120 film for 4x5 camera

[Daniel Stone]

I'd stick with what you have for now. If you find that it's the lens that is the weak link in the chain, and feel it needs to be changed put, then do it later. But the 72XL and 80XL are both wonderful lenses and are very sharp

[jbenedict]

I used to have a job where I shot archival records, B&W with an RB67 and macro lens, and the same material in color on 4x5. I took a couple of trips, rounds of Europe, where I could only take one camera, and so I took the 4x5 with a 210 Sironar-N for 4x5 color, and a 150 Sironar-N and a Calumet roll back for 6x7 B&W. Though it was a bit more work that way, the results didn't suffer at all. The 6x7 isn't 4x5, of course, but the 6x7 from that trip definitely held up next to the RB67 work done at home. Some folks like to trash the Calumet roll back, which looks like it was designed in 1955, but I never had a bit of problem with it, and it was much handier than a back that needs to have the ground glass back taken off to use.

A Toyo roll film back also works without removing the GG. A little more than the Calumet on the used market but not too expensive.

[Drew Wiley]

Slide-in backs, that go in like a standard filmholder, only work on certain cameras. They tend to be thick and heavy. Most field cameras won't accept them, and if
they did, the rear standard might be deflected by the overall bulk and weight. Just one more thing to keep in mind.

[BrianShaw]

... but it doesn't look to have enough detail. ...

Something else may be going on. There shouldn't be problem with either those lenses or Portra (other than what was pointed out before - Portra has its own look).

[analoguey]

I am also heading the way of using a roll film back on the 4x5.
Is there anything that you do differently than from shooting sheet film? (apart from looking at a smaller part of the GG)

[BrianShaw]

Nothing significantly different.

[mdarnton]

Be careful putting the roll back on. If it's a slide in back, moving the camera or the back is possible, since it takes significantly more pressure and manipulation than a simple film holder

[Andrew Plume]

pretty well all that I would add to the original post has been said already

LF lenses aren't (of course) customised for roll film work on a 4 x 5. I've only used 6 x 7 and 6 x 9 backs and I definitely agree with the last post, I always remove the back before slotting in the holder

.....when you're not in the mood (often) for loading film holders, roll film work is a quick and convenient option

good luck

andrew

[Drew Wiley]

When I use roll film backs they're the Horseman type which securely clip into position where the reversible 4x5 back was. This of course means the original back has
to be completely removed, and that imposes a risk to it, esp out in weather. The ground glass is pretty susceptible. So under such circumstances I simply tether it
with a short piece of small shock cord, so it hangs free below the tripod, but not with enough lease to allow the wind to blow it around and hit anything. I've worked
quickly in all kinds of weather in this manner with no accident. Putting the thing on the ground or a rock or in and out of a bag would just attract dirt etc.

[sergiofigliolia]

I am also heading the way of using a roll film back on the 4x5.
Is there anything that you do differently than from shooting sheet film? (apart from looking at a smaller part of the GG)

For 4x5 the working aperture is f/22 whereas for medium format f/16. The amount of diffraction depends on the film format so eventhough you use the same lenses (the ones for large format) you should adjust that for maximum sharpness unless you need a particular aperture for a special reason (i.e.: wide open for a portrait, etc.)

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or to add onto that.

The interesting thing would be to have a 6x12 120 rollfilm back but they are so expensive...