PDA

View Full Version : Which brand of 4x5 filmholder is best?



Leigh
26-Jan-2011, 21:15
I have Riteway and Fidelity Elite, and need to buy some more.

I know there are other styles of Fidelity, and other brands like Lisco.

Anybody know which are best as regards durability, film flatness, etc?

Thanks.

- Leigh

Bob McCarthy
26-Jan-2011, 21:24
I'm a big fan of the old Rochester made graflex and toyo holders in 4x5. I have regal II in 8x10

All appear to have a properly positioned film planes.

Bob

Leigh
26-Jan-2011, 21:43
Thanks, Bob.

(Did you get your mail?)

- Leigh

Lachlan 717
26-Jan-2011, 22:41
Search, Leigh. There are several threads on this...

Leigh
26-Jan-2011, 23:07
Search, Leigh. There are several threads on this...
I did. I didn't find any that addressed this question specifically.

There were only a couple out of the 124 hits that even discussed the subject in general.

Thanks.

- Leigh

Lachlan 717
26-Jan-2011, 23:16
Try this. (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=48324)

Read between the lines for your answers!

Lynn Jones
27-Jan-2011, 14:18
The man who bought Calumet back in 1972 (I can't remember Fred's last name anymore) bought Lisco/Fidelity identical guts, slightly different look, also later bought Riteway from what was left of Graflex. So all have the same ownership and the same factory. Back when Graflex was still around, I tested all three of these plus a couple of Japanese and European film holders. Lisco/Fidelity has the best film plane location, Riteway were out of location, slightly, the others while very expensive, were neither parelell nor in distance. I confess that since I'n not in the view camera business anymore I haven't done the tests for a long time. These three probably represent about 98% of the business.

Lynn

BrianShaw
27-Jan-2011, 14:23
I believe you but never noticed that about Riteway holders.

Roger Cole
27-Jan-2011, 14:28
When I started with 4x6 in 1997 there were Fidelity and Riteway on the market new, and new didn't cost like they do now. I tried both and really liked the Riteway button release. This is the feature mentioned above, where there's a button that locks the darkslide in place. When the holder is placed in the back, the spring pressure presses the button automatically and the darkslide comes right out when pulled. Otherwise, with the holder out of the camera, you have to hold in the button to remove the darkslide. I never actually lost a sheet of film to the Fidelity style holders (of course, I only shot a small bit with some I borrowed too,) but I found it so easy to accidentally move the little hook that I was always concerned about it.

I recall in discussions at the time on rec.photo.largeformat that some folks didn't like the Riteways because they won't fit in a quart ziplock, which indeed they won't. I carry mine all together in one gallon ziplock, which seems to work fine. I only have five, ten sheets of film being pretty much enough for me to carry back then, but I may be looking for more once I get going this time.

I never did any film plane testing or the like. I guess I just assumed that, since they seemed identical to the Fidelity style except for the dark slide and how it engaged the holder, they would be equal in film flatness. I never saw any focus problems that seemed to be caused by a mislocated film plane.

Bob Salomon
27-Jan-2011, 14:49
Back in the day, Bruno at Altman's and later Helix used to take customers who complained that their lens wasn't sharp aside and loan them a Linhof Double Cut Sheet Film Holder. They would then do a test, keep their lens and buy a set of the Linhof holders. However both the Linhof Double Cut Sheet Film Holders and the Linhof Glass Plate/Sheet Film Holders are long out of production. But if you can find some of the sheet film holders do your own comparison.

Jeff Bannow
27-Jan-2011, 14:59
I really like the Toyo 4x5 holders. I haven't tested them - in fact, I'm not sure how I would. I never noticed a problem though.

Leigh
27-Jan-2011, 15:35
Read between the lines for your answers!
Why?

I'm not interested in reading between any lines. :eek:

Is there some reason I can't pose a question and receive direct answers to it? :confused:

Several of the other responses have been quite helpful. Thanks, guys.

Lachlan, thank you for your interest.

- Leigh

Steve Hamley
27-Jan-2011, 15:47
Riteways if you can find them in good condition, Toyo if you can't. Freestyle has the best price on them.

Cheers, Steve

Leigh
27-Jan-2011, 15:49
Thanks, Steve.

I'll give Freestyle a try.

- Leigh

mandoman7
27-Jan-2011, 21:11
I had a chance to use a couple of Toyo 8x10 holders recently and they were clearly a step above my Fidelity's, Lisco's, etc.. The slides moved elegantly, and the whole feel of operation was superior. They came as part of a purchase as luck would have it, so I didn't pay the $180 price that's charged at Badger. Each, that's not the price for two!
I didn't keep them as I have about 20 Fidelity's that I'm happy with, and it didn't make sense unless I had a full set. Plus, they pulled in a good return on ebay making it like I got the camera for free.

Gordon Flodders
28-Jan-2011, 00:26
Lisco Regal 2's are by far the best IMHO. Toyo's are nice too, but a bit scarce. Not so keen on Fidelity or Riteway.;)

GF.

Scotty230358
28-Jan-2011, 01:29
I have always found Toyo film holders eminently usable and durable.

Cor
28-Jan-2011, 02:28
..a bit of a side step here...bus assuming that an holder is slightly off (ie the film plane is not at the same plane as the ground glass you focus in.), when will that be noticeable ?

I guess only at the really wide apertures, from say f 16 and beyond you won't see a differences (still assuming slightly off)..?

Best,

Cor

Brian C. Miller
28-Jan-2011, 02:53
Cor, this will vary according to camera brand. Several years ago when I replaced the GG in my Super Graphic, I made measurements of my film holders. The maximum difference between one brand of holder and another is 0.005-inches. This is enough to throw off critical focus. The GG was closest to the Graflex holders.

Try this test: Test Procedure for Obtaining Resolution Results (http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/pdml-procedure.html)
What you do is print out the USAF resolution chart using a really good inkjet printer. Follow the directions on the site, using one lens and one film holder. Determine your lens' optimum apeture, and then repeat the test for the other film holders, using your lens' best apeture. Once that is done, then you'll know what to do for maximum sharpness.

