Compact film holders

[JRFrench]

Hello all,

I am embarking on a project to make a super-compact 4x5 folder. Ideally this camera will fit in a large pocket, and will have an outline not much bigger than a sheet of film.

I keep coming back to the problem that standard double dark slides are rather larger than they need to be with modern manufacturing techniques. If I want to carry a decent amount of film, they sort of overshadow and volume savings I make on a camera. Things like grafmatics can help a little, but they in themselves are rather heavy, and have quite a large footprint especially with the darkslide handle hanging out.

Anyhow, I am strongly considering making some very compact single dark slide holders, making use of the rather affordable profile cutting services that are available these days (laser, water cutting). Ideally they will be only slightly larger than the footprint of the film, just large enough to provide guides, and light tightness. The main thing keeping my brain busy is working out a compact way of providing access to load the film, and I havn't quite solved that yet. Anyway If I am successful a couple of them should fit comfortably in a pocket, which will make 4x5 much more accessible to me I feel. Oh yes just to add I will be making the registration distance something more like 1-2mm so without some kind of adapter they won't be compatible with standard cameras.

So to get to my question (comments are welcome too) I was wondering if anything like this has been produced for any large format cameras in history, surely someone has come across this problem before? Someone must have looked at all that wasted space in a standard holder with an engineers eye, and come up with a better way to do it...

[John Schneider]

Have you looked at the Mido holders? Thin and lightweight, but troublesome from what I've heard.

[JRFrench]

After a rather lengthy hunt I found a picture of some 4x10 ones, not a bad idea, thinning down the normal holder then using an adaptor to make them fit again.

They still have the problem of the rather large outline tho as they have to reach past that lip where the ridge locks into the back on normal cameras.

Having them flexible is an interesting approach. I hadn't considered doing that, I could use the back to hold them flat.

[Louie Powell]

Have you looked at the Mido holders? Thin and lightweight, but troublesome from what I've heard.

And not commercially successful, even though they were introduced in the 1970's when film was the only game in town.

Today, this would target an exceedingly small market niche.

[JRFrench]

Indeed the niche would be tiny, good thing Im not looking to make them commercially :)

[jp]

I've never bought film holders new, but I'd consider it if they were half as thick; I could carry more in less space, good for the backpack.

A spacer plate could be made that clips to it or to the camera back for cameras that don't want to work with something thinner. Such as the ones that aren't sprung for it. (the leaf spring style backs) I bet the graflex style back would hold a thinner one since it's uses a less linear wound spring.

You could create probably a filmholder 2/3 the thickness no problems.

Some space could be saved by bringing the film closer to the outside (thinner metal film retainer), maybe bringing it to half thickness. I bet the current design is because of wood strength and thickness requirements. You would need a spacer to be installed on existing cameras to make it on the same plane as the ground glass. These two spacers could be something that hinges or clamps on the thinner holder for backwards compatibility. The handle on the darkslide could be made integral one piece with the dark slide, such as notch to pull it out with. Any labeling could be stenciled on rather than having a label/handle.

An aftermarket properly spaced groundglass or a special back adaptor like instant film uses could be an easy and expensive way to get around this need for a spacing plate.

One downfall potential is if the film isn't perfectly flat, it might be difficult to insert the darkslide with no room to spare. A little beveled rocker piece going ahead of the darkslide and pushed by the darkslide to force the film against the middle of the film holder would prevent the darkslide from hitting the film on it's way back in.

Additional profit might be made selling dust/light proof containers for various quantities.

[JRFrench]

Some good points there, I hope to have a CAD model of what I propose read soon.

[Frank R]

How about a carbon fiber Grafmatic?

[salihonba]

Maybe many sleeves for negative, and one holder for sleeves insert/pull out, something like Quickload.........

[salihonba]

Maybe many sleeves for negatives, and one holder for sleeves insert/pull out, something like Quickload.........

