Is there such a thing as large format roll film? 4x5 or 8x10 or other standard sizes

[Gavjenks]

ps: you might have to cannibalize one of those aerial cameras for the lens, too.

Careful with that -- back in the 50s a number of lens makers experimented with rare earth elements in making glass to boost the refractive index. Some of them made radioactive lenses and the old Areo Extars that Kodak put on those old cameras were some of the most radioactive made.

Joe

An extra arm would make it a lot easier to adjust all the settings on a camera, though.

 

[Derrel]

How about just buying a trio of Graflex Grafmatic multi-shot film holders? Six sheets per load. Grafmatic Sheet Film Holder

Here's a video:

 

[Light Guru]

Even if you did shoot a roll of film that size how would you develop it?

Look for "Going out of Business" sales from a major photo lab.
Buy a Dip'n'Dunk processor from them for pennies (I think they might pay you to remove it) ... then get it on your flatbed truck.
Getting it into the basement is the hard part.

Good luck finding one that would have a peace of equipment that would be able to handle processing a 5"x130" roll of film. Even back in the hay day of film that was supper specialty.

 

[Gavjenks]

How about just buying a trio of Graflex Grafmatic multi-shot film holders? Six sheets per load.

Here's a video:

That would work fine. Mainly I'm less interested in it because it would be significantly more expensive, and way less fun/unique (I like making the gadgets for the sake of making the gadgets, not just for photography that results from the finished product. If rolls is something that hasn't been done much/at all, then it would be "cooler" if it works).

What you suggest is indeed my best backup plan, though, if the roll idea falls through or has some fatal flaw(s).

 

[Ysarex]

How about just buying a trio of Graflex Grafmatic multi-shot film holders? Six sheets per load. Grafmatic Sheet Film Holder

Here's a video:

:thumbup::thumbup:GRAFMATIC!!:thumbup::thumbup:

Every sheet with a scratch guaranteed!

Joe

 

[Light Guru]

affix the commercially purchased loose sheet film somehow to a roll of durable, reusable plastic clear material, and leave a gap in every space, or every 3rd space or whatever, that can be used to focus on the ground glass.

That would work, but the whole point of roll film is speed and convenience. Removing the whole back doesn't sound very speedy or convenient (30 seconds probably, at least), compared to just winding a crank twice, etc. (maybe 5 seconds, much faster if indeed a motor drive were added as suggested above).

If I were to implement something like you're suggesting, I think it would be something more like "the entire rolling assembly folds down into a recess in the bottom of the camera and then back up again," which would be similar to the removable back, but require only a sliding of a light screen and a flick of a lever and 1-2 seconds to convert back and forth

So let me get this strait you plan on focusing on the ground glass but are concerned with the speed of changing a back on the camera.

LOL REALLY!!!!

It litany takes a second to change a back.

If your really concerned about speed and convenience then a roll back is not really going to help you with large format do you realize how much wait you would be adding onto the camera not to mention the physical size increase on an already large camera.

If you are really concerned with speed and want to shoot large format you should just get a wanderlust camera and some graflex film holders and use zone focusing.

 

[amolitor]

He just wants to build a gizmo. That's cool. Go nuts, man!

 

[Gavjenks]

do you realize how much wait you would be adding onto the camera not to mention the physical size increase on an already large camera.

Approximately 2-3 ounces in weight (rolls = maybe 1 and a little extra wood to house them = 2), and about 3-4 inches larger in the back. (I would angle it like a trapezoid most likely to make room with minimal extra materials). For the whole design + tripod this represents about a 5% increase in weight and a 20% increase in volume (when bellows are retracted fully. 10% increase in volume with bellows extended). Pretty negligible.

Also, one must consider that interchangeable backs ALSO add weight, since you're carrying more than one back... So at the end of the day, it is probably about equal either way.

There is a significant cost in design difficulty, but again, I find designing stuff fun, so I don't really view that as a cost. And actual dollar amount of materials is almost certainly vastly lower to make my own device that to get a camera and back system commercially made, even used.



Anyway, I'm not very interested in "what's the most conventional way to add more film reserves to my LF camera." I'm more interested in whether it would be possible to do large format roll film (as in, would bending damage it too much, etc.). Don't worry so much about whether you think it is the most practical or not for purposes of this thread.

He just wants to build a gizmo. That's cool. Go nuts, man!

This.

...Unless there is some reason the gizmo is doomed to fail that is obvious from the outset.

 

[Light Guru]

do you realize how much wait you would be adding onto the camera not to mention the physical size increase on an already large camera.

Approximately 2-3 ounces in weight (rolls = maybe 1 and a little extra wood to house them = 2), and about 3-4 inches larger in the back.

WOW where did you learn to figure weight. There is absolutely no way your back plus film will 2-3 ounces in weight. A standard 4x5 film holder is about 5 ounces an its 1/2 inch thick. Your talking about easily adding several pounds of weight on to the thing.

A 3-4 inch wooden film back will not only be much more then then 3 ounces. My 4x5 field camera is 4 inches thick when folded and weights around 5 pounds without a lens. Even if you subtract 2 pounds for the medal hardware and weight of the ground glass that's still 3 pounds and it is the thickness of what you think your roll film holder would add. You are literally doubling the size of the camera.

