Related Links:
View and Press Camera Pages
Rollfilm and medium format films
Plaubel Rollfilm Backs Manual (courtesy Richard Urmonas) [5/2002]
Pros and Cons of Various Rollfilm Backs [3/2003]

Rollfilm backs provide the ability to use rollfilm on large format press and view cameras (typically 4x5" or larger cameras). A number of mini-view cameras in 6x9cm size format also feature a rollfilm back as part of their design.

Basic Types of Rollfilm Backs

Formats of Rollfilm Backs

Why Use a Rollfilm Back?

The improvements in films has meant that medium format rollfilm can be enlarged with less grain today than in the past. So jobs that used to require the expense of sheet film can now be shot with rollfilm. So why not use a rollfilm camera? Because few rollfilm cameras have the flexibility and perspective controls of a 4x5" view camera.

Panoramic Formats

Rollfilm Flatness

Cautions on 620 Rollfilm Backs

But this is an extra set of steps, especially troublesome if you use an outside film processor for developing (as hard to find 620 spools may be tossed out). You have to carefully judge how much film you will need, as it is unlikely you can get more 620 film in the boondocks during a shoot. So consider these problems carefully while considering a 620 rollfilm back for possible use.

Roll Film Holder Availability

The above table is derived from an article by John Bethell titled "Flexible Friend" in the Marketing Survey insert of the British Journal of Photography (p.22, 2000). The key point Mr. Bethell makes is that the observed film depths vary between brands, which could cause problems in any limited depth of focus situations. For example, if you use the popular Fidelity film holders (Depth 5.10mm) with the Linhof rollfilm backs (film depth 4.85mm) then you can expect one or the other or both to be misaligned by some small but potentially troubling amount up to 1/4th of a millimeter or 250 microns.

The prices are converted to U.S. dollar equivalents, but may be different in the U.S. marketplace due to various factors. Note particularly the recent Linhof price drops (up to 1/3rd!!) which may impact not only new but also used prices.

Unfortunately, in light of recent Zeiss publications on film flatness, the majority of rollfilm holders don't work with 220 film, which has potentially improved film flatness. Similarly, some holders with film paths similar to the Hasselblad backs (e.g., clip-on) may also be less flat than the slide-in versions with straighter film paths, but again, this hypothesis would have to be tested. The variation in prices, especially for the 6x12cm panoramic backs, is also noteworthy!

[Ed. note: above is from mini-view camera page notes...]

Related Postings

[email protected] (Lyndon Fletcher) wrote

> I have a couple of the 2x3 Adapt-a-roll 620 roll film holders, a "L.
> Tatro company" version and one by "TA-MAR Inc".  As far as I can see
> they are idenical and both wind film onto the takeup spool "back to
> front" ie with the shiney side of the backing paper outwards.
>
> The Graflex.org website says the following-
>
> "Some Adapt-a-Roll type holders wind the film emulsion side in, while
> others wind it emulsion side out. Emulsion out is a nuisance, since
> the glued paper stripsfor sealing up the roll assume it will be wound
> emulsion in."
>
> The two I have are both "emulsion out" and a little notice inside the
> film chamber shows that this was intentional and not just the result
> of sloppy manufacture.
>
> The question is this, does anyone have an "emulsion in" variant of
> this back?  Could someone send me digital pics of the film winding
> mechanism? I plan to convert mine to 120 film use and if it's possible
> it would be nice to convert them to emulsion in at the same time.
>
> Thanks
>
> Lyndon

Lyndon:

I wrote the first draft of graflex.org's text on adapt-a-roll filmholders. I have an 'emulsion in' adapt-a-roll. I recommend against trying to change yours over, for two reasons.

The adapt-a-roll film advance knob sits on a one-way clutch, which is made of a roller and spring in a curved slot. The slot is 'handed,' so to replace a one-way clutch that allows clockwise rotation with one that allows ccw, you'll have to make a new one. This isn't a small job.

Once you have made a new clutch and use it, you'll find that adapt-a-rolls that wind ccw (emulsion in) have more problems with interference between film coming off the feed roll and film being wound on the take-up roll.

If you want to try ccw winding, just remove the film advance knob from its shaft, and then remove the roller and spring. The knob, when replaced on its shaft, will now rotate freely in both directions. It won't keep tension on the film as well, but you can't have everything.

You'll also have a hell of a time reassembling the one-way clutch if you want to make it function again.

Re your plan to develop a 120 conversion, keep us and the folks at graflex.org posted. I've heard of several such projects, never of a successful one. But don't let that discourage you, a cheap and easy 120 conversion would make adapt-a-rolls much easier to use.

Cheers,

Dan

From: [email protected] (Ted Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 30 Oct 2001 
Subject: Re: One more time regarding roll film backs

An RH8 is a 6x9 (8 for 8 exposures) back made by Graflex.  They are cheap and
generallyworth what yo pay for them.  Tehre rae many filmflatness problems with
these backs.  There inability to reliably hold the film flat was one of the
reasons I stopped using an XL system.

Cheers,

Ted
Ted Harris
 


From: [email protected] (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: One more time regarding roll film backs
Date: 30 Oct 2001 

John [email protected]> wrote...
> [email protected] (Ted Harris)
> wrote:
> 
> >An RH8 is a 6x9 (8 for 8 exposures) back made by Graflex.  They are cheap and
> >generally worth what you pay for them.  There are many film flatness problems with
> >these backs.  There inability to reliably hold the film flat was one of the
> >reasons I stopped using an XL system.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Ted
> >Ted Harris
>
> 	Well that's strange. I though I had a RH 8 but the
> opening for the negative is nowhere near 90mm. Real close to
> 80 though.
> 
> Regards,
> 
>  John S. Douglas               Photographer & Webmaster
>  Website ------------------- http://www.darkroom-pro.com
>  Formulas,Facts and Info on the Photographic Process

To begin, nominal gate sizes can be larger than actual.  6x9 is a
metric size, the US equivalent (more or less) is 2 1/4 x 3 1/4. 
Actual size, by measurement, of my Adapt-A-Roll 620's gate is 57mm x
82mm.  Very close to 2.25 x 3.25, quite far from 6x9 even though the
aspect ratio is the same.