[williamtheis]

almost every 4x5 or 8x10 I have ever owned could readily operate with a film holder half as thick as the standard ones. Why are they so thick? rigidity? if so they could be made out of carbon fiber....

[Frank Petronio]

If you think about the total carry weight and bulk, building the camera around a solid Grafmatic six-sheet holder might make the most sense. If you are truly wanting a pocket camera, then six sheets is plenty, you wouldn't want to carry too many film holders anyway, and the Grafmatic is the least bulky per sheet of anything so far. Perhaps you could even design a quick release for the front end so you could exchange dedicated Grafmatics and ground glass units, somewhat like the Dean Jones Razzle Polaroid 110 conversions?

[ric_kb]

"roll film packs".... coiled sheets ... pull from one coil side to the other

[JRFrench]

How about a carbon fiber Grafmatic?

Thats not a bad idea, although it wouldn't be easy to make. It also doesn't solve the fact its outline is rather a lot larger than it needs to be.



Maybe many sleeves for negative, and one holder for sleeves insert/pull out, something like Quickload.........

Hehe sounds exactly like readyload. The idea deserves some thought, although Im not sure how the sealing and unsealing of the end would work.


almost every 4x5 or 8x10 I have ever owned could readily operate with a film holder half as thick as the standard ones. Why are they so thick? rigidity? if so they could be made out of carbon fiber....

Standardisation. Not something to complain about really, that pretty much any holder and camera combo from the last 50 years will work together.


If you think about the total carry weight and bulk, building the camera around a solid Grafmatic six-sheet holder might make the most sense. If you are truly wanting a pocket camera, then six sheets is plenty, you wouldn't want to carry too many film holders anyway, and the Grafmatic is the least bulky per sheet of anything so far. Perhaps you could even design a quick release for the front end so you could exchange dedicated Grafmatics and ground glass units, somewhat like the Dean Jones Razzle Polaroid 110 conversions?

Im looking at a grafmatic now and I recon I can get 6 sheets in quite a bit less volume and outline. a ground glass - grafmatic combination sounds pretty bulky, how big are your pockets! I do agree with you that 6 sheets is plenty tho. I think while the 110 conversions are quite cool, they are rather large and the back system is pretty ugly, especially on the littmans.


"roll film packs".... coiled sheets ... pull from one coil side to the other

Hehe thats not a bad idea, I'm not sure how tightly you could coil thick base films, this sounds sort of like the hold packfilms that had thin base to curve around each other, also I forsee lots of jamming in the development hehe.


It would seem the time has come for me to produce a diagram of what I think is the best solution, providing it with scale will be the most difficult part but Ill have a go.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Hehe sounds exactly like readyload. The idea deserves some thought, although Im not sure how the sealing and unsealing of the end would work...Perhaps Joanna would tell you if you invested in her project: :D

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=52028


Or maybe just use her product when/if it becomes available. :)

[JRFrench]

Haha, I'm not in a position to invest in anything very heavily!

I like the thickness of the readload solution, but they are rather long from what I have seen, to work with the existing holders.

[JRFrench]

Ive started designing it today, Ill have some renderings for you guys tomorrow. Im hoping I can get away with two different materials. Some for of shim for the darkslide and spacing, and a thicker material for the core.

[jb7]

I've been thinking the same thing, but mostly in relation to larger holders-

I think you're right, the structure of a film holder is designed around the material in which they were first produced, wood-
and it should be possible to produce a new design for the 21st century-
Though the rewards might be confined to its achievement, it would definitely be worth it-

[salihonba]

Now I am inspired by gun magazine for bullets......
films piled in cartridge, exposed film is pulled out, then next film is ready....

but other problems remain.....
how to protect exposed film? in a sleeve? how to cover/uncover the sleeve when film is on shooting position?

[JRFrench]

Joseph, my thoughts exactly. Im hoping to have a prototype in the next few weeks. The laser cutter is going to do 95% of the work so it won't be any trouble for me to make more of them. I've just commited to buying a nice compact 90mm f6.8 lens for the folder so I am in it now!

Sal, have a search for pack films on here, there is a description of how they work. Basically there was a stack of film with a thin base (same thickness as 120 films) and protective sheets between them. You exposed the top on the stack, and pulled the tab on the protective sheet which slid the film off the stack, and curved it around and under to the bottom of the stack again, quite impressive.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Sal, have a search for pack films on here, there is a description of how they work. Basically there was a stack of film with a thin base (same thickness as 120 films) and protective sheets between them. You exposed the top on the stack, and pulled the tab on the protective sheet which slid the film off the stack, and curved it around and under to the bottom of the stack again, quite impressive.Yes, I'm familiar with those film packs. If you could design/build something as functional using standard 7-mil polyester film I'd be extremely impressed and envious.

My perspective is that there's no way we're going to get any film manufacturer to revive a pack system or even provide the emulsions we like on sheets with non-standard base. Please keep us posted on your progress.

[Bill_1856]

Have you actually ever used a Grafmatic?

[JRFrench]

Yes, I'm familiar with those film packs. If you could design/build something as functional using standard 7-mil polyester film I'd be extremely impressed and envious.

My perspective is that there's no way we're going to get any film manufacturer to revive a pack system or even provide the emulsions we like on sheets with non-standard base. Please keep us posted on your progress.

Fair enough, yes it would be a rather nice solution to replicate a pack system, but would probably require more complicated mechanics than I care to undertake with my currently limited resources, although I will put some thought into it.


Have you actually ever used a Grafmatic?

I own two. Love the 'machine gun' action.

[Bill_1856]

Aother possibiity is a BagMag. One ounce less weight than a Grafmatic, but it holds 12 sheets. The downside is you would have to adapt your camera to a Graflex back.

[Uncle Jim]

Hi,
Have you ever seen the metal film holders that were used on the old 9 x 12 Plate cameras. They were very thin, but one sided. They were 1/8 or 3/16 inch thick and slid on to the back of the cameras, which were also rather thin, maybe an inch to an inch and a half. The ground glass was also a slide on unit and quite thin also. These cameras were very popular around the turn of the last century. Just an Idea.

uncle jim

[JRFrench]

Uncle Jim, I have some 6x9 ones of those coming to me soon so they will be interesting to see.

Bill_1856, I was having a look at those yesterday, they are certainly intriguing. Since I am building the camera from scratch whatever back it ends up with is no easier than any other kind. I should keep a look out for a bag mag, mabye try and part swap a grafmatic or something.

[Sevo]

Hi,
Have you ever seen the metal film holders that were used on the old 9 x 12 Plate cameras. They were very thin, but one sided. They were 1/8 or 3/16 inch thick and slid on to the back of the cameras, which were also rather thin, maybe an inch to an inch and a half. The ground glass was also a slide on unit and quite thin also. These cameras were very popular around the turn of the last century.

Stamped sheet metal holders don't seem to have been invented until the early 20th century and, the war intervening, they did not get popular until the early twenties - their high time were the twenties to forties, but more residential manufacturers in Germany carried sheet metal backs on up into the seventies.

They are heavy, a single 9x12 holder weighs just about the same as modern double 4x5" wood-and-plastics holder. But where weight is no consideration while size is, they are a good option - on the associated quick-change backs with a spring loaded side clamp, they become part of the fastest loading sheet film system short of a Grafmatic.

Sheet metal holders are a pain to purchase, though, as sellers usually are entirely ignorant as to what standard their holders are (there were more than a dozen, and even though the majority are either Normalfalz or Millionfalz, the market is packed with odd Falz types, and the differences are often small enough that you won't notice until you discover a light leak on your images). And late holders with dedicated, comfortable film handling are rare - most are glass plate holders that need a loosely inserted (sometimes dedicated, more often generic) sheath/septum if they are to be used with film. The sheaths are often missing or mismatched, or a undesirable size (adapters for 6x9 film inside a 9x12 holder seem to have been popular).

Sevo