4x5 roll film adapter

[mdarnton]

Interesting that this ancient thread pops up right now. Just yesterday I took delivery on an old 3-1/4 x 4-1/4 Graflex that had a full-frame roll film back attached. The film is about 4-1/4" high, and it runs the film the "wrong" way--a slightly different holder, and the same film would work for 4x5. I know there were also roll backs for postcard size, 3-1/2 x 5 1/4. My back still has one huge spool on one side.

I even started wondering how big of a piece of xray film I could get, and how many images I could get on a strip of it. I think one could develop maybe three feet of it see-saw style reasonably easily. With my back that would be 10 or 12 exposures.

[Bob Salomon]

Not quite right. No body ever modified a 100' Linhof Aerotronica back to 45. Simply impossible.
However I sold several Linhof 5" Vacuum Aerial backs for the Linhof Aerial camera to the National Archives for copy work on their 45 Master Technika cameras. The modification to the backs was the addition of a small micro switch to trigger film advance after each exposure since the Master Technika did not have the built in electronic circuit to communicate with the back directly.

The Linhof Vacuum Aero back uses 5" (126mm) 50' to 60', depending on film base, on NATO modified spools. The Aerotronica only took 70mm film on standard 100' spools.


P

I have just seen an other thread about vaccum backs answering this:
linhofs aerotronic vaccum-back had been adapted -for 45 technica- only for copy-work.
There was a california company which offered a motorized 4x5-sheet-film-adapter. Crazy. i have my doubts about proper film flatness.
Agfa still offers avicolor film from 70 to 240mm. x-types x100 and x400 are without mask, ideal for scanning and b+w. gigapxl-projec is using the large one with vaccum-back. i have seen prints at artbasel. not as big as they should have to be printed.

[Jody_S]

George Eastman was making detachable roll film backs for view cameras as large as 11x14 (possibly larger), back in the late 1880s. Most of the press cameras I've had from the 1920s or earlier came with roll film backs, so they were popular with at least a certain type of user.

The issue is developing, to the standards we require for our work. I've seen a developing tank for 5" wide aerial film, it was the size of a small tub and took several gallons of solution. I can't imagine keeping one for 8x10 or 11x14 in my little room, and mixing 20 gallons at a time of developer. I don't see where the advantage is, or the savings. Not to mention, how could this contraption possibly keep my film flat in-camera, if it has sat for a month rolled in a tight radius on one of the spools or an outside roller of the adapter. This is already enough of a problem with 120 film!

[jbenedict]

George Eastman was making detachable roll film backs for view cameras as large as 11x14 (possibly larger), back in the late 1880s. Most of the press cameras I've had from the 1920s or earlier came with roll film backs, so they were popular with at least a certain type of user.

The issue is developing, to the standards we require for our work. I've seen a developing tank for 5" wide aerial film, it was the size of a small tub and took several gallons of solution. I can't imagine keeping one for 8x10 or 11x14 in my little room, and mixing 20 gallons at a time of developer. I don't see where the advantage is, or the savings. Not to mention, how could this contraption possibly keep my film flat in-camera, if it has sat for a month rolled in a tight radius on one of the spools or an outside roller of the adapter. This is already enough of a problem with 120 film!

I had a 70mm SS reel which could hold a load from a Hassy 70mm back. But, since 70mm film isn't available in quantity (at a decent price) I don't use it and not really sure where it is.

Lab equipment to process these bigger films has to be out there and gathering dust or waiting to be smashed into scrap metal. I have seen machines to hand process 8mm, 16mm and 35mm movie film in 100' lengths.An old codger I know was a stringer for the AP in the middle of Montana and would get requests for a few hundred feet of 16mm of something that happened and he would process in his home commercial lab. 5" and 9" was used in aerial so some of these short run (50', 100' at a time) manual processors must be out there somewhere.

There is one aerial camera which shoots 5" wide film and will take 50 shots on a load on eBay right now. $300 BIN. There is a 500' roll of 5" wide film for $500 also. Have at it, boys and girls...

Or, if you wanna really live large, here's one that holds 9" x 500'. Zeiss and modern. Made in the last ten years. $16K

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Zeiss-RMK-TO...item33a0b83609

In the last five years, I saw the school photographer for my school use a camera with a 46mm long roll back so there might be a few of those backs available in that size and also 70mm unperf. 5" and 9" film has recently been used for aerial photography and might still be used in some instances. A back for aerial use is going to hold the film flat. It's useless if it can't.