As for RH8s, the lever wind ones are, per Graflex, nominally 2 1/4 x 3
1/8, not 2 1/4 x 3 1/4.  Mine measures 56 x 78.  Very close to
nominal.

Cheers,

Dan


From: "michael nielsen" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: One more time regarding roll film backs
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 

And if you are interested here are the specs from the Singer/Graflex pamplet
(sp?) I am sitting with:

RH/8      8 exposures    2-1/4 x 3-1/16    on 120 film
RH/10    10 exposures    2-1/4 x 2-3/4    on 120 film
RH/12    12 exposures    2-1/4 x 2-1/4    on 120 film
RH/20    20 exposures    2-1/4 x 2-3/4    on 220 film

It is also stated that all of these roll film holders could be supplied for
attachment to either the 2-1/4x3-1/4 or the 4x5 Graflok Backs.

Michael Nielsen




From: [email protected] (Ted Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 30 Oct 2001 
Subject: Re: One more time regarding roll film backs

That got me to scratching my head so I went and checked ..... I don't have an
RH8 but do have a Horseman 6x9.  The actual opening on the Horseman measured 58
mm x 83 mm.  

Ted Harris


From: Ron Todd [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: One more time regarding roll film backs
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 

Dave Moss wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Now that my first question was answered, I have one more. I have an
> older Calumet 400 series 4x5 camera, with the standard spring-clip
> back. What kind of roll film back will work on this setup? I'm not
> familiar with the Graflok system, and whether or not it will work with
> my camera.

AFAIK, the ones that slip under the spring back are the Calumet,
discontinued 620 size Adapta-a-roll, and maybe the very expensive
Linholf thing.

Graflok backs are also called universal (or maybe it is universal)
backs.

> 
> I know Calumet makes their own backs, but they are EXTREMELY pricey.
> What is an RH-8? I've heard of it, but never seen it.

Singer / Graflex roll film back for the Graflok back.  Nominally 6x9
negatives on 120 roll film. I believe the currently available Horseman
is the evolution of the design with a reputation of superior film
flatness.  (There is something about four roller Singer backs not having
a film flatness issue.) It can be jury rigged on a Graphic Spring Back,
there is an example over at www.graflex.org .

-- 

*             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  *


From: [email protected] (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 120 film in 620 rollfilm back? Re: roll film backs
Date: 31 Oct 2001 

[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote 
> does anyone know if the trick of trimming the rim of a 120 film roll will 
> make it work on the 620 film taking roll film backs? This works in many 
> cameras, and might be a way to get a cheap back without the hassle of 
> respooling (see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/620.html for how tos 
> etc).
> 
> thanks! bobm

Bob, if the back you have in mind is an Adapt-A-Roll 620, it can feed
from a standard 120 spool.  There seems to be no practical way to
adapt one to take up on a 120 spool or to trim a 120 spool so it can
be used to take up in one.  If that's what you have, you'll have to
take up on a 620 spool.  There are worse fates.

Other people have made brave noises here about working on ways to run
film 120 spool to 120 spool in an Adapt-A-Roll but have never
published the trick, if indeed there is one.  If you find one, would
you please report it here and post it on your monster site?

Cheers,

Dan


From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: One more time regarding roll film backs
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 

[email protected] (Dave Moss) wrote:

>Hello,
>
>Now that my first question was answered, I have one more. I have an
>older Calumet 400 series 4x5 camera, with the standard spring-clip
>back. What kind of roll film back will work on this setup? I'm not
>familiar with the Graflok system, and whether or not it will work with
>my camera.
>
>I know Calumet makes their own backs, but they are EXTREMELY pricey.
>What is an RH-8? I've heard of it, but never seen it.
>
>thanks,
>Dave

  The older Calumet back is a standard spring back, it does not take
Graflok or "International" accessories, although they can be
makeshifted. 

  The Calumet C-2 is a perfectly respectible back. The film flatness
is reasonably good if its loaded right. Try to wind the film just
before exposing it. The C-2 will also take 220 film. 

  Graflok type accssories  can be used on Graphic type spring backs by
removing the ground glass panel and making simple clamps to hold the
accessory in place. The clamps are fastened to the same holes which
normally hold the springs for the panel. This is a reasonable
makeshift for press cameras with rangfinder focusing but not very
practical for view cameras. 

  Calumet C-2 holders show up used fairly often for much less than the
current version costs new. The current version is nearly identical to
the old one except it has more plastic parts. 

  Adapting a Graflok back to a Calumet CC-400 type camera requires a
lot of surgery although it can be done. I don't think its very
practical. 
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
[email protected]


From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 120 film in 620 rollfilm back? Re: roll film backs
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 

[email protected] (Thom) wrote:

> [email protected] (Robert Monaghan)
>wrote:
>
>>does anyone know if the trick of trimming the rim of a 120 film roll will 
>>make it work on the 620 film taking roll film backs? This works in many 
>>cameras, and might be a way to get a cheap back without the hassle of 
>>respooling (see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/620.html for how tos 
>>etc).
>>
>>thanks! bobm
>>
>I think you'll find the sproket homes are different.
>
>THOM

  I think he means the holes in the ends of the spools. The diameter
of the center shaft of a 620 spool is much narrower than a 120 spool.
I don't have one to look at but remember the holes being smaller than
for 120. I may or may not make a difference. The retaining studs of a
620 camera will fit the larger holes in the 120 spool but the winding
key that engages the spool might not grip the spool. I've not heard
this is a problem and haven't had a 620 camera for so long I don't
remember quite what the size of things are inside of them. 

  Boo-hiss to Kodak for discontinuing 620, and for that matter, for
introducing it in the first place. 

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
[email protected]


From: Bill Callahan [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: One more time regarding roll film backs
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 

I have a Calumet C2 roll film back that I originally bought to work with an
old Calument 4x5 view camera. I still use it with a much newer, smaller,
more effective Gowan 4x5 Pocket View Camera, with I can carry with film
holders, three lenses, extra bellows, and a bunch of accessories in a
fairly small backpack.

The beauty of the Calumet back is that it works just like a standard 4x5
film holder, so it will work on ANY 4x5 camera back.  I know they're pricy
new, but they are rugged as hell, easy and reliable to use, and readily
repairable, even at home.

Look around at some Photo Fairs or in the back of Shutterbug.  I bought
mine for about $100 at a Photo Fair in San Mateo California. I love it.
Mine is 6x7, but if I had it to do over again, I would opt for a 6x9 for
the extended area.  You can always crop down, but you can't go the other
way!

My opinion is that trying to adapt any other roll film back to the Calumet
is going to entail more hassle and expense than it's worth.

Richard Knoppow wrote:

> [email protected] (Dave Moss) wrote:
>
> >Hello,
> >
> >Now that my first question was answered, I have one more. I have an
> >older Calumet 400 series 4x5 camera, with the standard spring-clip
> >back. What kind of roll film back will work on this setup? I'm not
> >familiar with the Graflok system, and whether or not it will work with
> >my camera.
> >
> >I know Calumet makes their own backs, but they are EXTREMELY pricey.
> >What is an RH-8? I've heard of it, but never seen it.
> >
> >thanks,
> >Dave
>   The older Calumet back is a standard spring back, it does not take
> Graflok or "International" accessories, although they can be
> makeshifted.
>   The Calumet C-2 is a perfectly respectible back. The film flatness
> is reasonably good if its loaded right. Try to wind the film just
> before exposing it. The C-2 will also take 220 film.
>   Graflok type accssories  can be used on Graphic type spring backs by
> removing the ground glass panel and making simple clamps to hold the
> accessory in place. The clamps are fastened to the same holes which
> normally hold the springs for the panel. This is a reasonable
> makeshift for press cameras with rangfinder focusing but not very
> practical for view cameras.
>   Calumet C-2 holders show up used fairly often for much less than the
> current version costs new. The current version is nearly identical to
> the old one except it has more plastic parts.
>   Adapting a Graflok back to a Calumet CC-400 type camera requires a
> lot of surgery although it can be done. I don't think its very
> practical.
> ---
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA.
> [email protected]


To: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 
Subject: [medium-format] Re: Roll film back

--- In medium-format@y..., "Jeff Wewers" jwewers@h...> wrote:
> Can anyone tell me how to load film into the "23" Graphic roll film 
> back? Or point me to some instructions? Thanks. Jeff.

 Hi Jeff, I`ve adapted the knob wind 23 to my little Busch Pressman. 
It`s the 6x9 format RH8 (eight exposures). Loading is very easy. If 
you look at the counter it should be pointing to the arrow head. 
Place the film in the left hand spool holder (when viewed from the  
top with the back open and darkslide facing downwards). This is 
achieved by inserting the loaded spool in bottom end first. Pull the 
film around the lefthand roller and across the pressure plate, 
remembering the dark side of the film paper faces the lens!, and 
across to the right hand roller then under the take up spool, it 
winds counter clockwise. Start the film and wind until the two start 
arrows on the film paper line up with the white arrow situated above 
the left hand spool. Close the back, make sure the darkslide is in 
place, then turn the counter (not the film advance knob) until 'S' 
lines up with the mark. Now continue to wind with the advance knob 
(or lever) until it stops. You now should see the counter set to 1, 
and you`re ready to go. One word of caution, don`t forget to remove 
the darkslide before shooting.  

 Cheers, Dean. (razzledog) 



Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 
From: ralph fuerbringer [email protected]>
Subject: Re: input needed for study
To: [email protected]

why bother with a bunch of formats when roll film is so cheap? shoot 220
with the longest format you have, crop later rather than fooling around with
red windowa and wasting shooting time.  even the varioformat sinar 612 roll
holder with an autostop averages twenty times the breakdowns as the 612
horseman. i've sold at least 50 612 horseman 612. no breakdowns reported.

> From: Bill Glickman [email protected]>
> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: input needed for study
> 
> 
>> the gilde has more red windows than a texas whorehouse. who wants to pay
>> 5 to 10 ten grand to peek into those things today? a rollfilm camera today
>> must have an automatic stop period. ralph
> 
> Agreed, what  a pain, but that is the price you pay for multi images on
> one roll...


From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Roll Film Holders
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 

Mark Rabiner [email protected]> wrote:

>Perhaps this should be on the medium format list!!?
>
>I have a Calumet Cambo NX.
>I have little experience with View Cameras.
>
>I stupidly a Graflex rollfilm holder for it.
>Thinking it would be doable.
>
>But getting the groundglass off this thing is no mean trick.
>I've seen sliding backs but they are not exactly compact or cheap.
>Never actually seen one in person!
>
>So it appears the sliding in Roll Film Holders would be the thing.
>
>I'm interested in a 6x6 back to use with my Apo Rodagon 75 D which is
>optimized for 1:1.
>
>And I'm also interested in 6x12. And 6x9.
>
>What is the smart thing to do. My camera does have a Graflock back but
>as i said getting it off to do a shot is no picnic.
>
>Am i missing smoothing?
>
>
>Mark Rabiner
>Portland, Oregon USA
>http://www.markrabiner.com

  If you have a Graflok or International back (they are essentially
the same) the spring panel shold slide off when pressure is put on the
two bars which hold it. Push in and toward the loading end of the
back. The panel should slide off easily. There is an illustration on
the Graflex web site at:

http://www.graflex.org/speed-graphic/features.html#GraflokBack

  The roll holder is held in place by the two sliding strips at top
and bottom. 

  If you have a conventional spring back you can still use Graflok
accessories with a little makeshifting. Most of the spring backs are
arranged so that the springs are held onto the camera with a single
screw. Even if more than one screw is used the following can be tried.
You can make a clamp which is screwed onto the back instead of the
normal spring loaded ground glass panel and holds the accessory by its
edges. Graflex made a simple bent spring for this sold as a "Spring
Kit". I've seen few on the market but its not difficult to make
something which will work. Again, this is a makeshift but can be
useful where one wants to use a roll film adaptor on a camera without
a Graflok or International back. 
 
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
[email protected]



From: "Don Wallace" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Leaving 4x5 sheets for 6x12
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 


"BK" [email protected] wrote 
> Is there anybody out there that is currently shooting with a 4x5 view
> camera, but is using rollfilm backs (6x12, or 6x9)instead of 4x5 sheet
> film?  Do you find your image quality close to 4x5 sheet film?  How do
> you like the flexibility of camera movements, while using roll film?
>
> bk

I frequently use roll film backs (6x7, 6x9) on my Super Graphic. These are
really handy when I don't need to develop each negative separately and where
I might want to explore either the subject material or a new film. I often use
them for shooting colour reversal, for example, where I am not going to do
the developing. I also use them for shooting people in situations where I
want to get a lot of shots and the light is not going to change a whole lot.
I frequently use front rise and tilt for landscapes with the roll film back, just
as I would with 4x5. I also found these backs very useful when I
was trying to refine my metering for colour reversal. It was a LOT cheaper
to experiment with 6x9 than with 4x5. However, as soon as you want to
use different exposure/development for each shot, you obviously have to
move to sheet film. As for image quality, the difference between medium
format and 4x5 is always debated but unless the enlargements are going to
be huge, the smaller neg is fine.

Another advantage of roll film backs is that your lenses do double duty.
I have a 90mm, 150mm and 210mm and they obviously serve quite
different purposes in medium format.

Don Wallace



From: "David Grandy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Leaving 4x5 sheets for 6x12
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 


What 6x12 film back are you planning on using? 

A friend had the Calumet 6x12 back and it was awful.  I seem to remember 
that he had it replaced and the second one was no better.  It scratched 
the film, but since the scratching was inconsistent he was never able to 
figure out what was causing the problem, and eventually he sold the 
back.  Yet another friend has been using a Calumet 6x7 back for years 
and hasn't had a problem. 

So if you do come across a Calumet 6x12 back make sure you shoot some 
film with it, before you buy.  And if you buy it new make sure you can 
return it if it scratches your film.



From: "Steve Wolverton" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Grafloc or Spring Back?
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002


Spring back will do just fine.

If you ever want to use polaroids you can remove the ground glass holder and
secure the polaroid to the back with HEAVY elastic bands.  I have done this
with good results.  Just be sure not to disturb the camera when putting the
regular back back on.

BTW, there are polaroid holders and roll film holders that WILL fit under
the spring back.  Calumet C2 roll film holder and polaroid 545(i) will fit
fine.  Just don't leave them in there for extended peroids of time.

For more info, check out http://www.graflex.org if you haven't already.

Steve


"groovensynth" [email protected] wrote
> Hi,
>    I am wondering which back I should consider while shopping fror a
> Speed Graphic.  Im not interested in a roll film or Polarid back. So
> I'm thinking I could use the spring back.
>
> tks



From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Grafloc or Spring Back?
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002


groovensynth [email protected] wrote:
>Hi,
>   I am wondering which back I should consider while shopping fror a
>Speed Graphic.  Im not interested in a roll film or Polarid back. So
>I'm thinking I could use the spring back.
>
>tks

  It makes no difference if you don't need to use accessories. The
Graflok is a later back, all metal, and with a stronger spring than
the earlier spring backs.

  The spring backs used on the first of the Pacemaker series cameras
was also all-metal.

  A Graflok back can be refitted to nearly any Speed or Crown Graphic
and to many Graflex SLR cameras without much surgery.

  Polaroid backs will fit into the spring back, they don't need the
Graflok.

  The Calumet C-2 type roll holder also fits spring backs but may not
clear the "ears" of some backs.

 The old wooden spring backs are lighter than the Graflok.
  I would buy a camera based on overall condition.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
[email protected]



From: "Moishe Appelbaum" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Graflex Roll Film Back Question
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002

Yes.  Replacement springs are available for very cheap.  Call Jim at Midwest
Photo Exchange.  They can even do it for you!  614-261-1264.  [email protected]

Moishe

"Anonymous" [email protected] wrote...
> One on my Graflex 6x7 roll film backs has developed a weak spring (I
> think) on the film advance lever.  The lever works fine and the film
> advances properly, but the lever needs a little 'assistance' to get it
> back into position after advancing the film.  Is there a reasonably
> simple fix for this weak spring?



From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Velvet felt for film cassettes?

> Were can I find the velvet-like felt material to repair old film cassettes
> for the Rolleiflex, and other cameras using sheet film?

Fabric shops will sell velvet.  There are various pile lengths available,
take along an example and ask the person in the store to show you
what is available.  You do not have to use black.  I have seen some
roll film backs with (original) red velvet seals.  The main thing to
check is that the fibres are dense enough to properly stop
the light.

Richard


[Ed. note: thanks to bob for sharing these cautions and warnings...]
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 
From: "R. Peters" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Graflok backs

Bob, I've always thought a "Graflok back was a Graflok back.   I bought one
of Shuart's 10mm lined Ground glass focus screens for 2x3 Graflok backs off
ebay.  I'm not unhappy with it, because I have a 2x3 Crown that it drops
into. But I dropped Shuart a note mentioning that "in case anyone asked,
his ground glass does NOT fit a Horseman VHR with Graflok back.

Here is the response I got:   "graflok" was only made by Graflex. Horseman
is a Graflok "type " back, but is not a Graflok. I am aware of the
difference in size, and I know they do not fit."

I'm not going to argue with him, and he may even be right.  But my
understanding was that the Horseman and other cameras--like Mamiya
Press--used a "Graflok Back" built under license from Graflex or whoever
was the last owner.   I am surprised to hear at long last that my Horseman
'does not (?) have a Graflok back'.

Do you have any info on this subject?

                        bob



From: John Stafford [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: What is the brand and model roll film holder that will
        deliver the best on-film resolution (due to relative film flatness) from
        the Schneider 47mm f8.0 SuperAngulon lens mounted on a Graflex XLSW body?
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002

 Graphic at [email protected] wrote:
> What is the brand and model roll film holder that will deliver the best
> on-film resolution (due to relative film flatness) from the Schneider 47mm
> f8.0 SuperAngulon lens mounted on a Graflex XLSW body?

Dunno about the XLSW body, but I've had good luck with the back used on the
later Brooks Verwide (Mamiya?) It is particularly long,leaving a good, long
straight path on each side of the film.

But all this is a moot point for most 47mm SA users because they don't shoot
wide open for two reasons: first, the lens is definitely not a stellar
performer, and second you can't focus on a ground glass with that camera -
even if you have one, you can't be sure it's precise enough that your focus
will translate to the roll film back properly.

...and if flatness is a huge issue, consider wasting a frame before shooting
to obviate the persistent detent left in the film from leaving it rolled too
long.

...or tough it out and get a Silvestri!  And add the Schneider perfect focus
4x5 back to it. :)  Then you can see how very poor the lens really is wide
open.



From: Jean-David Beyer [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What is the brand and model roll film holder that will deliver the
 best on-film resolution (due to relative film flatness) from the
 Schneider 47mm f8.0 SuperAngulon lens mounted on a Graflex XLSW body?
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002


Graphic wrote:
>
> What is the brand and model roll film holder that will deliver the best
> on-film resolution (due to relative film flatness) from the Schneider 47mm
> f8.0 SuperAngulon lens mounted on a Graflex XLSW body?
>
> Which holders are the worst dogs in this group of holders?
>
I do not know, and do not think it matters much which lens is used;
i.e., you want maximum film flatness no matter which. Now flatness may
be more important with short focal length lenses than others (I have
not thought about it lately).

Roll film holders such as the Calumet Cambo C2N roll film holder that
keep the film flat (no reverse curl until after the film is exposed)
and keep the film against guide rails like in a 35mm camera should
give better results than the kind that reverse curl the film before
(and after) exposure. The reverse curl makes it difficult to maintain
film flatness.


I believe Sinar also make a roll film holder of this type. These
holders will fit spring-back cameras and also have a milled grove in
each side so they should hold the Graflex slide type (I forget the
name) backs.

--
Jean-David Beyer



From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What is the brand and model roll film holder that will deliver the
  best on-film resolution (due to relative film flatness) from the   Schneider
47mm f8.0 SuperAngulon lens mounted on a Graflex XLSW body?
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002


Jean-David Beyer [email protected] wrote:
>Graphic wrote:
>>
>> What is the brand and model roll film holder that will deliver the best
>> on-film resolution (due to relative film flatness) from the Schneider 47mm
>> f8.0 SuperAngulon lens mounted on a Graflex XLSW body?
>>
>> Which holders are the worst dogs in this group of holders?
>>
>I do not know, and do not think it matters much which lens is used;
>i.e., you want maximum film flatness no matter which. Now flatness may
>be more important with short focal length lenses than others (I have
>not thought about it lately).
>
>Roll film holders such as the Calumet Cambo C2N roll film holder that
>keep the film flat (no reverse curl until after the film is exposed)
>and keep the film against guide rails like in a 35mm camera should
>(and after) exposure. The reverse curl makes it difficult to maintain
>film flatness.
>
>I believe Sinar also make a roll film holder of this type. These
>holders will fit spring-back cameras and also have a milled grove in
>each side so they should hold the Graflex slide type (I forget the
>name) backs.
>
>--
> .~.  Jean-David Beyer

The Calumet holder will fit either Graphic type spring backs or
Graflok backs, it will not fit Graflex backs. The locating ridge on
Graflex backs is located on the camera rather than on the holder so
Graphic/Graflok type holders or accessories will not seat properly.

  The grooves allow locking the back in place with the slide locks of
the Graflok.

  The side grooves on Grafmatic holders serve the same purpose.

  I think a lot of roll holders have poor flatness because they are in
poor condition. The Graflex type roll adaptors depend on a spring
located on the cover of the holder to press the entire inside
mechanism against the front. If the springs are stretched or weak some
play can develop between the "pressure plate" and the film gate. The
Calumet holder can suffer from the same problem.