Steve Hamley
28-Jan-2011, 05:31
Also keep in mind Bob Salomon's comment in a related thread that film sag is taken into account when holder platen spacing is designed. Sag would be greater for larger formats as people who point an 11x14 and larger camera down know, and why vacuum and "sticky tape" holders have been made.

In my own tests, there was less space between the holder rails and the platen with Riteways, which means the film will be held closer to the platen. Whether this is any better than other holders is not immediately evident because we don't know all the engineering assumptions (like film sag) the designers used in designing the holders.

Ideally, you'd want to measure the position of the film surface from the face of the holder in the position the camera would be used in, and this should be the same dimension as the GG from the frame.

Cor, the depth of focus (the depth of acceptable focus at the film plane) is less for wide angles than for longer lenses, so the film position becomes more critical with wide angles.

One final comment, I think it is an unfounded assumption to assume that a well-made holder with a smooth dark slide pull is better than another with respect to film position and resulting sharpness, with the exception that in general more expensive and well made products are generally better. But not in any given instance. The thread on the Maxwell fresnel I believe is a good example. My experience, and that of a friend who has been a commercial and fine art photographer for 40 years, is that fresnels make composing easier and focusing more difficult. He said he did not know of any other commercial photographers who had fresnels in their cameras, although he had fresnels in about half of his.

Cheers, Steve

Cor
28-Jan-2011, 05:33
Thanks for the link, Brian

You're right off course, you can have an interesting discussion based on theory, but in the end only careful testing with your own equipment will tell,

best,

Cor

Lachlan 717
28-Jan-2011, 14:03
Forget shooting test charts at close range.

What effect does this have in real world shooting, where 0.005" isn't critical.

Because, don't forget, whilst you're spending time doing all this resting, real photo opportunities are being missed.

Leigh
28-Jan-2011, 23:44
Lisco Regal 2's are by far the best IMHO.
Hi Gordon,

I had some Liscos years ago, and thought they were decent holders. I don't see them mentioned very often.

Thanks.

- Leigh

edtog
29-Jan-2011, 01:54
I've got a few Fidelity, Riteway and Toyo's and always use the Toyo ones in preference to the others.

Brian C. Miller
29-Jan-2011, 02:02
What effect does this have in real world shooting, where 0.005" isn't critical.

A 0.005 difference will shift focus. And I'm not suggesting that this be done at a close distance. This should be done simply as part of a basic lens test, which doesn't take long at all. Measure the distance (follow the link) and run through, what, maybe 8 sheets of film? The test is reasonably quick.

If someone doesn't care, hey, fine. I found out all of this because I had to replace my GG.

Lachlan 717
29-Jan-2011, 03:11
A 0.005 difference will shift focus. And I'm not suggesting that this be done at a close distance. This should be done simply as part of a basic lens test, which doesn't take long at all. Measure the distance (follow the link) and run through, what, maybe 8 sheets of film? The test is reasonably quick.

If someone doesn't care, hey, fine. I found out all of this because I had to replace my GG.

0.005" @ hyperfocal or infinity is bugger all focus shift. GG finish (rough v smooth), loupe quality, lens quality, lens mounting quality, tripod quality and/or atmospheric conditions will all come in to play, as,too, will the shooter's latent ability to focus.

These is all relevent when considering shooting wide open. Fairly moot when stopped down. All well and good shooting test charts; real world shooting for the most people won't show any easily-discernible difference between brands at anything but very, very big enlargements.

But, just ignore this if you intend to do massive blow-ups of test charts...

jan labij
29-Jan-2011, 07:34
lachlan's last post is accurate. If you are doing landscapes and portraiture, I've never had a problem. For technichal work, I imagine it makes a big difference.

Jim Jones
29-Jan-2011, 07:46
Without wrestling with the math or tests I estimate a .005" focus error might cut the resolution of a fast lens in half. At the typical small apertures we use for LF, the comments of Lachlan are valid.

Leigh
31-Jan-2011, 17:39
What effect does this have in real world shooting, where 0.005" isn't critical.
I just measured the thickness of some Ilford FP4 negatives... 0.20mm = 8 mils = 0.008".

The Ilford datasheet says the base is 7 mils thick (0.180mm), so the emulsion is 1 mil = 0.001" thick.

I believe a shift of 0.005" in the position of the film would make a HUGE difference in the focus.

Sorry to avoid "real world" experiments and confuse the issue with the facts. :rolleyes:

- Leigh

Jim Chan
31-Jan-2011, 22:48
+1 for Toyo. I use the 4x5 and 8x10 versions, and I'm happy with them. Compared to the regal's I've used, they are definitely a bit nicer in terms of fit and finish. Never had any light leaks or film flatness problems. The downside is that they smell horrible when new, like some sort of burnt plastic.. the smell does mostly go away eventually though.

tgtaylor
31-Jan-2011, 23:32
Hmmm...I own 20 Toyo holders and all but 6 were purchased new. I never noticed an odor from either the new or the old and I have good olfactory sense.

Lachlan 717
1-Feb-2011, 02:49
I just measured the thickness of some Ilford FP4 negatives... 0.20mm = 8 mils = 0.008".

The Ilford datasheet says the base is 7 mils thick (0.180mm), so the emulsion is 1 mil = 0.001" thick.

I believe a shift of 0.005" in the position of the film would make a HUGE difference in the focus.

Sorry to avoid "real world" experiments and confuse the issue with the facts. :rolleyes:

- Leigh

0.005" equals 0.127mm. This is just a bit more that the diameter of an average human hair. Try opening the tines of your micrometer 0.127mm.

For what it's worth, how do you plan to focus with the lens movements the thickness of a human hair? Your camera has some sort of ultra fine focus gearing.

Forget all of this priggish technical stuff; get under a dark cloth. Focus on something that is representative of what you intend to shoot when you solve the original question.

Then, move the lens back (or forward) the thickness of a human hair.

I bet all of the technical testing will be shown to be moot.

Once again, all of the factors I previously mentioned will play more of a role than 0.127mm lens position difference.

Get caught up in the art, not the science (even if they are "facts"), of photography.

evan clarke
1-Feb-2011, 07:30
I like the last generation of Riteways with the automatic slide stop. I have about 100 of these, about 40 Toyos and quite a number of Fidelitys. All are sharp but the Riteways are the ones I like best for using...Evan Clarke

Leigh
1-Feb-2011, 08:08
Forget all of this priggish technical stuff; get under a dark cloth. Focus on something that is representative of what you intend to shoot when you solve the original question.
Lachlan,

I've been taking photos for over 55 years. I've spent my share of time "under a dark cloth".

Your earlier statement that .005" positional error is not significant is just plain wrong.

If you don't have the balls to admit it, then just shut up.

- Leigh

Leigh
1-Feb-2011, 08:15
I like the last generation of Riteways with the automatic slide stop.
Hi Evan,

I must confess I don't know what the "automatic slide stop" is. Could you expound, please.

Thanks.

- Leigh

John Kasaian
1-Feb-2011, 08:38
I'm fond of old style Riteways, Agfa/Ansco, Baco, & Liscos. I even have a few Fotecs. Heck, I'll use just about anything if the negs "look" good.
What I won't use is Tiltalls---no locking ridge---the work of satan!

Jim Jones
1-Feb-2011, 09:02
A .005" film position error is something many of us just live with. The 1951 ASA standards specify a tolerance of +/- .007" in the film holder face to septum distance, and a .012" slot for the film. Holders can be well within this ASA standard and have more than a .005" error. Carefully measuring and selecting holders and perhaps reducing the film slot opening to just over the film thickness will help. In some holders two sheets of film fit that slot. Using an extra sheet of film is one inconvenient way of reducing this particular error. All of the above does not address the potential for film curvature due to gravity or humidity. However, stopping down to f/22 reduces the blur due to a .005" focus error to .00022" or .0057mm. I can live with that.

Jeff Bannow
1-Feb-2011, 09:04
I would think if you are trying to correct to this kind of tolerance, you would need to test each holder individually. I don't think shopping for a specific brand is going to do it.

I'm very happy with the shots I've gotten in many different brands. At least in my case, this kind of precision isn't necessary.

Jack Dahlgren
1-Feb-2011, 09:13
Lachlan,

I've been taking photos for over 55 years. I've spent my share of time "under a dark cloth".

Your earlier statement that .005" positional error is not significant is just plain wrong.

If you don't have the balls to admit it, then just shut up.

- Leigh

What a friendly person!

rdenney
1-Feb-2011, 09:45
I believe a shift of 0.005" in the position of the film would make a HUGE difference in the focus.

Sorry to avoid "real world" experiments and confuse the issue with the facts.

Leigh, is the contradiction in your statements above not visible to you?

You believe that a shift would make a (excuse me for shouting: "HUGE") difference, but have not tested it. Yet you are happy to claim that you are presenting facts.

Here's a fact: Thousands of photographers over many decades have made photographs that were more than adequately sharp using plain, inexpensive (well, they used to be) Fidelity, Lisco, and Riteway holders. I doubt that very many of them attempted to measure the focal plane position between their ground glass and their film position.

If this were not a fact, this forum would be replete with warnings about film holders, and it is not.

There are those who seek every slight and subtle detail to achieve as close to technical perfection as possible, and for them that is a hobby in and of itself. If that were the only path to stunningly sharp photography, there would be a lot less of it to enjoy.

Rick "who gets sharp, sharp, sharp images with a cheap Chinese roll-film holder and a 47mm Super Angulon after focusing with a 6x loupe and then stopping down" Denney

Lynn Jones
1-Feb-2011, 10:03
To Brian and others, in the 60's and 70's I constantly studied anything that related to view cameras since my old company the origina Calumet manaufactured over 85% of the world's VC's and my previous statement of that time certainly holds.

The ASA/ANSI specs were a target depth +/- .0007". We always regarded this as protection for manufacturers not for uniformly sharp images. Our specifications for our 120/220 roll holder was +/- .00035" and we hold that. Incidentally, Bill Ryan and I created 220 roll film in late 1965 and early 1966 and Calumet got Kodak and others to manufacture that type film. We jointly introduced that product at the PPA convention in the fall of 1966 with Kodak.

Lynn

Sal Santamaura
1-Feb-2011, 10:08
...The downside is that they smell horrible when new, like some sort of burnt plastic.. the smell does mostly go away eventually though.No, it doesn't. See this post and the thread it's part of:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=368636&postcount=18

Those same two holders are still in my garage. It's now been more than 4 years and they still smell just as bad as when new.

I was recently able to buy 8 more New-In-Box 4x5 Toyo holders from Kerry, who kindly confirmed for me that they had shiny dark slides. The dark slide surface characteristic positively identified them as having been made before Toyo offshored production and began using the offending resin. Current samples have textured dark slides. Success: no smell. Thanks, Kerry!

Leigh
1-Feb-2011, 10:16
There are those who seek every slight and subtle detail to achieve as close to technical perfection as possible, and for them that is a hobby in and of itself. If that were the only path to stunningly sharp photography, there would be a lot less of it to enjoy.
Rick,

You completely missed the point of my comment. I was refuting one very specific statement.

I said that a positional error of .005" WOULD adversely affect focus. That's an irrefutable fact. I began the statement with "I believe..." just to be polite. I shouldn't have bothered.

I did not assert that any specific film holder exhibited that amount of positional error, nor that any particular photographer's work had been adversely affected by same.

One common practice that will ameliorate the problem is stopping the lens down to take the photo. This will increase the depth of focus (not to be confused with depth of field), resulting in an image with better focus than one taken wide open under the same conditions.

Photography and many other (a)vocations are replete with legions of aficionados who claim that the physical laws of the universe don't pertain to them; that their "sensitivity" transcends all concepts of uniformity and repeatability.

Nonsense.

- Leigh

Sal Santamaura
1-Feb-2011, 10:18
...Our specifications for our 120/220 roll holder was +/- .00035" and we hold that...Pressure plate location might have been held to that tolerance, but emulsion surface position of the Calumet or any other roll film holder with a reverse-curl feed path isn't remotely related to the pressure plate. Depending on how thick the film is and how long it sat on the feed rollers, bulges toward the lens on the order of 0.02 inch occur. This completely negates any effort toward maintaining the pressure plate / rail postions.

Only a straight-through feed path can achieve good 120 film flatness. The Mamiya 7 has one as did old Mamiya Press holders. All others fail.

Vacuum holders with 220 is another successful flat film approach, but there are only a few color 220 films still available, none in black and white.

Roger Cole
1-Feb-2011, 10:29
Pressure plate location might have been held to that tolerance, but emulsion surface position of the Calumet or any other roll film holder with a reverse-curl feed path isn't remotely related to the pressure plate. Depending on how thick the film is and how long it sat on the feed rollers, bulges toward the lens on the order of 0.02 inch occur. This completely negates any effort toward maintaining the pressure plate / rail postions.

Only a straight-through feed path can achieve good 120 film flatness. The Mamiya 7 has one as did old Mamiya Press holders. All others fail.

Vacuum holders with 220 is another successful flat film approach, but there are only a few color 220 films still available, none in black and white.

Hummm, interesting. And now the relevant usage question - do people using these holders generally find they give acceptable results in normal pictorial photography, by which I mean primarily landscapes, portraits and still lifes, not close ups or reproductions or the like? I've not heard complaints that I can recall. (I'm also thinking about getting one so I'm interested in more than just an idly curious way.)

rdenney
1-Feb-2011, 10:34
Rick,

You completely missed the point of my comment. I was refuting one very specific statement.

I said that a positional error of .005" WOULD adversely affect focus. That's an irrefutable fact. I began the statement with "I believe..." just to be polite. I shouldn't have bothered.

You know, Leigh, sarcasm doesn't translate well on the Internet. People will argue with you just to push your button, which is apparently fairly easy to push.

The examples you gave of facts did not at all support your statement that being out of position by .005" would affect focus. If you are going to claim that you are singularly factual, what you write really needs to connect cause and effect a little more carefully. I am not arguing whether or not it is factual, but rather whether you stated facts as you claimed to, and as you belittled others for not doing.

Do not send faster than you can receive.

Rick "arguments are down the hall" Denney

Bob Salomon
1-Feb-2011, 10:34
Only a straight-through feed path can achieve good 120 film flatness. The Mamiya 7 has one as did old Mamiya Press holders. All others fail.

So did the Rollei SLX, 6001, 6002, 6006, 6008, 6003, 6008 AF. Also had straight film path on the 220 backs as well. Their 70mm backs were vacuum (those were the ones NASA used on the Shuttle missions that flew Rolleis although they did not use the vacuum feature in the Shuttle missions).

Sal Santamaura
1-Feb-2011, 12:02
So did the Rollei SLX, 6001, 6002, 6006, 6008, 6003, 6008 AF. Also had straight film path on the 220 backs as well. Their 70mm backs were vacuum (those were the ones NASA used on the Shuttle missions that flew Rolleis although they did not use the vacuum feature in the Shuttle missions).Sorry Bob, I'd not examined those. In any case, my comments about reverse-curl-induced bulging were directed at roll film backs for field/view cameras.

Sal Santamaura
1-Feb-2011, 12:10
Hummm, interesting. And now the relevant usage question - do people using these holders generally find they give acceptable results in normal pictorial photography, by which I mean primarily landscapes, portraits and still lifes, not close ups or reproductions or the like?...I can only speak for this person, not "people" in general.

In landscape use, when using and 75mm lenses on a Horseman VH, I've gotten unacceptable results with the Horseman holders; visible bands of reduced sharpness were evident in film bulge areas.

Toyo's roll holder feeds with much less reverse curl; its visible artifacts were minimal.

The Mamiya 6x8 back for RB-67, which places 9 images on a 120 roll, was also excellent. That holder causes extremely slight bulging at the very edges of some frames; this occurs outside a 6x7 area. Unfortunately, it doesn't "play nicely" with the VH Graflok sliders.

Bob Salomon
1-Feb-2011, 12:37
Sorry Bob, I'd not examined those. In any case, my comments about reverse-curl-induced bulging were directed at roll film backs for field/view cameras.

Sal,

Accepted. But the Linhof Rapid rollex for 6x7 on 45 cameras or 23 cameras is also straight roll feed.

Leigh
1-Feb-2011, 12:38
You know, Leigh, sarcasm doesn't translate well on the Internet. People will argue with you just to push your button, which is apparently fairly easy to push.
True statement. But hey, I'm only human. They told me so when they disconnected the wires. :eek:


The examples you gave of facts did not at all support your statement that being out of position by .005" would affect focus.
Sorry to disagree, but given that the emulsion is only .001" thick, a .005" shift in position will certainly move it out of the prime focal plane.

This all leads into the subject of depth of focus (not depth of field), which I was trying to avoid.

In a theoretically perfect world, the depth of focus of a lens is infinitely small. All light rays converge on a single point a particular distance behind the lens. At any other distance they diverge.

However, in the real world, things aren't that simple. The light rays converge at different distances, depending on their wavelength and on the radial distance from the lens axis. So the depth of focus has a finite value, albeit quite small for a good lens.

In fact, a lens of lesser quality will have a greater depth of focus than a highly corrected aspheric apochromat made with low-dispersion glass, simply because the depth of "best" focus is distributed over a larger range due to aberrations. At the point of optimum focus, the high-quality lens will certainly produce a sharper image than the lesser one.

So I will concede that under certain circumstances some point within the depth of focus might be within the emulsion even with a film position shift, resulting in an apparently in-focus image, even though the plane of prime focus is completely outside the emulsion. This would be more prevalent with low-quality optics.

And of course the depth of focus increases as you stop the lens down, which would mask the problem in many cases. I think we seldom shoot LF lenses wide open, or even close to it, with apertures in the f/22 to f/45 range being common.

Thanks for the comments. I really am trying to engage in a productive discussion here, not throw barbs. Apologies for doing so.

- Leigh

Lachlan 717
1-Feb-2011, 13:00
Lachlan,

I've been taking photos for over 55 years. I've spent my share of time "under a dark cloth".

Your earlier statement that .005" positional error is not significant is just plain wrong.

If you don't have the balls to admit it, then just shut up.

- Leigh

Wow, tough talk.

And nice avoidance of all of my other points.

Address them, if you "...have the balls", Tough Guy.

Leigh
1-Feb-2011, 13:13
And nice avoidance of all of my other points.
What other points? And how am I avoiding them?

My previous comments addressed one specific statement that you made, which I find fallacious.

- Leigh

Lachlan 717
1-Feb-2011, 13:51
What other points? And how am I avoiding them?

My previous comments addressed one specific statement that you made, which I find fallacious.

- Leigh

Just because an opinion differs to yours doesn't make it fallacious, Princess.

As for the other points, try looking at post #26, and this comment:

"GG finish (rough v smooth), loupe quality, lens quality, lens mounting quality, tripod quality and/or atmospheric conditions will all come in to play, as, too, will the shooter's latent ability to focus."

Lighten up a bit, Leigh. We're trying to help you here, regardless of whether you agree with what we write or not. Right now, you're just coming across as a grumpy old Ingrate.

Jack Dahlgren
1-Feb-2011, 13:56
What other points? And how am I avoiding them?

My previous comments addressed one specific statement that you made, which I find fallacious.

- Leigh

I think he pointed out that at 0.001 inches you are truly splitting hairs and the error present in the rest of the focusing chain (film buckling, film holder seating, fresnel, subject movement and depth, tripod vibration, gg, eyes and whatever sort of mechanism that is used to move the front standard) will make talking with that amount of precision laughable for real world photography. Certainly for indoor process work you can control much of that, but that is what process cameras are for. It is not something that is possible with your Plaubel.

I saw a bread recipe the other day where the unit conversion to metric was showing seven figures after the decimal place. I wonder who is capable of measuring out 1/10,000 of a gram of flour? Could it be you?

Leigh
1-Feb-2011, 14:02
Just because an opinion differs to yours doesn't make it fallacious, Princess.
I'm a Prince, thank you, not a Princess. :rolleyes:


"GG finish (rough v smooth), loupe quality, lens quality, lens mounting quality, tripod quality and/or atmospheric conditions will all come in to play, as, too, will the shooter's latent ability to focus."
None of those affect the question under discussion, which is film position relative to the lens, so I did not address them.

Of course there are myriad factors that can degrade the focus of an image on film. Anyone who's played with a non-AF camera knows that.

- Leigh

Sal Santamaura
1-Feb-2011, 14:39
...the Linhof Rapid rollex for 6x7 on 45 cameras or 23 cameras is also straight roll feed.I've never examined one of those either, but I do own a Linhof Rapid Rollex for 6x7 on 23 cameras, which was purchased new. Photos I've seen of the version for 6x7 on 45 cameras seem like it's the same holder mounted on a larger plate to fit larger cameras.

If that's the case, it's not a straight feed either. Granted, my Rapid Rollex has a much gentler reverse curl -- from memory I'd roughly estimate it at 45-75 degrees depending on how much film remains on the supply spool -- than other 180-degree holders, but it does bulge. I've checked my Rapid Rollex, both via depth gage measurement of bulges and visually examining pictorial negatives. It's substantially better than U-turn types, but not as good as a straight-through path.

Jack Dahlgren
1-Feb-2011, 14:52
GG finish (rough v smooth), loupe quality, lens quality, lens mounting quality, tripod quality and/or atmospheric conditions will all come in to play, as, too, will the shooter's latent ability to focus


I'm a Prince, thank you, not a Princess. :rolleyes:


None of those affect the question under discussion, which is film position relative to the lens, so I did not address them.

- Leigh

Hmm... GG finish affects lens to film distance as it affects the original focusing. Loupe quality - the same. Shooter's latent ability to focus, again affects the lens to film distance as the shooter is the one who is setting that distance. Atmospheric conditions - this also affects focus, be it wind, darkness or fog which can result in a less than optimal focus.

The other point is that most real world subjects are three dimensional so there is not a single point of focus which applies to them. In most cases there will be something which is in perfect focus, and then the rest will not be.

Would you care to address them now?

Bob Salomon
1-Feb-2011, 14:54
I've never examined one of those either, but I do own a Linhof Rapid Rollex for 6x7 on 23 cameras, which was purchased new. Photos I've seen of the version for 6x7 on 45 cameras seem like it's the same holder mounted on a larger plate to fit larger cameras.

If that's the case, it's not a straight feed either. Granted, my Rapid Rollex has a much gentler reverse curl -- from memory I'd roughly estimate it at 45-75 degrees depending on how much film remains on the supply spool -- than other 180-degree holders, but it does bulge. I've checked my Rapid Rollex, both via depth gage measurement of bulges and visually examining pictorial negatives. It's substantially better than U-turn types, but not as good as a straight-through path.

Sal,

They are the same holder just on different plates as you noted. I have never watched the film go through one. Just loaded them and compared to the Super Rollex it was a straight path. I guess you could also throw in Technorama cameras and the Techno Rollex film paths as well.

Armin Seeholzer
1-Feb-2011, 15:00
In a theoretically perfect world, the depth of focus of a lens is infinitely small.

As longer the lens as much more deep of focus, on a Schneider 47 XL is the filmflatness and position much more important then with a 300mm lens its oposite to the dof in front of the lens!!!

Cheers Armin

rdenney
1-Feb-2011, 15:23
True statement. But hey, I'm only human. They told me so when they disconnected the wires. :eek:

No worries. Membership in the lunatic asylum is assumed on this forum.

Let's do a little math. Assuming a simple lens, the angle of light approaching the film through a 47mm lens, at the lateral edges of a 6x12 frame at a shallow 37-degree angle. Each .001" that the film is out of position will create a lateral shift of .0008". But that is not important--what is important is how much lines from different parts of the subject diverge in that distance. Those lines come from the edges of the projected shape of the aperture. At f/5.6, the projected diameter of the aperture is 8.4mm, or 0.33". The angle subtended by the projected aperture is therefore 6 degrees. Each .001" of positioning error would cause those lines to diverge by (pause for calculating several similar triangles) .000085". If our desired circle of confusion was .001" (0.25mm, or a demanding 1/5000 the image diagonal in 6x12), we would need an error of .006 to undermine half the circle of confusion. An error of .005 might not have that much of an effect, even for a lens this short, unless we were enlarging so much that we needed an even more demanding circle of confusion goal.

