How to use half-frame dark slide?

[Meekyman]

Hi Folks,

I'm tempted by the idea of the occasional panoramic using 5x4 sheet film. I just don't understand how the half-frame dark slide works - I think I'm being really thick here!! I would want to get two images per sheet.

Here's an example: http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/accessories/halfframeds

Does this fit inside the normal "sleeve" of the dark slide? It must do otherwise your film would always be exposed, right?

I've read that Chamonix's only fit inside their own double dark slide. Anyone want to verify? $100 for DDS and 1/2 frame seems a lot for the occasional panoramic!

Cheers

Graham

[diversey]

You still use your 2 full size dark slides for your film holder, only use the half-frame dark slide to protect the half of the film you don't want to expose after you pull out the full size dark slide. It is dependent on which part of film you want to focus on, top or bottom, you may need insert your film holder from your left or right. You will get it after you practice it without a film in the holder. Good luck!

[Mark Stahlke]

It helps to make a paper template for composing. I used black construction paper for mine.

[Meekyman]

Thanks to both of you for the quick replies!

Ok makes more sense now.

Cheers

Graham

[Vaughn]

I have made my own for 8x10 and 11x14.

Metal darkslides are nice to work with -- less likely to break in one's pack or out in the field.

[C. D. Keth]

That’s a good illustration, Vaughn. It shows clearly that the “half slide” isn’t really half because you want to mask off a bit extra so there a touch of space between frames.

To the OP: I wouldn’t get a chamonix holder and dark slide, personally. I’d find a few older holders on eBay where one of them is ugly or beat up and you can cannibalize a dark slide from it. You can easily make a half-slide with a fine saw or even a box knife and metal ruler. Little sand and the jobs a good ‘un.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Corran]

Be aware that the half-darkslide trick can be a real bear for wide / ultrawide shooting.

Remember, the half being exposed essentially has about 1 inch of front rise or fall applied to it, since it's off-center. If you want to correct that and "center" the image, you'll have to use corresponding movements. Depending on your lens/camera, that could be hard or impossible, starting at around 90mm.

Since I am especially fond of wide and ultrawides, half-darkslide panoramics don't really work for me, especially on 4x5 with the shorter focal lengths. Furthermore, since 6x12 backs are readily available, I don't find it to be a compelling option for that format - but it gets way more understandable with 8x10 or larger due to the longer lenses and lack of roll film options.

I am also lucky to have a prototype Chamonix 4x10 holder that is sized like a normal 8x10 DDS for that format. If I got into 11x14 I would definitely use a half-darkslide solution.

[C. D. Keth]

Lacking that prototype 4x10->8x10 holder, there’s no reason you couldn’t get some styrene sheet of the right thickness and make rails to load 4x10 into a regular 8x10 holder. You could convert any holder that way and it would cost all of maybe $5 in styrene sheet for model making.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Corran]

Well, besides the fact that 8x10 holders are very expensive (I paid about the same amount for the 4x10 holder as I would a modern 8x10 holder in good condition), I would be worried about any kind of snafu that would cause the 4x10 sheet to fall out or otherwise be ruined. Much too much trouble and expense shooting 4x10 for that kind of DIY IMO.

[C. D. Keth]

Well, besides the fact that 8x10 holders are very expensive (I paid about the same amount for the 4x10 holder as I would a modern 8x10 holder in good condition), I would be worried about any kind of snafu that would cause the 4x10 sheet to fall out or otherwise be ruined. Much too much trouble and expense shooting 4x10 for that kind of DIY IMO.

You worry too much. You would just be recreating the same system that holds film in any holder. It would be no less secure than a 4x10 sheet of film in a 4x10 holder or an 8x10 sheet in an 8x10 holder. I just bought 6 8x10 holders for an average of $30 each. They just need cleaning so call it $35 each including labor. You just sound like you’re looking for reasons to spend more money. [emoji1787]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Corran]

Nah, I don't think I am. I've screwed up enough film in enough ways to know that isn't going to be a secure solution. But why don't you make a couple and show me? And congrats on your steal. Look around and you'll find that modern plastic 8x10 holders sell for 2-3 times that.

PS: no reason you need to be condescending.

[Vaughn]

Be aware that the half-darkslide trick can be a real bear for wide / ultrawide shooting.
...
I am also lucky to have a prototype Chamonix 4x10 holder that is sized like a normal 8x10 DDS for that format. If I got into 11x14 I would definitely use a half-darkslide solution.

I do very little wide and no ultra-wide photography, so I have not run into that problem. With 11x14, I found it best for horizontal 5.5x14s to always expose the upper half of the negative -- the modified darkslide will sit easier and not slip down in the holder.

[C. D. Keth]

Nah, I don't think I am. I've screwed up enough film in enough ways to know that isn't going to be a secure solution. But why don't you make a couple and show me? And congrats on your steal. Look around and you'll find that modern plastic 8x10 holders sell for 2-3 times that.

PS: no reason you need to be condescending.

Smile and lighten up. That was a joke.

If I make myself a holder like I described, I will certainly take some photos for anybody interested. I am not a fan of very wide lenses, though, so I will probably just continue using my half-darkslide and avoid having to stock film in another size or cut down 8x10.

[Greg]

My first half frame for 11x14 was 5.5x14. Found that one image sometimes "bled" on the the other image in the center. Second half frame was more like 5.25x11 and worked out much better. Also, for me, the larger the format the better half frames worked.

I also put alignment dots on my front standard to match it up to the part of the film that was being exposed.

Initially used small post-it-notes to indicate which half of the film was exposed... not a good idea as they can easily be detached physically or by a good gust of wind, trust me on that. Would be interesting to know how others mark either half as being exposed. Many a time exposed the same half twice over the years.

[diversey]

Hal-frame dark slide was used for this shot on my 4x5 camera.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VDAbpIRnyOU/V1hjr9-p75I/AAAAAAAACLs/tHdd9XYf8C0wN0aITQx1CLiWjTRYuLQ_QCLcB/s1600/10x4%2Bcropped%2B2web.jpg

[Vaughn]

My first half frame for 11x14 was 5.5x14. Found that one image sometimes "bled" on the the other image in the center. Second half frame was more like 5.25x11 and worked out much better. Also, for me, the larger the format the better half frames worked.
... Would be interesting to know how others mark either half as being exposed...

My solution -- always make two exposures, one right after the other with a possible change in exposure. Saves a lot of grief and possible confusion later and film is not one's major expense. If I do not take a second image right then, I usually just put the holder away and leave just the one image on it. But if I had to guess, the second horizontal image is always made loading the holder from the left -- my normal default is to have the back set up to load holders from the right side.

After the first exposure (horizontal and using front rise), I replace the full darkslide, leave the film holder in the camera back, remove and rotate the camera back 180 degrees and put it back on the camera. I still expose the upper half of the film and everything is still aligned nicely like the first exposure. It is nice having a back-up negative that you know has been processed the same. For verticals, I still need to shift the lens and re-compose for the second image.

You get some fun-looking negatives like this (inverted in PS, two 5.5x14...PS 5.5x14 is just the film size -- image size is smaller):

[jmontague]

This is not perfectly on topic and may be blasphemy, but why not just crop the image in the darkroom to get a pano print? If you are not shooting ULF, you won’t be making contact prints at 2” x 5”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[C. D. Keth]

This is not perfectly on topic and may be blasphemy, but why not just crop the image in the darkroom to get a pano print? If you are not shooting ULF, you won’t be making contact prints at 2” x 5”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The main draw is being able to expose two panoramic images on one sheet of film and gain an exposure that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vaughn]

This is not perfectly on topic and may be blasphemy, but why not just crop the image in the darkroom to get a pano print? If you are not shooting ULF, you won’t be making contact prints at 2” x 5”.

When I was enlarging from 4x5 negatives, I just cropped on the printing easel. The 4x5 film holders are small, one can carry quite a few, and film is cheap, so why not? Bump up to 8x10 and that all changes. Instead of a dozen or more 4x5 film holders in one's pack for the day, I might have six 8x10 holders.

Early on I fell in love with the pano...my first ones were finds on my 4x5 proof sheets. Then I went looking for them. Below was one of my first 'finds' on my 4x5 proof sheets back in the early '80s...printed about 7"x19"

[C. D. Keth]

I see why you picked that one out of the lineup, Vaughn. Very serene.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[esearing]

For 4x5 pano it may be more financially prudent to shoot the full sheet and mask/crop when printing/post processing. You can change aspect ratios from 5x4 to 5x2 (eq 5x12 or 7x17 enlarged) or 5x2.5 or 5x3.5 (1/2 5x7) . You can buy dark red polyester sheets at your art supply store and cut a permanent window mask for your enlarger's film carrier. Then there is also cropping by using the blades of your easel or crop tool in software. If you need a visualization aide for the field, print/draw lines on clear sheet sized to fit on top of your ground glass while you compose.

Your pano tastes/vision may one day change or a need arrises for more of the image to suit another use. For advertising they sometimes bleed the excess portion of the image through a slightly transparent banner.

[xkaes]

This is not perfectly on topic and may be blasphemy, but why not just crop the image in the darkroom to get a pano print? If you are not shooting ULF, you won’t be making contact prints at 2” x 5”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'm of the same opinion. I've successfully performed surgery on several darkslides -- without problems -- but largely for the purposes of simplifying exposure tests or repairs.

Without considering the various issues and limitations/problems, pros & cons listed below, I would not do it only because I want the entire scene so that I can crop to my heart's content in the darkroom.

[Vaughn]

Sometimes the rebate is treated as part of the image (4x10 and 5.5x14 examples)

[Drew Bedo]

Re: The paper templet idea . . .

Why not just expose one half of a piece of B&W film and process it?

It will; be clear-0ish on one half and black on the other.

Plce that over the GG to frame the imposition.

Or use the cut off piece as a mask on the GG.

[ic-racer]

I never use the half 8x10 darkslide I made because i wasted too much film not knowing how much, if any of the film had been exposed when the full darkslide was in place. Now I expose the full sheet and crop top and bottom when printing.

[Vaughn]

Solved that by always exposing the same image on both halves -- can try a slightly different exposure, or just get an extra neg -- nice when working with alt processes that can damage negatives. Or leaving half unexposed if needed. To take the second (horizonal) image I do not remove the film holder from the camera -- just rotate the camera back 180 degrees leaving the holder in it.

That way, a full darkslide showing black is exposed --as per usual.

[ridax]

A century ago, they used to insert a piece of cardboard in the camera itself, between the rear folds of the bellows to crop the image - and used the regular holders with the regular darkslides. The drawback is that the mask is farther from the film plane so there should be potentially more bleeding and overlap in the two images, especially with wide-angle lenses.

But using half-darkslides have its drawbacks also as there is a risk of light leaks while the half-darkslide is in the midway going in and out of the holder.