How to use half-frame dark slide?

[Corran]

Nah, I don't think I am. I've screwed up enough film in enough ways to know that isn't going to be a secure solution. But why don't you make a couple and show me? And congrats on your steal. Look around and you'll find that modern plastic 8x10 holders sell for 2-3 times that.

PS: no reason you need to be condescending.

[Vaughn]

Be aware that the half-darkslide trick can be a real bear for wide / ultrawide shooting.
...
I am also lucky to have a prototype Chamonix 4x10 holder that is sized like a normal 8x10 DDS for that format. If I got into 11x14 I would definitely use a half-darkslide solution.

I do very little wide and no ultra-wide photography, so I have not run into that problem. With 11x14, I found it best for horizontal 5.5x14s to always expose the upper half of the negative -- the modified darkslide will sit easier and not slip down in the holder.

[C. D. Keth]

Nah, I don't think I am. I've screwed up enough film in enough ways to know that isn't going to be a secure solution. But why don't you make a couple and show me? And congrats on your steal. Look around and you'll find that modern plastic 8x10 holders sell for 2-3 times that.

PS: no reason you need to be condescending.

Smile and lighten up. That was a joke.

If I make myself a holder like I described, I will certainly take some photos for anybody interested. I am not a fan of very wide lenses, though, so I will probably just continue using my half-darkslide and avoid having to stock film in another size or cut down 8x10.

[Greg]

My first half frame for 11x14 was 5.5x14. Found that one image sometimes "bled" on the the other image in the center. Second half frame was more like 5.25x11 and worked out much better. Also, for me, the larger the format the better half frames worked.

I also put alignment dots on my front standard to match it up to the part of the film that was being exposed.

Initially used small post-it-notes to indicate which half of the film was exposed... not a good idea as they can easily be detached physically or by a good gust of wind, trust me on that. Would be interesting to know how others mark either half as being exposed. Many a time exposed the same half twice over the years.

[diversey]

Hal-frame dark slide was used for this shot on my 4x5 camera.

[Vaughn]

My first half frame for 11x14 was 5.5x14. Found that one image sometimes "bled" on the the other image in the center. Second half frame was more like 5.25x11 and worked out much better. Also, for me, the larger the format the better half frames worked.
... Would be interesting to know how others mark either half as being exposed...

My solution -- always make two exposures, one right after the other with a possible change in exposure. Saves a lot of grief and possible confusion later and film is not one's major expense. If I do not take a second image right then, I usually just put the holder away and leave just the one image on it. But if I had to guess, the second horizontal image is always made loading the holder from the left -- my normal default is to have the back set up to load holders from the right side.

After the first exposure (horizontal and using front rise), I replace the full darkslide, leave the film holder in the camera back, remove and rotate the camera back 180 degrees and put it back on the camera. I still expose the upper half of the film and everything is still aligned nicely like the first exposure. It is nice having a back-up negative that you know has been processed the same. For verticals, I still need to shift the lens and re-compose for the second image.

You get some fun-looking negatives like this (inverted in PS, two 5.5x14...PS 5.5x14 is just the film size -- image size is smaller):

[jmontague]

This is not perfectly on topic and may be blasphemy, but why not just crop the image in the darkroom to get a pano print? If you are not shooting ULF, you won’t be making contact prints at 2” x 5”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[C. D. Keth]

This is not perfectly on topic and may be blasphemy, but why not just crop the image in the darkroom to get a pano print? If you are not shooting ULF, you won’t be making contact prints at 2” x 5”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The main draw is being able to expose two panoramic images on one sheet of film and gain an exposure that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vaughn]

This is not perfectly on topic and may be blasphemy, but why not just crop the image in the darkroom to get a pano print? If you are not shooting ULF, you won’t be making contact prints at 2” x 5”.

When I was enlarging from 4x5 negatives, I just cropped on the printing easel. The 4x5 film holders are small, one can carry quite a few, and film is cheap, so why not? Bump up to 8x10 and that all changes. Instead of a dozen or more 4x5 film holders in one's pack for the day, I might have six 8x10 holders.

Early on I fell in love with the pano...my first ones were finds on my 4x5 proof sheets. Then I went looking for them. Below was one of my first 'finds' on my 4x5 proof sheets back in the early '80s...printed about 7"x19"

[C. D. Keth]

I see why you picked that one out of the lineup, Vaughn. Very serene.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk