Reducing Backs in Practical Use

[jcoldslabs]

I have reducing backs of all kinds: 4x5 and 5x7 backs for the 8x10, as well as 6x7 and 6x9 roll film backs for the 4x5. I acquired them all in good faith with the promise of diversity of formats or ease of use in the field. Yet just about all of them have languished over the years. The reason is that each time I break out a large format camera I want the largest format possible. If I am using the 8x10 it is for a reason; if I wanted to shoot 4x5 I would shoot 4x5. Why go to all the trouble of lugging around a huge camera only put put a much smaller back on it?

For example, I used to lust after a 6x12 back for the 4x5, but I find I'd rather use regular sheet film and compose with cropping in mind instead.

I was wondering if anyone else suffers the same reducing back malaise, or maybe there are ways or reasons to use reducing backs that I have not yet thought of?

Jonathan

[Gem Singer]

I agree with your premise. No need to lug a large (heavy) camera in order use a smaller reducing back on it.

The main reason I occasionally use a roll film back on my LF camera is to shoot 120 color film. Less expensive, and easier to have it processed at a lab. than color sheet film.

[Jay DeFehr]

I use all of my reducing backs, regularly, but not in the field. In the "studio", it's very convenient to change lenses and backs, leaving the camera in place.

[cjbroadbent]

I've had reducing backs but I never used them other than for macro. I have found it very awkward to handle the shortish lenses I use most of the time on an outsize camera.

[Jim Jones]

I bought a 5x7 B&J flatbed almost 40 years ago, and used 5x7 film until losing the Elwood enlarger in a darkroom fire 10 years later. For over 20 years a crude 4x5 back was almost all I used, until getting better 4x5 cameras. The 2.25x3.25 sheet film back from a photographic flea market never got used, and an adaptor for Nikon almost never.

[jp]

I use a 4x5 reducing back on my B&J 8x10 some of the time (indoor). That's the only camera my 300 symmar-s and Kodak 305 portrait fit on. If I want to use those lenses for their look and perspective on 4x5 film, that's the camera it's done with; they are a little wide for many people pix in 8x10 film.

[cdholden]

I agree with your premise. No need to lug a large (heavy) camera in order use a smaller reducing back on it.

The main reason I occasionally use a roll film back on my LF camera is to shoot 120 color film. Less expensive, and easier to have it processed at a lab. than color sheet film.

I recently got a 5x7 -> 4x5 reducer back for my Sinar for this same reason with a Sinar Vario/Zoom back for use with color rollfilm.

[Frank Petronio]

Old timers used to throw a 4x5 back on their Deardorff to shoot 4x5 Polaroids before shooting 8x10 film.

This was before they made 8x10 Polaroid or they were too cheap to use it.

[jcoldslabs]

The back I have used the most is the Horseman 6x7 for my 4x5 field camera. It used to be that 120 chromes were significantly cheaper than 4x5 sheets, but not so much these days. I just got an E-6 120 roll back from the lab and it was nine bucks! That's almost a dollar a shot vs. $2.00 per sheet of 4x5 for processing. At that rate I'll take the 4x5's 3x surface area for double the price.

Frank, 4x5 for proofing before shooting a full 8x10 sheet makes sense. But as Jay said, studio work is a natural environment for reducing backs being at one fixed location. I suppose I should have specified that I am mainly a field shooter and thus have found little use for reducing backs while out and about with my gear. The irony? I still have my 6x7 and 6x9 Horseman backs loaded and in my kit to this day. I think the 6x7 was loaded over three years ago. That will tell you.

Jonathan

[Brian Vuillemenot]

I've used my 4X5 back quite a few times on my 8X10, but I mainly use the 8X10 to shoot 4X10 with the half-darkslide method. Shooting color, I'm more of a 4X5 guy and rarely shoot a whole sheet of 8X10 film at once. If I was a serious 8X10 shooter, I don't reckon that I would use a 4X5 back, and have never used a reducing back for my 4X5.

[tgtaylor]

I once enbarked on a long road trip with the trusty P67II as the main camera ( I wanted the ability of taking a lot of photos quickly and the P67II rode "shotgun" on its tripod). For those "special" shots I took a Toyo 45X and 5 boxes of Fuji QL Velvia. Packed in the case with the 4x5 was a horseman 6x7 roll film holder which I would have probably removed and left home if I had know it was in there. A few days into my trip the film advance mechanism froze on the 67 and I was very thankful of having that Horseman holder available! When I hit Utah I drove to Salt Lake City and had the Pentax repaired for a cost of $150 and was back in full swing.

Although I still have the Horseman back, I also have a 6x9 Toyo roll film back which I prefer.

Thomas

[John Kasaian]

I have reducing backs (4x5 for the 8x10 'dorff, and 4x5 for the 5x7 Agfa Ansco) and I've used the 'dorff back once and I've never used the Agfa Ansco backs. Now that I have a good 4x5 GVII I likely never will---I just like to look at the swell grain on the mahogany ;)

[John Kasaian]

Old timers used to throw a 4x5 back on their Deardorff to shoot 4x5 Polaroids before shooting 8x10 film.

