ULF Film Holder Brand List/Database

[StoneNYC]

One of the confusing things I've found in ULF world is understanding which brand holder goes with which brand camera.

There seem to be quite a few different designs, some only slightly differ from each other.

For example my 11x14 holder is a "sterling" or so I am told. The modified Century my friend had who let me borrow his accepted this style holder. But apparently wasn't the original kind hence the modification.

My 14x17 holders are S&S, now I'm planning to build my own camera for this unless I come across a really excellent deal for a 16x20 or 14x20 (as I'll also be adding a 12x20 back to the camera in the future). So I'll be able to sort of design the camera around the holder.

But say I suddenly got a lot of money and wanted to buy a Chamonix, would my 14x17 S&S holders fit in them and stay light tight? If I bought an 11x14 Chamonix accept the Sterling I have?

But is there a list of ULF holders with a cross reference to which cameras accept them?

Because many of these designs pre-date the Internet, I thought a basic database would be helpful. Unless someone already has one they would like to share for everyone?

Remember that a picture is worth 1000 words so if we can also provide images of the holders that match the names (as I wouldn't have known what Sterling even meant until someone else saw mine and said "that's a sterling", without an image to know what that means.

I'll start, this is my Sterling 11x14 (sorry it's not in metric).




And here's a 14x17 S&S holder (mind the goofy reflection).




So does anyone have a cross referenced list, or care to share their wise learned knowledge for others?

[Oren Grad]

Brand won't do it as an unambiguous identifier, because a given brand may have built holders - or had them modified post-sale - to fit different cameras. And different production runs of cameras under a given camera brand may have variations in back specification. Unfortunately, to be sure, one needs to check particular holders and backs against each other.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Stone, my understanding on the Chamonix holders is that they are specific to Chamonix and not ANSI standard holders. I know they do not fit my 14 x 17 and Sandy's S&S holders do. To anyone trying to build a camera I say get your holders in order first then build the back to the holder. I was lucky with my 8 x 20 as I bought different types and they all work.

One thing that I feel people should know is that in the ULF world you have to make or create solutions or have a lot of money to buy a system that is dialed in from the get go. I got into ULF years ago by building all of my cameras. Not for everyone but I think again anyone who looks to shoot ULF better be handy fixing , repairing and finding solutions. Just my .02

[Tin Can]

I think the proper ULF progression is.

#1 Choose and obtain plenty of film for your selected format.
#2 Obtain or make as many holders as you need, all identical.
#3 Fit the camera to the holders and format.
#4 Lens
Find a mule.

I only do 11x14 and soon 7x17 using 14x17 Ektascan cut to size. No scrap as I also then have 5x7 and 7x11 options and of course tiny format.

But feel free to do it the other way.

[RichardRitter]

ULF holder are in a world of their own I once had 5, 7 x 17 holders on hand and not one matched another. The "t" was the same on all of then. The length to rib lock and the end flap were the areas that did not match.

11 x 14 holders made before the ANSI stanard will not match the modern holders made to the ANSI standard. Same goes for 14 x 17 holders. As to the pan camera the common size standard is the Korona. 16 x 20 and 20 x 24 most are based on the holders made 100 years ago.

That said Wisner and Chomonix holder will only work in their own cameras or you have to have your camera back modified to use the holders.

Over the years I have been doing some research on holder sizes and found that if there was a ANSI standard for the pan cameras and the 16 x 20 and 20 x 24 it would of been very close to what Sandy has on his web site.

At one time when you bought a camera it came with holders made to the camera, sometime a lens board with lens , a tripod and carrying case.

[Jim Noel]

"At one time when you bought a camera it came with holders made to the camera, sometime a lens board with lens , a tripod and carrying case."
My 7x17 Korona also came with a contact printing frame, in which was the last negative the first owner printed in 1956.

[StoneNYC]

Oren, Jim, Richard Ritter,

Thanks guys, I suppose that makes sense but the knowledge you did share was important I think, like the fact about the Korona semi-standard (pevilancey?) and Wisner/Chamonix specialty (In ULF, to be fair in 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10 the Chamonix is ANSI standard) and I BELIEVE 14x17 is ANSI standard only because it's the only ULF that has an ANSI standard (to my knowledge?) so I think their 14x17 is standard but Hugo would have to weigh in on that one.

Richard, that would make sense.

Jim, cool story. I have an 11x14 contact printer but not any other size (yet).

If anyone has any more insight, feel free to share, but I guess a database won't be easy.

I totally understand the "alterations made after" but at least having a standard "in general" or "originally" would sort of help I though.

Good notes on the really large sizes, makes sense.

[Michael Kadillak]

Richard Ritter was a valuable resource in assisting me standardize my S&S 8x20 holders into a consistent grouping. Three S&S holders purchased early i the life of S&S holders were difference from later offerings. The rib lock was disproportional as well as set at differing proportions that Richard was able to normalize.

Second set of learning criteria was attempting to use Fidelity Medical Cassettes and S&S 11x14 holders and expect equal superior results. WRONG ASSUMPTION! After an experience with a soft moderate macro image (easy to do with ULF) that was correctly focused but turned out soft, I initiated a machinist review of film plane orientation. What I learned was that S&S holders and Fidelity Medical Cassette holders are nowhere near common. As a result I have two 11x14 film backs for my 11x14 DeardorffV11. One takes the S&S holders an the other is calibrated for S&S holders. With ULF the challenges with proper film / GG orientation is an absolute requirement. If you are truly serious about your tools, have this issue checked to ensure you are SPOT ON!

[Tin Can]

Richard Ritter was a valuable resource in assisting me standardize my S&S 8x20 holders into a consistent grouping. Three S&S holders purchased early i the life of S&S holders were difference from later offerings. The rib lock was disproportional as well as set at differing proportions that Richard was able to normalize.

Second set of learning criteria was attempting to use Fidelity Medical Cassettes and S&S 11x14 holders and expect equal superior results. WRONG ASSUMPTION! After an experience with a soft moderate macro image (easy to do with ULF) that was correctly focused but turned out soft, I initiated a machinist review of film plane orientation. What I learned was that S&S holders and Fidelity Medical Cassette holders are nowhere near common. As a result I have two 11x14 film backs for my 11x14 DeardorffV11. One takes the S&S holders an the other is calibrated for S&S holders. With ULF the challenges with proper film / GG orientation is an absolute requirement. If you are truly serious about your tools, have this issue checked to ensure you are SPOT ON!

Interesting you say that. I knew as soon as I got my Deardorff SC11 - 11X14 Studio film back it was off, way off, any standard. I chatted it up here and APUG. Many told me don't worry about it, just shoot it as is.

I'm way too picky for that answer and I shipped my 80 year old 11x14 parts to Richard Ritter for him to install his Bail Back and make 5 11x14 holders to match.

Richard did a wonderful job and I am very happy. I am also very happy I did not listen to Internet experts right on this forum that said, 'don't worry'.

And no I don't recall who said that as I have a short memory for nonsense.

Cross your T's...

[Michael Kadillak]

The silent conclusion in ULF is found in the myopic expectation that the larger formats are just like the smaller ones, just "bigger". Just like your "don't worry" advice.

When you get thin negatives you quickly figure out that normal with smaller formats is likely modest macro with ULF with an exposure correction to get the job done correctly. When the crispness you expect is not there then you look for a reason that (thankfully) is found in inconsistent film orientation in the sheet film holder. At $10/sheet you figure things out relatively quickly driven by economic necessity. Necessity (as they say) is the Mother of Invention.