  Since its possible to examine these guys with film in them some idea
of how flat they hold the film can be gotten by sacrificing a roll of
film and examing it in the light. You can push the center against the
back plate to see if its buckling. I have both old and new versions of
he Graflex holders (the later ones had extra rollers) and a Calumet
holder. All appear to hold the film pretty flat. My old style Graflex
adaptor is for 2-1/4" x 2-1/4". The small opening may not be as
vulnerable to buckling as the larger format sizes.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
[email protected]



From: "Brian Ellis" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 6x12
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002


People sometimes use roll  film on large format cameras for reasons other
than just the aspect ratio. One common reason is the desire to save the
space and weight of carrying a bunch of film holders. Another is to minimize
dust problems on the film. Reducing film costs and processing expense is
another reason for some people. Some people don't feel comfortable loading
film holders or aren't sure on a long trip that they'll have a place to
reload and dont' like or want to buy a changing bag.
.

"Doug Dolde" [email protected] wrote...
> You can buy and process and incredible amount of 4x5 film and crop it if you
> want for the price of a roll film holder.



From: Bob Salomon [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why has no one improved on the Blad?
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002

Karen Nakamura at [email protected] wrote on 7/23/02 3:27 AM:

> There are just two 35mm systems that I know of that has interchangeable
> backs.... the Zeiss-Ikon Contaflex and Contarex cameras.
Rollei SL 2000, 3000, 3001, Kodak Ektra

HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun,
CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser,
Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar, Tetenal
Cloths and Ink Jet Papers, VR, Vue-All archival negative, slide and print
protectors, Wista, ZTS see www.hpmarketingcorp.com for dealer listings


From: Bob Salomon [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 6x12
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002

 Ron Klein at [email protected] wrote 

> I am thinking of doing 6x12 format using a roll film holder on my wisner
> 4x5. Has anybody had any experience with this type setup? What lens would be
> suggested as a normal lens?Any comments on the Calumet c2n holder?

The Calumet (and the others) is not 612. It is 56 x 111 to 56 x 112mm. The
Techno Rollex from Linhof is 56 x 120mm - but much more in cost.

There is also a considerable difference in film flatness and IR
capabilities.


HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun,
CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser,
Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar, Tetenal
Cloths and Ink Jet Papers, VR, Vue-All archival negative, slide and print
protectors, Wista, ZTS see www.hpmarketingcorp.com for dealer listings


From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Distance to film plane
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002

[email protected] (Sandy King) wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>   After making some measurements I think the standard must be 0.186,
>> or perhaps 0.190, the standard for 4x5.
>>   I measured:
>>
>
>The ANSI standard for the T-dimension is actually 0.197" +/- 0.007.
>
>Same standard for 2X3, 3X4 and 4X5 holders.
>
>Sandy King

  Thanks for the info on the smaller formats.

   0.197 is the distance from the reference surface to the back plane
of a film holder without film. Most sheet film is 0.007, making the
focal plane distance 0.190. This is the distance the ground glass
should be from the reference surface (the surface which the film
holders are against when in the camera).

  My measurements on the roll holder may be off a little because of
variations in film thickness with roll film.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
[email protected]



From: Ron Todd [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Graphic Roll Holder
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002


tim eitniear wrote:
>
> tim eitniear
> [email protected] wrote:
> I guess my first problem is that I believe have a spring back.  Now I'm
> not sure how to secure it to the camera
> >
> I just received a Graphic 22 Roll film holder for my 4X5.  The
> > instructions state: "To fit to the Graflok back, a Graphic Roll Holder
> > is required"  What is this?  Is there some other way to fit this on the
> > camera?
> >
> > tks
> > TIm


You may not like this, but here it is:

http://www.graflex.org/speed-graphic/graphic-back-conversion.html

AIR, someone said that if your range finder is on, just the large
washers and screws work find.

The expensive way: A graphlok back for a Speed/Crown graphic currently
has a market price of around $150.  If you do a back replacement
yourself, remember what Ed Romney said, if you miss that fifth screw
under the lip of the film holder opening opening you will split wood.
...



From: "Gregory N. Latiak" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Graphic 22
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002



Tim,

My old Speedgraphics and my Technika have a thing called a Graflock back.
This has a removable groundglass frame held on with two spring-loaded arms.
The arms should have a serrated pad close to where they hook into the
camera. If one pushed down on these and slide towards the bottom (away from
the side you insert the film holder) they will disengage. The Graflock back
has a pair of slide locks that engage the rim of the film adapter. If you do
not have these two sliding bar locks, you will need to have the back changed
to a Graflock-style back to use your accessory.

greg latiak


From: "Richard Knoppow" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Crown Graphic 4x5 with Graflex back....
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002


"Jim Hasapis" [email protected] wrote...
> I just acquired a Crown with a graflex back, not the more standard
> Graflock. I have no film holders for it and all the ones I see for
> sale are for graflok type backs. Whut are my options? Where can I find
> film holders? Any suggestions or modifications I can do?
> Thanks in advance.

  Do you really mean a Graflex back?

  Graflex had three backs. The Graflex back was used mostly
on the Graflex SLR camera. It doesn't have a spring panel.
The holders are held in by two sliding stips at top and
bottom, something like the way a lens board is held on many
cameras.

  The second type of back is the Graphic back, found on most
older Speed Graphics. This is a regular spring back, that
is, the ground glass panel is on springs and also serves to
hold the film holder in place.

  The third type is the Graflok back, which became standard
equipment on Speed and Crown Graphics around 1950. This type
of back has a spring loaded ground glass panel, like the
Graphic back, but the panel is removable by sliding it out.
The Graflok back also has two sliding strips, like the
Graflex back, for holding accessories in place.

  The Graflok back and Graphic back take the same holders.

  The Graflex back does not take Graphic type holders.

  Sometimes the ground glass panel from a Graflok back is
missing. It may look like a Graflex back that way. You can
tell which you have by looking at the part of the surface
near the dark slide side of the back. Graphic and Graflok
backs have a groove which fits a ridge on the holder. On
Graflex backs its reversed, the ridge is on the camera back
and fits a groove in the holder.