This was before they made 8x10 Polaroid or they were too cheap to use it.
Frank, I did use the 'dorff reducing back to shoot polaroids.
Once.
Now I just keep it dusted with Lemon Pledge :rolleyes:

[Peter Gomena]

I use my 4x5 reducing back for my whole plate camera frequently. I only have 6 WP film holders, and on a long shoot I may need more film, or I can't get close enough to the subject and don't want to waste 6x8" film on a shot the 4x5 will cover. My only complaint is that the reducing back is a pain to pack around.

Peter Gomena

[Daniel Stone]

I use my 4x5 reducing back regularly on my 8x10, when my lenses don't have enough "reach" to cover a whole 8x10 sheet. But since I just added a 30in lens to the arsenal, I plan to change that ;).

-Dan

[Marizu]

Old timers used to throw a 4x5 back on their Deardorff to shoot 4x5 Polaroids before shooting 8x10 film.


I effectively do the same thing with wet plates. I can check exposure on a smaller piece of glass before starting with the bigger pieces.

[Steve Hamley]

I shoot 4x5 and 5x7 (and 6x17) quite frequently on the same 5x7 camera. The main reason I use the 4x5 reducing back is to shoot color. Also to get the composition I want with long lenses.

I've also made small contact prints for Christmas and greeting cards using the 4x5 back.

Cheers, Steve

[cowanw]

Having one Packard or Sinar shutter set for barrell lenses in all sizes helps.

[E. von Hoegh]

I use the 4x5 back for my 8x10 fairly often. The bellows on my 4x5 is 16", so with two of my lenses, it's the only way to focus much nearer than infinity.

[rocklaneeast]

After reading some of the comments here Im wondering if anyone has a
5x7 to 4x5 reducing back for sale.
One that might fit a Kodak Specialist 2

g

[DrTang]

I have 4x5 and 5x7 backs for my 8x10

I got the camera just to use with the 5x7 back.

it's sturdier, and has longer bellows and can take heavier lenses than my Tech III

I also adapter a Sinar copal shutter for it

I intend to shoot 5x7 in the studio with it.. as well as the occassional 8x10


I use the 4x5 back to test lenses..no point shooting 5x7 on just tests





I have reducing backs of all kinds: 4x5 and 5x7 backs for the 8x10, as well as 6x7 and 6x9 roll film backs for the 4x5. I acquired them all in good faith with the promise of diversity of formats or ease of use in the field. Yet just about all of them have languished over the years. The reason is that each time I break out a large format camera I want the largest format possible. If I am using the 8x10 it is for a reason; if I wanted to shoot 4x5 I would shoot 4x5. Why go to all the trouble of lugging around a huge camera only put put a much smaller back on it?

For example, I used to lust after a 6x12 back for the 4x5, but I find I'd rather use regular sheet film and compose with cropping in mind instead.

I was wondering if anyone else suffers the same reducing back malaise, or maybe there are ways or reasons to use reducing backs that I have not yet thought of?

Jonathan

[Lynn Jones]

To tell you the truth, I don't remember the last time I used my 8x10. I use my 120/220 Calumet roll holder fairly often with my 4x5 Calumet WF camera when using 4x5 at the time. However, now at my age, when I use a view camera, most often I use my Galvin 23. I can carry a 14" VC, 3 lenses, 2 roll holders and a tripod with less weight than 35 SLR's or DSLR's.

Lynn

[Brian Ellis]

I've owned many 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10 cameras but I've never owned a reducing back because I never found a good reason to buy one. If my only camera was an 8x10 and I was going on a long trip I might want a 4x5 back so I could carry more holders and film. But that situation never arose for me, when I had 8x10 cameras I also had 4x5s.

[Andrew Plume]

..............good point Brian

fwiw, I've recently been mulling over using a 4x5 reduction back on my 5x7 Canham woodie, to enable 6x7 images to be made, as there are times when I just can't be asked to fiddle around with loading holders

I also have a 4x5 Wisner Traditional but the boards are a little too small compared to the Canham ones and I also have a couple of Grimes adapted boards for the Canham, which means that I can use some of my larger lenses. To me it's a lens/board size issue too

andrew

[Doug Howk]

I like my 8X10 field camera (KMV) and lenses; but I'm less than enamored of the format. For past 6 mos been shooting mostly with 5X7 reducing back. Have also experimented with vignetting to get a square 8X8 format (thru cut-off dark slide). I mostly do contact printing & my 4X5 enlarger languishes in the darkroom; so hardly ever use the 4X5 reducing back.

[Jim Andrada]

I use my 4 x 5 back on my 5 x 7 Linhof for color. Would prefer to use 5 x 7 color film, but there seems to be one small problem with that these days.