Anyway, I'm not very interested in "what's the most conventional way to add more film reserves to my LF camera."

Yea that's obvious. But at the same time your also not thinking how practical what you are describing is.

 

[Designer]

Why, hell, the screws alone would weigh half a pound!

 

[Gavjenks]

WOW where did you learn to figure weight. There is absolutely no way your back plus film will 2-3 ounces in weight. A standard 4x5 film holder is about 5 ounces an its 1/2 inch thick. Your talking about easily adding several pounds of weight on to the thing.

Dude, I was talking about ADDED weight from the roll system, not the whole camera or back. As in: [weight of a back with a roll system accommodated] - [weight of a normal back without a roll system] = a few ounces.

Which was too low. I indeed underestimated. However, the right answer is closer to my estimate than "a few pounds" is. Here, I actually went and looked up the densities and such exactly, and it would be:
1) Two basic hollow plastic (for example PVC) reels with an inside diameter of approx. 1.5 inches and a height of 8 inches each = 9 ounces total (liberal estimate to allow for a small arm inside to hold the axle connections). Very thin aluminum tubes might actually be lighter weight.
2) Assorted screws (I just weighed a bag of random screws I have on the table, approx as many as I would need to make a couple hinges and fix reels and a couple inch long turning crank) = 4 ounces
3) To fit the reels on the sides without getting in the way of the image, I would make the camera a trapezoid large enough to fit them in the corners. The difference between a 14/10 x 5 x 8 inch trapezoidal box versus a 10 x 5 x 8 inch box = .38 inches x 8 inches more material on each side wall + 2 x 8 on the back + 20 square inches more material total top and bottom.
If the walls and top are 3/8" plywood and the bottom is 4/4 lumber, then that adds up to 18.14 cubic inches more wood. For softwoods like douglas fir, this is about 5.5 ounces

Total added weight = 1.16 pounds.

And the roll system could conservatively hold a good solid 20 sheets of film, which would require over 3 pounds with standard 2 sheet holders or grafmatic holders (grafmatics are apparently about equally heavy per sheet as standard holders). Making it a significant weight savings.


Diagram:

edit: the blue circles should be hollow. Too lazy to fix.



Note: this design is assuming a radius of curvature approximately equal to what those people using the "taco method" of developing were using. I do not know if their method involves enough bending to actually damage the film or the image. If so, then the rolls would need to be larger, and so would the trapezoid, and the weight addition would go up. Nobody seems to know how much bending is okay though, so I may need to just test it empirically first somehow before spending time building a camera (shoebox pinhole anyone?)

 

[gsgary]

I watched the BBC program Imagine last night on Don McCullin he was using a large format camera that he was shooting and advancing

 

[Gavjenks]

I watched the BBC program Imagine last night on Don McCullin he was using a large format camera that he was shooting and advancing

Oooh, that sounds worth watching anyway just for the show, let alone a clue in the hunt for roll film.

Sadly, the BBC won't allow foreigners to stream their shows even if they offer to pay the associated programming taxes... grr/grumble

 

[Helen B]

I now see that you just want to make a weird gizmo rather than answer a practical photographic desire, so I'll answer in that vein.

Your film curvature test isn't really about damage, but about the resulting curvature set at the time the film is exposed - which may be seconds after it comes off the roll. Film flatness is already an issue with conventionally-used sheet film, and existing large roll film aerial cameras can use vacuum flattening. You could use vacuum flattening via a perforated GG.

Another common issue is film/GG registration. Because your System 1 would have quite a large mismatch between the plane of the film and the plane of the GG you would probably want a little quick system to rack focus out that fixed amount after focusing on the GG - not dissimilar to the idea of racking to 'chemical focus' in the good old days of my youth - ie the 19th century [sic​].

I don't know how much experience you have with LF or how much LF film you use or want to use. Once upon a time I would have suggested trying Quickloads with a GG-modified holder (a holder with a GG and dark slides on both sides). That system would still be quick and light, and would get round the curvature set that roll film would create. You would not be the first to design a reusable Quickload-type system for holding standard sheet film. It would also make switching film or switching development easier.

Remember that LF aerial roll film is thinner than sheet film for a good reason.

If you stick sheets to a long roll backing, how will you avoid feed problems at the leading edge of each sheet (which will be wanting to curl up)? Not insurmountable, of course, if going one way, but more of a problem for your reversible idea. You may also have problems with the difference in relative length when rolled and when flat. That would be solved by fastening the leading edge only.

I guess that when doing a practical evaluation you have to ask if your whole system (camera to print) gives you the quality you want when compared to, say, a Mamiya Press shooting 6x9 film with the very good holder that those Mamiyas use. Will you be printing optically or scanning and printing?

 

[amolitor]

If you want the film to lie flat, your system should probably arrange so that when the sheet is in position to be exposed, the tensions on it tend to curve it in the opposite direction to the curve it takes on your "rolls". The Mamiya RB/RZ system places the rolls behind the film plane, for example.