  Graflex holders are hard to find. They are thicker than
Graphic holders, have a deep groove down each long side to
fit the sliding strips, and have the groove on the faces
running the short way to fit the camera back. Graflex
holders and accessories will not fit Graflok backs due to
the position of the lock groove.

  For more on the cameras and backs see the Graflex org web
page at http://www.graflex.org

  make sure it .org, there is also a Graflex.com, which is
something else.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]


From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Crown Graphic 4x5 with Graflex back....
Date: 11 Sep 2002


[email protected] (Jim Hasapis) wrote...
> "Richard Knoppow"
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jim Hasapis" <@yahoo.com wrote...
> >> I just acquired a Crown with a graflex back, not the more
>  standard
> >> Graflock. I have no film holders for it and all the ones I
>  see for
> >> sale are for graflok type backs. Whut are my options?
>  Where can I find
> >> film holders? Any suggestions or modifications I can do?
> >> Thanks in advance.
> >
> >  Do you really mean a Graflex back?
>> Yep, it's definately a Graflex back. I did a lot of research after I
> bought the thing on ebay, (I know, shoulda done BEFORE) so I'm
> positive. I found 2 holders at All Season's Camera in New York, and I
> ordered them, but they are wood and not guaronteed to be light-tight.
> I was also wondering if anyone had done any kinds of mods to be able
> to somehow use standard holders.
> Jim


  Graflex backs were available on Speed/Crown Graphics on special
order. Before the advent of the Graflok back the Graflex back was the
only way to use certain accessories. Some cameras used for scientific
purposes had Graflex backs.

  All the backs are interchangible. Replacing the Graflex back with
either a Graphic or Graflok back is a matter of of a few screws on the
back and readjusting the infinity stops. You may be able to find a
Graphic back although the Graflok is superior if you can find one at a
decent price.

  A Graflok back should be checked to make sure it has all the parts.
It should have a fresnel field lens under the ground glass, of course
the ground glass spring panel, and the metal shade and cover for the
panel. Any missing parts should knock the price way down.

  Late Graphic backs as used on Pacemaker series cameras are all metal
like the Graflok. They also have a metal folding hood. I don't think
they came with the field lens.

  Graflex holders and accessories are so hard to find that changing
the back may be worth it.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]


From: "Richard Knoppow" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Graphmatic film holder
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002


"Bob Oehler" [email protected] wrote...
> Hey folks
>
> Well It's my 1 offical question about 4 x 5 format
>
> I am buying film holders and I came accross one that is a graphmatic
> film holder that holds 6 cut sheets.
>
> 1.  are these any good, or is it better just to get the 2 sided ones??
>
> 2.  I am assuming that they will fit my B&J grover like my polaroid back.
> Hey thanks
> Bob Oehler

  If used on a standard spring back you will need to be
careful that you don't pull the entire holder out when
changing film. On a Graflok or Universal back the lock
slides can be used to secure the Grafmatic. A good cleaning
and a little dry lube will make them run smoothly. Film
flatness is at least as good as with standard holders. Check
the septums to make sure they are undamaged. They are made
of rather thin metal and are easy to bend.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]


From: Sandorm Mathe [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: polaroid backs
Date: 7 Oct 2002


Bob Oehler [email protected] wrote:
> Hey again and again

> I am using a polaroid 545 back that is borrowed
> I see some 500 backs at Ebay for a cheap price, but I can't seem to
> find info if they take the same types of film (55, 54, etc) as the
> 545's do.
> Is their price cheep due to no film avail or just old technology.

The 500's take the same film with one rather large useability caveat:
The stop for the paper dark slide doesn't match and you can easily pull
the paper sleeve right out.  You can get around this by marking the paper
envelope for the correct distance to pull it out and being very careful.

If you do pull the sleeve right out there's no easy way to get it back on
(you've essentially wasted a sheet).

Supposedly the newer holders give more even chemical spread.

--
Sandor Mathe
[email protected]



From: [email protected] (Mark Cudworth)
Subject: Re: polaroid backs
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002

 Bob Oehler [email protected] writes:

>I am using a polaroid 545 back that is borrowed
>I see some 500 backs at Ebay for a cheap price, but I can't seem to
>find info if they take the same types of film (55, 54, etc) as the
>545's do.
>Is their price cheep due to no film avail or just old technology.

I have one of these that came with a camera I bought at an estate auction.
They are technically "obsolete" as the stops on modern film differs from
what this back uses.  (You can pull the sleeve all of the way out of the
holder if you aren't careful.)  If you use some care, these can be used
with modern film.  I haven't had any problems with mine.


That being said, I would only use one if you get it free with the
purchase of some other item.  In my opinion, paying more than $10 --
*including* shipping -- is a mistake.  If you are going to spend any
money, look for a used 545 and enjoy the extra convenience.  While I think
these backs are usable, most eBay auctions expect too much for them.

--
Mark Cudworth


From: [email protected] (Ted Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 15 Oct 2002 
Subject: Re: polaroid back info


Andrea,

Thre are a variety of standard Polaroid backs currently available:

1) The 545i which is basically the same as yoru 545 only more plastic parts and
thus lighter.

2) The 545pro which has the same functionality as the 545/545i but also a
temperature sensor to help you time development mroe accurately.

3) the 550 which is a pack film holder to hold 4x5 film packs from Polaroid.

4) the 405 which is a pack film holder to hold the 6xx series film packs
(smaller than 4x5) frok Polaroid and Fuji.

There are are also many adaptations of the above for special purpose industrial
and scientific equipment and Polaroid backs for MF and 35 mm cameras.