The effect would be less for longer lenses, of course, because they approach the film at a steeper angle and it therefore takes more longitudinal movement to achieve a given lateral error. And the effect would be much less for smaller apertures.

Thus, I can't figure out how to defend the notion that a .005" positioning error would cause a large focus error. Maybe noticeable at very large magnifications, perhaps, but certainly not large.

Rick "numbers are facts" Denney

Brian C. Miller
1-Feb-2011, 18:38
Thus, I can't figure out how to defend the notion that a .005" positioning error would cause a large focus error. Maybe noticeable at very large magnifications, perhaps, but certainly not large.

Not large, but noticeable. And I mean noticeable with a 22x loupe on the film, which is visible on a 16x20 (4x) enlargement. And what does +/- 0.007-in. mean? How about a potential 0.014-inch difference?? That's still within specified tolerance, but could you really make tack-sharp pictures with that?

Here's the test sequence I used:
1. Load holders with Techpan (may it rest in peace, amen)
2. Open 2nd story window, remove window screen, and position big fat heavy Bogen tripod firmly, without camera going out window.
3. Focus with 8x loupe on ground glass, and move focusing knob ever so gently. Lock down the focus.
4. Carefully insert holder, and make exposure. Develop film, and then compare to image on glass.

How close does it look? Is it "all right!" or "Huh??" quality? If the quality is "huh?" then take dial calipers, and make many measurements and adjustments. Repeat until quality is "all right!" So I continued to get it down to 1mil off from the Graflex holder.

Yes, Lachlan, a dial caliper can be opened to 1mil, easily. You can see a 1mil gap between the jaws, easily. Magnetic tape is 1mil thick.

I don't think that it's necessary to measure every holder. Could the manufacturing tolerances be that out-of-whack from holder to holder? I think that the holders would look warped if that was the case. One sample is good, and then move on.

How many line pairs does my 135mm Wollensak Optar lens resolve? I have no idea. All I know is that at two blocks, I can count all of the spokes on a bicycle wheel. The bricks on the wall are like etchings. Somebody else can do the trigonometery, all I care about is that I like what I see.

Beyond that, it is sharp enough for me, and off I go to make photographs.

Cor
2-Feb-2011, 01:48
Brian,

What is the lens-subject distance?

At what f stop did you use that 135 mm lens?

best,

Cor


Not large, but noticeable. And I mean noticeable with a 22x loupe on the film, which is visible on a 16x20 (4x) enlargement. And what does +/- 0.007-in. mean? How about a potential 0.014-inch difference?? That's still within specified tolerance, but could you really make tack-sharp pictures with that?

Here's the test sequence I used:
1. Load holders with Techpan (may it rest in peace, amen)
2. Open 2nd story window, remove window screen, and position big fat heavy Bogen tripod firmly, without camera going out window.
3. Focus with 8x loupe on ground glass, and move focusing knob ever so gently. Lock down the focus.
4. Carefully insert holder, and make exposure. Develop film, and then compare to image on glass.

How close does it look? Is it "all right!" or "Huh??" quality? If the quality is "huh?" then take dial calipers, and make many measurements and adjustments. Repeat until quality is "all right!" So I continued to get it down to 1mil off from the Graflex holder.

Yes, Lachlan, a dial caliper can be opened to 1mil, easily. You can see a 1mil gap between the jaws, easily. Magnetic tape is 1mil thick.

I don't think that it's necessary to measure every holder. Could the manufacturing tolerances be that out-of-whack from holder to holder? I think that the holders would look warped if that was the case. One sample is good, and then move on.

How many line pairs does my 135mm Wollensak Optar lens resolve? I have no idea. All I know is that at two blocks, I can count all of the spokes on a bicycle wheel. The bricks on the wall are like etchings. Somebody else can do the trigonometery, all I care about is that I like what I see.

Beyond that, it is sharp enough for me, and off I go to make photographs.

Gordon Flodders
2-Feb-2011, 02:22
Yes, Lachlan, a dial caliper can be opened to 1mil, easily. You can see a 1mil gap between the jaws, easily. Magnetic tape is 1mil thick.
.

My tapes measure around .015mm thickness..I think 1mm must be pretty heavy duty stuff :D
I'm perplexed by the attitude here, it's only a question regarding which film holder is best and we're only talking poofteenths after all.
The problem is not if some holders vary a little, because there's far more chance of the ground glass screen telling lies than anything else. In low light, it's damn near impossible to ascertain correct focus even with a decent loupe. I always shoot wide open for portraiture, no matter which lens... doesn't everyone? :p

I recently tried this: Low light portrait shoot with a Sinar 4x5 using the GG. Hit rate for accurate focus using a 4X loupe was two out of six. Using a rangefinder equipped 4x5 the accurate focus hit rate was 8 out of ten. I used the same holders, so that has no bearing on the results.

How often is there indecision about where the focus is at it's best using a ground glass screen? How long does one mess about checking focus while the model's pose goes on the wane?

Anyone who can adjust their focus to make a .005 difference would do better to build an atomic clock.

Give me a rangefinder any day ;)

GF.

Lachlan 717
2-Feb-2011, 04:54
Yes, Lachlan, a dial caliper can be opened to 1mil, easily. You can see a 1mil gap between the jaws, easily. Magnetic tape is 1mil thick.

Brian,

I think I mentioned 0.127mm, not 1mm...

Robert Hughes
2-Feb-2011, 07:47
Mils, millimeters, microns, the designations get confusing...
I have a home made 8x10 box camera that slides on wooden rails. No way could I tweak that box to within 0.001" focus. But it seems to take good pictures. My guess is that one's sensitivity to depth of focus issues may be a distraction from the general goal of photography. Just take the d@#m shot and be done with it.

What's the best 4x5 filmholder? The one I've got at hand. Wooden, plastic, old, new... as long as it's square and doesn't have a light leak I'm OK.