The Ilford Big Film program offers film in 46mm (for long roll and making 127), 70mm perf and unperf., 5"x50', 9cmx50', 8"x100'. 10"x100' and, for all you big swingers out there, 20"x100'. I'm not sure which size could be used in a Cirkut camera but it's there. They sell 120 backing paper in 100' chunks, too.

I can't imagine why one would consider using an 8x10 camera which would hold 50 or 100 feet of film. For a contemplative medium such as LF photography, I can't imagine shooting 120 8x10 shots in less than two or three months without wanting to see my results before then. Besides film area, a major advantage with LF is to be able to process film one by one for various reasons. Processing one at "N" and the one on the other side of the holder at "N-1" is a piece of cake and only one of the excuses to hump all that crap out into the desert somewhere. And, price? The reason I bought a 70mm back for my Hassy was because I had the mistaken notion that bulk film would save money like in 35mm. It is much more than 120/220 film. I took a lot of motorsports photos and 50 shots in the camera would be nice but being able to make 24 shots on 220 for a much, much lower cost was acceptable and practical I don't know the price of the 5", 8", 10" and 20" of Ilford in big rolls but my wild guess buying as individual sheets is going to be cheaper.

So, if you want to find some of these 46mm, 70mm, 5", 9" and up backs, you can find film to use them. You might be able to make some rolls of film to fit in one of the ancient Graflex cameras. But, within the context of "large format photography", why would you want to?

[Jim Noel]

Umm. I think you're confused. Or maybe it's me. How can you shoot 4x5 or 5x7 on roll film? Roll film is 120 size. 4x5 and 5x7 are, well quite a bit larger than 120 size. Not to mention the fact that large format film is available in individual sheets, not rolls.

Now, if you're asking if there is 4x5 or 5x7 size roll film (rather than individual sheets), then that's a different story. I don't think there is, but it's an interesting idea.

There was a time when 4x5 and 5x7 roll film were available. I used 4x5 roll film on my Graflex in the late 30's and early 40's. My memory says they went out of production as film packs became more popular. Film packs held 16 sheets of roll film stock, cut to size in a metal pack about as thick as a double sided sheet film holder. There was never anything as convenient and light in weight. I still have some 4x5 Tri-X and Super XX filmpacks in the freezer, and use them when I have to walk any distance.
There were evencameras made whichwer "Film Pack Cameras". Talk about convenience.

[europanorama]

4x5 rollfilms do not exist or did. 126 or 127mm yes. 126mm i think is agfa avicolor. 70mm, 126mm and 240mm were or still available, maybe also b+w.avicolor x-types x100 and x400 coming without mask, most ideal for scanning and b+w. ideal for pushing, no color-loss. 220 cost about 0.75chf/image. how much costs the ilford hp5+ 70mm? where is a price-list?
interpolating from 220: 15m 70mm film(i think thats what is offered not 30m)would then cost 178.5 chf. which is a bit high. 357 chf for 30m i remember having to pay 320 for 3200 kodak when they had to import from usa.
IR color kodak newest type was also expensive. agfa xrs400 cost maybe 60 chf/film. ilford would be exorbitantly 6x!
agfa xrs400 used: sorry for the sad subject, have nothing else to show right now.
http://www.auschwitzpanorama.tk/
using 70mm film and cutting down to 220/120 i think can be a good idea also when using mamiya RB/RZ or hasselblad(not having 70mm back) or kiev-cams(120).
Mamyias with rb-vaccum-back or HB 70MM, exposing then cutting down. Why 70mm? after hearing about unsharp hasselblad or mamyia RZ-images and lens being bad(i dont believe) the only source for that is lacking flatness. its the paper which causes the problem. FOR THE KIEVE60 there are tips how to improve flatness. see kievreport. there is a crazy guy in CZ which has constructed for himself 2 vaccum-backs for hasselblad. it must be on google. using it with apo 350mm wow! a user told its sharper than the mamyia-counterpart 250mm apo. but there we have the flatness-problem, solved by using the mentioned back.


the only advantage of hp5+ over CN is no hot-processing needed. avicolor x-types x100 and x400 have b+w integrated.

[europanorama]

Not quite right. No body ever modified a 100' Linhof Aerotronica back to 45. Simply impossible.
However I sold several Linhof 5" Vacuum Aerial backs for the Linhof Aerial camera to the National Archives for copy work on their 45 Master Technika cameras. The modification to the backs was the addition of a small micro switch to trigger film advance after each exposure since the Master Technika did not have the built in electronic circuit to communicate with the back directly.

The Linhof Vacuum Aero back uses 5" (126mm) 50' to 60', depending on film base, on NATO modified spools. The Aerotronica only took 70mm film on standard 100' spools.


