Oversized Film Holder

[seabee1999]

Good day to all, I was up in Sequoia the last few days with Michael Clark photographing the Mineral King area. While shooting, some of my film holders seemed a bit oversized in my camera. It took some effort to make them fit into the camera. Overall the situation was rather frustrating. I have 3 types of film holders; Riteway, Lisco Regal and Alkon. The camera I was using was a Rittreck View with the 4x5 back. The Riteway holders fit without issue. Both the Lisco Regal and Alkon holders needed some force to seat properly into the camera. I was wondering if anyone else has ever had this issue and if so what your solution was. I was initially thinking of taking some sandpaper to the film holder edges to knock the excess material off. If anyone has a better suggestion please me know. Thanks for your time.

R/
Dave

[StoneNYC]

Never had this issue even a little bit in any of my cameras (toyo 45a or Chamonix 8x10 or Korona 4x5 or Korona 8x10).

I did once have an issue with the Polaroid back where it was too LONG and had to sand a tiny bit off the edge so that it would fall into the light trap groove, but never an issue with film holders which are really standardized for 4x5 sizes.

I've used Riteway, Lisco Regal, Chamonix, Birk & James, Graphmatic. Never Alkon.

Rather than sand each holder, why not sand the back since that seems to be the issue and would be a lot less sanding? Plus its internal so won't show.

[seabee1999]

Never had this issue even a little bit in any of my cameras (toyo 45a or Chamonix 8x10 or Korona 4x5 or Korona 8x10).

I did once have an issue with the Polaroid back where it was too LONG and had to sand a tiny bit off the edge so that it would fall into the light trap groove, but never an issue with film holders which are really standardized for 4x5 sizes.

I've used Riteway, Lisco Regal, Chamonix, Birk & James, Graphmatic. Never Alkon.

Rather than sand each holder, why not sand the back since that seems to be the issue and would be a lot less sanding? Plus its internal so won't show.

Interesting thought about sanding down the back. I'll have to think on that a bit. My initial thoughts are apprehensive to do that as the back is metal plus the issue doesn't affect the Riteway holders. Just the other 2. The Alkon holders are metal as well but I don't have to use those holders on that camera. I have some calipers so I'll measure the Riteway and compare those to the Lisco ones. Now that I'm home, I'll try to fit the Lisco one where there's not much of a change for expansion/contraction. Perhaps that may have contributed to my issue as well. It just seemed odd that this occurred. I never had this issue on my Calumet. I may just have to pull that camera out as well and take a few measurements.

R/
Dave

[LabRat]

Measure the holders and FB opening with your calipers and see what you have... There also might be some roughness on the FB guides or under GG panel that can be smoothed out... (Maybe some old paint, etc...)

Check, check, checking...

Steve K

[Jac@stafford.net]

Interesting thought about sanding down the back. I'll have to think on that a bit

Think about that a lot, because sanding the back part that holds the ground glass moves it forward, possibly corrupting focus.
.

[seabee1999]

Think about that a lot, because sanding the back part that holds the ground glass moves it forward, possibly corrupting focus.
.

Which is why I am apprehensive on that thought.

R/
Dave

[seabee1999]

Perhaps to clarify what the overage issue is:

The part that seems to be wider is the width of the Lisco holders on the 4" edge of the film holder. So if, for example, I have an opening on the film back of the camera that is 4-1/2", the film holder dimension is 4-17/32". A small number but enough to resist a smooth seating on the film holder into the camera back. The length is not an issue that I can tell.

R/
Dave

[Jim Jones]

The 1951 ASA spec for the width of the holder is from 4.734 to 4.765. Any holder, aluminum, wood, or plastic, that is over that maximum could probably be shaved down on a table saw with a sharp fine-tooth blade and a sturdy fence. If the width of the slot in the camera back is less than that maximum, it would be the logical place to make a correction. Sanding or milling down the surface of the camera back that meets the edges of the film holder won't affect focus if properly done. Perhaps a visual check of the camera back will reveal high spots on that surface that can be filed down.

[seabee1999]

The 1951 ASA spec for the width of the holder is from 4.734 to 4.765. Any holder, aluminum, wood, or plastic, that is over that maximum could probably be shaved down on a table saw with a sharp fine-tooth blade and a sturdy fence. If the width of the slot in the camera back is less than that maximum, it would be the logical place to make a correction. Sanding or milling down the surface of the camera back that meets the edges of the film holder won't affect focus if properly done. Perhaps a visual check of the camera back will reveal high spots on that surface that can be filed down.

Thanks for sharing the tolerances of the holder. I have something I can go by for reference tomorrow when I do the measuring.

R/
Dave

[StoneNYC]

Think about that a lot, because sanding the back part that holds the ground glass moves it forward, possibly corrupting focus.
.

You misunderstand where the issue is, it wouldn't affect focus at all, it's the sides of the holders getting in the way not the face of the holder.

[seabee1999]

As a follow up, I just took a few measurements and below are the results:

Rittreck camera film back opening - 4.756" on average
Calumet camera " " " - 4.790" on average

Riteway film holder - 4.740" on average
Lisco film holder - 4.762" (at film insertion end) tapers to 4.752" (at dark slide end)
This confirms why I was having a bit of an issue with the Lisco holders in the Rittreck camera

The Alkons are extra holders so I don't necessarily need to use them with the Rittreck. I feel that if I knock the edges down a bit from the Lisco film holders that I'll be ok. I did feel the edges of the Rittreck back and there are a few bumps that I could use a piece of Emory cloth to knock those bumps down as well.

[IanG]

The 1951 ASA spec for the width of the holder is from 4.734 to 4.765. Any holder, aluminum, wood, or plastic, that is over that maximum could probably be shaved down on a table saw with a sharp fine-tooth blade and a sturdy fence. If the width of the slot in the camera back is less than that maximum, it would be the logical place to make a correction. Sanding or milling down the surface of the camera back that meets the edges of the film holder won't affect focus if properly done. Perhaps a visual check of the camera back will reveal high spots on that surface that can be filed down.

The 1951 ASA spec (I think it was actually ANSI then) was part of a joint International agreement to standardise film holder sizes, it involved BS and DIN standards as well and lead to what were called International backs. Some confuse International backs as being Graflok type but all ot means is a back that takes the same outside dimension DDS (film holders) for similar formats, ie 5"x4" & Continental European 9x12cm, or 13x18cm/7"x5"/Half plate, and the 18x24cm and 10"x8". Whole plate doesn't get defined as it's solely a UK format at that point.

Ian

[Jim Jones]

American Standards Association used ASA from 1928 to 1969. Forty years ago Kodak was still using ASA film speeds, and I still sometimes use the even older Weston film speeds without converting them to ISO: they are close enough for B&W.

[Jim Jones]

American Standards Association used ASA from 1928 to 1969. Forty years ago Kodak was still using ASA film speeds, and I still sometimes use the even older Weston film speeds without converting them to ISO: they are close enough for B&W.

Seabee, I'd use a single cut file rather than emery cloth. It will knock down only the high spots instead wasting energy and emery cloth on low spots.

[seabee1999]

American Standards Association used ASA from 1928 to 1969. Forty years ago Kodak was still using ASA film speeds, and I still sometimes use the even older Weston film speeds without converting them to ISO: they are close enough for B&W.

Seabee, I'd use a single cut file rather than emery cloth. It will knock down only the high spots instead wasting energy and emery cloth on low spots.

Thanks for your suggestion Jim. However, I have already done the deed and the holders now work very well with the camera. No issue anymore. There wasn't much effort in the end.

R/
Dave