Brian C. Miller
3-Feb-2011, 00:14
Um, guys, 1mil is not 1mm. A mil is 0.001-inch, and "mil" is exactly how it is spelled. (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_(length)))

Cor: I don't know the exact distance, but I'm guessing 1,055ft based on Google maps. All I know is that the subject matter was two blocks from my window. I think I shot at f/4.7 or f/8.

emmett
3-Feb-2011, 19:51
Hofman metal master worth looking at?

If you can findem
They where great.

evan clarke
4-Feb-2011, 05:01
Hi Evan,

I must confess I don't know what the "automatic slide stop" is. Could you expound, please.

Thanks.

- Leigh
There is a little buton which locks thendark slide. When placed in the camera, the button is activated and the darkslide automatically unlocked for removal. Much more convenient than manipulating L screws and I like to have the slides locked...Evan

Bob Salomon
4-Feb-2011, 08:08
There is a little buton which locks thendark slide. When placed in the camera, the button is activated and the darkslide automatically unlocked for removal. Much more convenient than manipulating L screws and I like to have the slides locked...Evan

Only on some cameras A Linhof does not release the lock.

Rod Klukas
4-Feb-2011, 08:09
I had a student that had issues with holders about 12 years ago. He would get weird small areas out of focus in his shots. He changed all his lenses. Then changed cameras. Next his glasses. THEN he told me of these problems. K B Canham and I began checking holders against the ANSI standard. The worst, as someone mentioned above was the Riteway, with the push button slide lock. One side almost too far from the exact film plane, the other almost too close. Anyway we tested several brands. Fidelity, Lisco, Linhof, Graflex, Metalmaster, several others and Toyo.
Fidelity and Lisco were OK. Linhof's older spring loaded pressure plate holders excellent. But what was exceptional was the Toyo. They were within .0020 of perfect and had even tighter consistency holder to holder! So for the money the best currently available are the Toyo's if you can find them. By the way we faxed and asked Toyo why their holders were so consistent and they told us the parts were molded in a single mold, not in a fan mold like the other brands use. They're great! Available from Mac Group.

Sal Santamaura
4-Feb-2011, 08:24
...But what was exceptional was the Toyo. They were within .0020 of perfect and had even tighter consistency holder to holder! So for the money the best currently available are the Toyo's if you can find them...Toyos really are that precise. And finding them is not difficult; they're in stock:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/61077-REG/Toyo_View_180_903_4x5_Sheet_Film_Holders.html

The problem is being able to tolerate their stench! See post #42 above.

john wood
4-Feb-2011, 11:07
I just bought a pack of Toyo's from Freestyle, thinking they must be used (much cheaper than elsewhere)...came in the mail, and they're new. Good deal. Nice smooth holders, and good to read the above about the quality precision.

Steve Hamley
4-Feb-2011, 11:38
Rod,

Did you check any of the older type Riteways?

Cheers, Steve

Roger Cole
4-Feb-2011, 12:10
There is a little buton which locks thendark slide. When placed in the camera, the button is activated and the darkslide automatically unlocked for removal. Much more convenient than manipulating L screws and I like to have the slides locked...Evan


Only on some cameras A Linhof does not release the lock.

My Tech III releases the lock fine. Maybe it's the later models that don't? When I bought the camera and got into LF a friend (who ran a pro lab at the time - then he got into Real Estate, then 2008 hit...) recommended the Riteways and that's what I got. I never had a problem with them.

I haven't had a problem with focus either but haven't done extensive testing.

I too like having the slide locked. It's pretty much impossible to have it accidentally bumped out (the L thingies seem awfully easy to accidentally move) and even someone who just fooled around with it would have to try to remove the slide, while for anyone who knows how it's very easy. That said, if I had a film plane focus problem I'd go to others in a heartbeat. I like the design, but only if it works (which it SEEMS to, but I've not shot, for example, those marvelous portraits at wide aperture where the back of the head is out of focus, just landscapes and buildings mostly at f/16 and f/22, occasionally f/11 or f/32.)


I just bought a pack of Toyo's from Freestyle, thinking they must be used (much cheaper than elsewhere)...came in the mail, and they're new. Good deal. Nice smooth holders, and good to read the above about the quality precision.

I presume they also stink?

Steve Hamley
4-Feb-2011, 13:24
The latest ones I've bought do not, and most of the 4x5s I've bought do not. A few do, but not as bad as some of the 8x10s. Some of the 8x10s do, and some do not.

Cheers, Steve

Louie Powell
4-Feb-2011, 17:26
The man who bought Calumet back in 1972 (I can't remember Fred's last name anymore) bought Lisco/Fidelity identical guts, slightly different look, also later bought Riteway from what was left of Graflex. So all have the same ownership and the same factory. Back when Graflex was still around, I tested all three of these plus a couple of Japanese and European film holders. Lisco/Fidelity has the best film plane location, Riteway were out of location, slightly, the others while very expensive, were neither parelell nor in distance. I confess that since I'n not in the view camera business anymore I haven't done the tests for a long time. These three probably represent about 98% of the business.

Lynn

The version of this that I recall is that Riteway, Fidelity and Lisco eventually were merged into one business that was eventually bought by Calumet. The holder shop was located in the LA area and was essentially a one-man operation. And when that one guy retired, Calumet decided that there were enough unsold new holders in the market for as long as they felt LF would continue, and they simply shut the operation down.

(Lynn may be thinking of Fred Picker - actually, he did not buy Calumet. Instead, Calumet bought him. He gave up photography and went fishing instead.)

Today, the options include a few European and Japanese suppliers, at least one Chinese outfit (Chaminoix), and the boutique manufacturers like S&S.

Bob Salomon
5-Feb-2011, 03:36
"Bob Molitor"

E. von Hoegh
5-Feb-2011, 12:59
I've been using old Riteways, made by Graflex.
I've never had sharpness issues I could attribute to anything but my wetware, but now I'll be measuring them all - 24, to be exact. I only ever use six or eight at a time.
I did check my Grafmatic, and it's right on the money - not what I had expected.

Armin Seeholzer
5-Feb-2011, 16:04
He gave up photography and went fishing instead.)

Maybe I should also do it like him, its the much cheaper hobby and you get something to eat;--)))

Cheers Armin

patrickjames
6-Feb-2011, 12:21
I use Toyo and Grafmatic holders. I am glad to hear that the Toyos (and the Grafmatics for that matter) are so good. One pull of a dark slide from a Toyo will tell you how well they are made though. I bought all of mine used from someone in Japan, and have several types; some with shiny slides and some matt slides. None of them stink. I tried to get some Linhof holders too but they are scarce. I have used all of the other types of holders over the years and the Toyos are like using a fine fountain pen vs. using a Bic. There is something very pleasurable in using one which makes it more enjoyable to make images, which is what I like to do.

I am not sure why people argue about all of these things. Heaven forbid, someone would disagree with you on the internet!

Bob McCarthy
6-Feb-2011, 14:11
I have a bunch of Riteway Graphlix from the old Rochester company and have a fair number of Toyos.

The slides are nice on the Toyo, bit the old Riteways load much nicer. No sticking, etc, the film just slides in without ever an issue.

My Toyo's don't stink, unless I jam them up my nose.

bob

Rod Klukas
10-Feb-2011, 21:45
The Toyo holders did have a bad smell from a batch, 3 or 4 years ago. Bad material. The older Riteways were similar to the fidelity holders OK. The bad Riteways were the ones with the numbering and the slides had a large plastic handle as well as the push button slide release. The 5x7 Fidelity holders also recently (last 5 or 6 years) were very inconsistent in dimension. So if you get some 5x7 fidelity or Lisco holders check them immediately on your camera to be sure they are not to tight so as to cause a problem and return them if they don't fit your camera correctly. Unfortunately no 5x7 Toyo holders are available.

Roger Cole
10-Feb-2011, 21:57
What is "bad" about those Riteways with the bigger handles and the numbers? I understand some people don't like the numbers. If you contact print to show the contacts, they can be obtrusive, but are also easily trimmed off if you like.

I have a bunch of these. In fact they're all I have right now. I've not noticed any problems with them. If you're saying those tend to badly place the film or have other image problems, I'll check them. But if you're just saying folks don't like the design, to each their own. I don't have to wrap rubber bands around my loaded holders to keep the slides from falling out if I accidentally turn them upside down or they bounce around in the bag.

john wood
22-Feb-2011, 18:19
My Tech III releases the lock fine. Maybe it's the later models that don't? When I bought the camera and got into LF a friend (who ran a pro lab at the time - then he got into Real Estate, then 2008 hit...) recommended the Riteways and that's what I got. I never had a problem with them.

I haven't had a problem with focus either but haven't done extensive testing.

I too like having the slide locked. It's pretty much impossible to have it accidentally bumped out (the L thingies seem awfully easy to accidentally move) and even someone who just fooled around with it would have to try to remove the slide, while for anyone who knows how it's very easy. That said, if I had a film plane focus problem I'd go to others in a heartbeat. I like the design, but only if it works (which it SEEMS to, but I've not shot, for example, those marvelous portraits at wide aperture where the back of the head is out of focus, just landscapes and buildings mostly at f/16 and f/22, occasionally f/11 or f/32.)



I presume they also stink?



Ha! Actually, no. The new cats marking the house, yes. The new - and far better behaved - Toyo's, no.

Bill_1856
22-Feb-2011, 18:28
Grafmatic

Michael Kadillak
22-Feb-2011, 20:11
In 4x5 and 8x10 Toyo holders are the boss IMHO. I have plenty of Fidelity and Lisco's and they work OK, but are a step down.

On par with the Toyo holders are the Fidelity 11x14 Medical Cassettes. OMG they are good.

Lynn Jones
24-Feb-2011, 10:06
I believe you but never noticed that about Riteway holders.

Thanks, Brian,

When we were doing these tests we used very expensive depth micrometers and could measure to less than 1/1,000th of an inch.

Lynn

Michael Graves
24-Feb-2011, 11:16
My Toyo's don't stink, but there are some who have said that about my images.

Professional
25-Feb-2011, 00:51
I just have Fidelity now, but i ordered one Riteway used to try it.
For now i will use only my NEW film holders [2] and ignore the used one until i get used to LF then i will use the old used ones as well.

cmug
21-Oct-2019, 03:26
Any one experience with the 4x5 Walnut Wood Sheet Film Holder ? (from Shen Hao ?)
You find these on ebay for ~€60

Tin Can
21-Oct-2019, 10:24
Perhaps this explains why my 2x3 plastic holders donít fit Horseman and wood ones do.



The Toyo holders did have a bad smell from a batch, 3 or 4 years ago. Bad material. The older Riteways were similar to the fidelity holders OK. The bad Riteways were the ones with the numbering and the slides had a large plastic handle as well as the push button slide release. The 5x7 Fidelity holders also recently (last 5 or 6 years) were very inconsistent in dimension. So if you get some 5x7 fidelity or Lisco holders check them immediately on your camera to be sure they are not to tight so as to cause a problem and return them if they don't fit your camera correctly. Unfortunately no 5x7 Toyo holders are available.

angusparker
21-Oct-2019, 11:38
Perhaps this explains why my 2x3 plastic holders donít fit Horseman and wood ones do.

The new Toyos have metal dark slides which are an improvement over the former plastic ones. They are apparently the best made from a tolerance perspective. I buy them exclusively now

Tin Can
21-Oct-2019, 11:46
At this point, I don't need anymore film or plate holders.

But I will consider Toyo one day and do trust your opinion.

Thanks!


The new Toyos have metal dark slides which are an improvement over the former plastic ones. They are apparently the best made from a tolerance perspective. I buy them exclusively now

Leszek Vogt
21-Oct-2019, 13:43
Yep, wish Toyos were available in 5x7 (stinky or not)....had to go with Fidelity Deluxe. Such is life.

Les

cmug
25-Oct-2019, 00:12
Is carbon fiber is not the ideal material for dark sliders today ?

Greg
25-Oct-2019, 15:20
hiking & backpacking - Chamonix
studio - Toyo
Of the 2 prefer Chamonix , especially in larger formats...