120 film for 4x5 camera

[sergiofigliolia]

Hi all,
I shoot mainly (if not only) urban landscape and am about to go on a trip to Lofoten islands in Norway where I'll shoot also nature (landscape).
I have been shooting 4x5 black and white sheets in the last year because of the costs of colour sheets.
I have often wondered which 120 film best suits the use of a 6x7cm back on my 4x5 camera.
My lenses are:
47mm 5.6 schneider super angulon xl
75mm 5.6 Schneider Super Angulon MC
150mm 5.6 Rodenstock Sironar N
210mm 5.6 Rodenstock Sironar N
300mm 5.6 Schneider Symmar

Most used with 6x7 back would be 47mm and 75mm

I have tried with Portra 160 and 400 but it doesn't look to have enough detail. I think it is due to the fact that LF lenses resolution is not enough for 120 film size.
But perhaps film plays its part as well. Maybe Ektar 100 and Velvia 50 could be better?
Any thoughts? Any other 120 films with enough resolution?

[jbenedict]

How well do these lenses work with 4x5 film? Shooting 6x7 is really just shooting a chunk out of the larger frame.
How well do these lenses shoot 6x7 in black and white?

[sergiofigliolia]

How well do these lenses work with 4x5 film? Shooting 6x7 is really just shooting a chunk out of the larger frame.
How well do these lenses shoot 6x7 in black and white?

I'm ok with using these lenses with 4x5 film.
Not really enthusiastic to use these lenses with the 6x7cm rollfilm back but my experience is only related to portra film. I guess someone would say to try but I wanted suggestions from users who already tried.

[Drew Wiley]

Ektar will give you more detail and saturation, but you need to be more careful in exposure and especially in color temp correction. More look shooting chromes in
that respect. Everything with a roll film back is more fussy. You need to have an accurate film plane and a high quality back that isn't so heavy that it tugs things
out of precise focus, which is itself more difficult because you're looking at something smaller to begin with. I'd also personally prefer somewhat higher resolution
lenses than you've listed, at least if you contemplate enlarging these things and getting the most out of Ektar. Your 150 and 210 might be OK - you can try; but
I'd be skeptical of the extremes. A 300 Symmar is a tank anyway. For a roll film back at that focal length, I personally use a Nikon 300 M. It is difficult to find suitable short focal lengths (less than 100mm) without resorting to less than ideal wide angles or older lenses of questionable precision. You can choose from certain modern "digital" view lenses if they're in shutter, but they're expensive and will have more limited coverage angles. Bob S. on this forum would know about those. My experience shooting roll film in a view camera is that everything has to be as precise as possible if you want results approximating what you might ordinarily get with larger sheet film. The nice thing is that you still have a sheet film camera, and can go back and forth as needed.

[ic-racer]

Hi all,
I have tried with Portra 160 and 400 but it doesn't look to have enough detail.?

I'd waste a few exposures to ensure that the film is lying flat on the pressure plate. What type of rollfilm back are you using.

[mdarnton]

I used to have a job where I shot archival records, B&W with an RB67 and macro lens, and the same material in color on 4x5. I took a couple of trips, rounds of Europe, where I could only take one camera, and so I took the 4x5 with a 210 Sironar-N for 4x5 color, and a 150 Sironar-N and a Calumet roll back for 6x7 B&W. Though it was a bit more work that way, the results didn't suffer at all. The 6x7 isn't 4x5, of course, but the 6x7 from that trip definitely held up next to the RB67 work done at home. Some folks like to trash the Calumet roll back, which looks like it was designed in 1955, but I never had a bit of problem with it, and it was much handier than a back that needs to have the ground glass back taken off to use.

[Daniel Stone]

I've used "large format" lenses quite a bit in the past for shooting onto roll film. I haven't had any issues whatsoever in terms of clarity, loss of detail, etc. And I'm quite particular about fine detail :)

Anyhow, if you're looking for a great film, I heartily recommend Kodak Ektar 100. It's extremely fine-grained, and the extra bit of color saturation, in MY opinion, actually adds a bit of "realism" into the more northern light you'll experience in Norway vs the warmer light in Italy.

Portra 160 is quite flat in comparison contrast and color-wise, both the P160 and P400 are terrific films, but they're different from Ektar all together.

-Dan

[Drew Wiley]

If you have a properly calibrated system and know how to use it, you should be able to get better results with a roll film back than with the equivalent film on any
conventional medium format system. The reason is simple - movements. That means that you have more options to controlling depth of field than just stopping way down. If you're movements are conservative, then you'll be using just the center of a particular optic, and it might do fine. But otherwise, older 4x5 wide angle lenses aren't ideal. I lean more toward longer focal lengths, so my various Fuji A's and Nikkor M's work superbly. But I also use Fuji C's and relatively short normal plastmats
like a Fuji 125W with excellent results on 6x9 film. The nice thing is that all these lenses are tiny and work on 4x5 film too.

[sergiofigliolia]

I'd waste a few exposures to ensure that the film is lying flat on the pressure plate. What type of rollfilm back are you using.

I'm using a Calumet 6x7 roll film back

[sergiofigliolia]

Thanks everyone. I think I'll get some Ektars then...


Your 150 and 210 might be OK - you can try; but
I'd be skeptical of the extremes. A 300 Symmar is a tank anyway. For a roll film back at that focal length, I personally use a Nikon 300 M. It is difficult to find suitable short focal lengths (less than 100mm) without resorting to less than ideal wide angles or older lenses of questionable precision. You can choose from certain modern "digital" view lenses if they're in shutter, but they're expensive and will have more limited coverage angles.

As to lenses I guess my 47XL should be ok?
Maybe my weak lens is the 75 Super Angulon MC.
With Roll films that focal length is also the most used for me. So maybe I should look into a 72 SA XL or a 80 XL, isn't it?

[Daniel Stone]

I'd stick with what you have for now. If you find that it's the lens that is the weak link in the chain, and feel it needs to be changed put, then do it later. But the 72XL and 80XL are both wonderful lenses and are very sharp

[jbenedict]

I used to have a job where I shot archival records, B&W with an RB67 and macro lens, and the same material in color on 4x5. I took a couple of trips, rounds of Europe, where I could only take one camera, and so I took the 4x5 with a 210 Sironar-N for 4x5 color, and a 150 Sironar-N and a Calumet roll back for 6x7 B&W. Though it was a bit more work that way, the results didn't suffer at all. The 6x7 isn't 4x5, of course, but the 6x7 from that trip definitely held up next to the RB67 work done at home. Some folks like to trash the Calumet roll back, which looks like it was designed in 1955, but I never had a bit of problem with it, and it was much handier than a back that needs to have the ground glass back taken off to use.

A Toyo roll film back also works without removing the GG. A little more than the Calumet on the used market but not too expensive.

[Drew Wiley]

Slide-in backs, that go in like a standard filmholder, only work on certain cameras. They tend to be thick and heavy. Most field cameras won't accept them, and if
they did, the rear standard might be deflected by the overall bulk and weight. Just one more thing to keep in mind.

[BrianShaw]

... but it doesn't look to have enough detail. ...

Something else may be going on. There shouldn't be problem with either those lenses or Portra (other than what was pointed out before - Portra has its own look).

[analoguey]

I am also heading the way of using a roll film back on the 4x5.
Is there anything that you do differently than from shooting sheet film? (apart from looking at a smaller part of the GG)

[BrianShaw]

Nothing significantly different.

[mdarnton]

Be careful putting the roll back on. If it's a slide in back, moving the camera or the back is possible, since it takes significantly more pressure and manipulation than a simple film holder

[Andrew Plume]

pretty well all that I would add to the original post has been said already

LF lenses aren't (of course) customised for roll film work on a 4 x 5. I've only used 6 x 7 and 6 x 9 backs and I definitely agree with the last post, I always remove the back before slotting in the holder

.....when you're not in the mood (often) for loading film holders, roll film work is a quick and convenient option

good luck

andrew

[Drew Wiley]

When I use roll film backs they're the Horseman type which securely clip into position where the reversible 4x5 back was. This of course means the original back has
to be completely removed, and that imposes a risk to it, esp out in weather. The ground glass is pretty susceptible. So under such circumstances I simply tether it
with a short piece of small shock cord, so it hangs free below the tripod, but not with enough lease to allow the wind to blow it around and hit anything. I've worked
quickly in all kinds of weather in this manner with no accident. Putting the thing on the ground or a rock or in and out of a bag would just attract dirt etc.

[sergiofigliolia]

I am also heading the way of using a roll film back on the 4x5.
Is there anything that you do differently than from shooting sheet film? (apart from looking at a smaller part of the GG)

For 4x5 the working aperture is f/22 whereas for medium format f/16. The amount of diffraction depends on the film format so eventhough you use the same lenses (the ones for large format) you should adjust that for maximum sharpness unless you need a particular aperture for a special reason (i.e.: wide open for a portrait, etc.)

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or to add onto that.

The interesting thing would be to have a 6x12 120 rollfilm back but they are so expensive...

[Andrew Plume]

yes, buying a 6 x 12 rfb puts the cheapness of 4 x 5 dds holders back into perspective

andrew

[Andrew Plume]

Hi Sergio

there's always (something like this):

http://shop.lomography.com/gb/belair-city-slicker

6 x 12 budget style, of course one will not get the same results that you would get with 'LF branded lenses' but it's all part of 'photographic art' after all

btw, I bought one which I really should take out for a spin

best

andrew

[Drew Wiley]

Roll film is just fussier doing focus and movements because of the greater degree of enlargement, and because you have to compose with a smaller image on the GG.
And you obviously can't process each shot individually. Otherwise, analogous.

[sergiofigliolia]

Yep the Belair looks interesting but considering the price I'd rather buy a 6x12 rollback for 4x5


Hi Sergio

there's always (something like this):

http://shop.lomography.com/gb/belair-city-slicker

6 x 12 budget style, of course one will not get the same results that you would get with 'LF branded lenses' but it's all part of 'photographic art' after all

btw, I bought one which I really should take out for a spin

best

andrew