lends itself to a panoramic format I'll shoot on my 6x12 back rather than crop a sheet of 4x5 ... again the driver is economical.

Rob

[Scott Walker]

I thought I needed one at one time as well, turned out that I was wrong. Put a roll of film through it and realized that I had to expose everything in a fashion that would allow for the same development of all the images....have not used it since. Kinda made me wonder why I packed all that gear out in the first place when I could have gotten almost the exact same results with a point & shoot.

[BrianShaw]

1. Especially with color, since I don't develop my own.
2. Not a particularly good reason, but a 300mm lens on 6x7 is more of a zoom lens than on 4x5.
3. Less film holders to carry.
4. Easier to change film in the field than changing film in film holders.

Having said all of that, I don't use my roll film back too often.

"ditto"

[Sirius Glass]

I am still learning to use my 4"x5"s and I am starting to use them for serious work.

I use my Hasselblads for serious work. Hasselblad 903 SWC 38mm, Hasselblad 503 CX with 50mm, 80mm, 150mm, 250mm and a 2X extender.

For casual work such as travelling when I do not have time to fine tune the compositions I have two slr Nikons, one with black & white and one with color.

Often I will walk around with the 35mm cameras to figure out compositions and focal lengths and retreive the Hasselblads or the 4"x5" equipment and then photograph. I already figured out at I should check out where I want to put the tripod for the 4"x5" cameras before I carry the 4"x5" cameras and the tripod to a spot and set up! By the way, when I need a spot meter I put the 28mm to 300mm zoom lens on the F100 in the spot meter mode, hence a spot meter for the Hasselblads and the 4"x5" cameras.

I develop all my color and black & white film but I do not have a color darkroom on the East Coast, only on the West Coast.

Just for kicks I will point out that all my cameras, lenses, and darkroom equipment including a 32" wide drum print dryer costs less that the top of the line Nikon or Canon digital bodies alone. The top of the line digital back cost $50,000US to $60,000US for the Hasselblad and I would have to buy an new computer, RAID drives and a ton of software. I can shot an process a whole lot of film for that kind of money!

[jnantz]

because it is just as much fun as shooting sheets of film ?

[Gem Singer]

Been there. Done that.

Soon realized that it was a better idea to tote a smaller, light weight 6x7 or 6x9 roll film camera around than a LF camera outfit with a roll film back that actually got very little use.

I agree that a roll film back for a LF camera is the most economical way to go if you plan on shooting a large amount of color film with your LF camera.

Also, a 6x17 roll film back for a 5x7 camera, or a 6x12 back for a 4x5 camera is the practical way to go for panoramic photography. Dedicated pano cameras are pricey.

My advice, don't waste your time and money on a 6x7 or 6x9 roll film back for your 4x5 camera.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

Bonjour, Clément-de-Lyon,

I never shot medium format sheet film with my 4x5" camera for this I have other medium format cameras that can take the smaller 2x3" - 6.5x9cm cut film holders ;-)

However, I often use rollfilm backs on my 4x5" camera for colour images ; mostly 6x12 colour slides, but I also have a 6x9 linhof rollfilm back fitting the 4x5 international back. mostly for slides as well.

I would probably shoot 6x7 color negs some day since the C-41 minilabs (Fuji Frontier and Noritsu machines) available in my town cannot process sheet film and will scan 120- or 220-size rollfilm up to the 6x7 format.
I heard that Fuji Frontier machines can scan up to the 6x8 format, but apparently, in France, few minilabs owners have the dedicated 6x8 film holder.

For B&W that I can process myslef, I have never used any rollfilm with my 4x5", except may be for testing lenses.