P

sorry bob, i meant the 4x5 Aero Technika 45 EL and variant(s).
126mm and 70mm backs.

[europanorama]

4x5 rollfilms do not exist or did. 126 or 127mm yes. 126mm i think is agfa avicolor. 70mm, 126mm and 240mm were or still available, maybe also b+w.avicolor x-types x100 and x400 coming without mask, most ideal for scanning and b+w. ideal for pushing, no color-loss. 220 cost about 0.75chf/image. how much costs the ilford hp5+ 70mm? where is a price-list?
interpolating from 220: 15m 70mm film(i think thats what is offered not 30m)would then cost 178.5 chf. which is a bit high. 357 chf for 30m i remember having to pay 320 for 3200 kodak when they had to import from usa.
IR color kodak newest type was also expensive. agfa xrs400 cost maybe 60 chf/film. ilford would be exorbitantly 6x!
agfa xrs400 used: sorry for the sad subject, have nothing else to show right now.
http://www.auschwitzpanorama.tk/
using 70mm film and cutting down to 220/120 i think can be a good idea also when using mamiya RB/RZ or hasselblad(not having 70mm back) or kiev-cams(120).
Mamyias with rb-vaccum-back or HB 70MM, exposing then cutting down. Why 70mm? after hearing about unsharp hasselblad or mamyia RZ-images and lens being bad(i dont believe) the only source for that is lacking flatness. its the paper which causes the problem. FOR THE KIEVE60 there are tips how to improve flatness. see kievreport. there is a crazy guy in CZ which has constructed for himself 2 vaccum-backs for hasselblad. it must be on google. using it with apo 350mm wow! a user told its sharper than the mamyia-counterpart 250mm apo. but there we have the flatness-problem, solved by using the mentioned back.


the only advantage of hp5+ over CN is no hot-processing needed. avicolor x-types x100 and x400 have b+w integrated.

UPDATE Agfa Avicolor x100
Production stopped, only X400 is still and will most probably always be available in 70mm perf/unperf, 126mm and 240mm. there are a lot of military and others still using analoge aerocams.
And this X400 is simply superbe: has no mask, most ideal for scanning and extracting b+w.
Already N400 was superbe, see my website. smallest details can be see. depending lens used....

[europanorama]

Using rollfilm on 4x5 cams- alternative to 126mm
use that hasselblad-4x5 rotary back which is available from some chinese people on ebay. its a four-shot-adapter for hasselblad magazines, incl. 70mm! of course.
70mm can easily be developped or cut down by you for the lab. get a slitter from xkaes at aol dot com.
developping: a) jobo 2517-reel(172cm-220 lenght) in 2500-system or b) using three parts of 2500-reel. one of them holding the second. same technique used for newest paterson system.

[europanorama]

4x5 rollfilms do not exist or did. 126 or 127mm yes. Avicolor is 126mm. 70mm, 126mm and 240mm were or still available, maybe also b+w.avicolor x-types x100 and x400 coming without mask, most ideal for scanning and b+w. ideal for pushing, no color-loss. 220 cost about 0.75chf/image. how much costs the ilford hp5+ 70mm? where is a price-list?
interpolating from 220: 15m 70mm film(i think thats what is offered not 30m)would then cost 178.5 chf. which is a bit high. 357 chf for 30m i remember having to pay 320 for 3200 kodak when they had to import from usa.
IR color kodak newest type was also expensive. agfa xrs400 cost maybe 60 chf/film. ilford would be exorbitantly 6x!
agfa xrs400 used: sorry for the sad subject, have nothing else to show right now.
http://www.auschwitzpanorama.tk/
using 70mm film and cutting down to 220/120 i think can be a good idea also when using mamiya RB/RZ or hasselblad(not having 70mm back) or kiev-cams(120).
Mamyias with rb-vaccum-back or HB 70MM, exposing then cutting down. Why 70mm? after hearing about unsharp hasselblad or mamyia RZ-images and lens being bad(i dont believe) the only source for that is lacking flatness. its the paper which causes the problem. For the Kiev60 there are tips how to improve flatness. see kievreport. there is a crazy guy in CZ which has constructed for himself 2 vaccum-backs for hasselblad. it must be on google. using it with apo 350mm wow! a user told its sharper than the mamyia-counterpart 210mm apo. but there we have the flatness-problem, solved by using the mentioned back.


the only advantage of hp5+ over CN is no hot-processing needed. avicolor x-types x100 and x400 have b+w integrated.

some errors corrected in test.
be aware- Agfa Avicolor X100 is gone
X400 sold under name Digibase 200 CN if i dont err. 200 iso.. who knows why not 400.