Cheers,

Ted
Ted Harris
Resource Strategy
Henniker, New Hampshire



From: [email protected] (CamArtsMag)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 15 Oct 2002
Subject: Re: polaroid back info


There is an article about 4x5 film back choices on the view camera magazine web site

http://www.viewcamera.com

steve simmons


From: [email protected] (CamArtsMag)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 15 Oct 2002 
Subject: View Camera magazine web site


We are posting two new articles on our site from previous issues.

4x5 film holder choices from Nov/Dec 01

4x5 Cameras Priced under $1,200.00 from the Sept/Oct 02 issue


steve simmons


From: [email protected] (Bruce E. Batchelor)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: polaroid back info
Date: 15 Oct 2002


The Polaroid product info is at
http://www.polaroid.com/products/product_list.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=10775&PR
ODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=31071&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=18071&bmUID=1032891419681&PRDREG=
US

[is that long enough?]
I have a PDF file collected in recent weeks, probably somewhere on the
same site as above which give full usage instructions. For my 405 (I
have a 545 too)I found that after all these DECADES of documentation
it was still not clear where the black-slide tab and white starter
tabs were supposed to pop out in the 405.

BTW the 405 film is much cheaper and if you are going to burn much of
it practicing, get one of those. The retail is only $79 and a better
deal than messing with eBay for a small saving. In some cities the 4x5
film in not stocked, but the 3.25" is likely to be. Still, it's not
actually cheap, and the resolution is not too good. You will find some
good comments on this topic in the group by querying various logical
key words.

Also BTW, to use the fatter 405 in a spring back you will need longer
spring retaining screws and maybe a coil spring and some nylon
washers. Easy to do with 4x40x3/4 screws from Home Depot. My fix cost
$2.50. Good luck

"Andrea" [email protected] wrote 
> i have a polaroid 545 back
> is there a web site i can refer to for info about use and convenience of
> polaroid backs (directions for using, prices, availability)?
>
> thanks,
> Andrea


From: "Richard Knoppow" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Graflok back is loose or normal?
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002


"Andrea" [email protected] wrote...
> Hi everybody, a lot of thanks for your useful answers,
>
> i have a question about the 4x5" Crown Graphic i just got.
> when i first got it, i realized the graflok back was loose. then i saw the
> two sliding blades above and below the back (on the camera body), and i
> realized that sliding those i could lock the back in its place. so the
> focusing plane should be in the correct position (i'm waiting to get the
> first test prints).
> the play doesn't depend on the springs of the back, but there's play in the
> two hinges.
>
> For inserting the film holder, by the way, i have to loosen again the
> blades. when the film is inserted is kept tight in place by the back (no
> play).
>
> is all this normal (having to slide the blades above and below the removable
> back to tighten the back while focusing) or this is a problem with this
> camera?
>
> Thanks everybody,
> Andrea
>
> PS: taking pictures with this camera is one of the most fun things i've ever
> done!!!

  This is not normal. Standard film holders should be held
in quite firmly by the spring back. I can't tell what is
wrong from the description but suggest you check the hooks
the spring panel slides into and the springs themselves.

  Graflok backs have coiled pressure springs on the axels of
the two chrome levers which hold the spring panel in place.
Check to see that both springs are OK and that neigher lever
is loose. The sping panel is removable by pressing down on
the knurled surfaces of the two levers and sliding the panel
toward the side the film holders go in. Once its out check
the springs and check for anything which might be
interfering with the seating of either the holders or spring
panel.

 The spring panel absolutely should not be loose and should
have a fairly stiff resistance to lifting when in place, the
springs are quite strong.

  Also check to make sure the hooks on the fixed part of the
back are not broken.

  Again, the slide strips are used for holding accessories
in when the spring panel is removed and for extra security
with Polaroid and Grafmatic holders. They should never be
necessary for standard holders.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]


From: [email protected] (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Speed Graphic HELP
Date: 28 Oct 2002


Vito [email protected] wrote 
> 0320231433 wrote:
> >
> > I am looking for a miniature speed graphic....
>
> Last I looked, sheet film choice in that size was *very* limited, so you
> need a later model with a Graflok back plus a roll film holder and this
> combo is hard to use with the ground glass and thus with movements. So,
> unless size is an over riding concern, I'd recommend a 4x5 for its far
> greater versatility.


Um, Vito, at least for 2x3 cameras with spring backs, the Adapt-A-Roll
620 is a workable alternative to a more modern roll holder.  It is the
spiritual ancestor of the Calumet C-2, slides in like a sheet film
holder.

Big drawback is that although it can feed film from a 120 spool (no
need to rewind film for loading, just pop it in), the A-A-R 620 MUST
take up on a 620 spool.  Given the scarcity of 620 spools, one has to
transfer exposed film from the take-up spool to a 120 spool before
sending it to the lab.  This is what a changing bag is for.

A-A-R 620s biggest drawbacks may be scarcity and the fact that the
secret is out.  Last week one went for ~$100 on eBay, somewhat into
Graflex roll holder territory.

Cheers,

Dan


From ZICG mailing list:
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 
From: "William B. Lurie" [email protected]
Subject: Re: WTB/Suydam  back for 9x12 Jewel

Arthur, it's a rather simple trick to make roll-backs fit on the
Juwel. You have to examine carefully to see WHY they don't
snap on and stay on. The do fit. My buddy saw where the
detents are supposed to hold it (look at the G-G back), and
built up the area with fiberglas molding gel that hardens. Then
you just file and sand it away until it is a snug fit. I haven't done
it but I intend to, on my Ideal 9x12 250/7.

But your approach is good, if it works...

                Bill
[email protected] wrote:

> I'm looking for a Suydam rollfilm back to fit my 9x12 Universal Jewel. True
> enough, the RADA back I bought on ebay (like new, with masks and
> instructions) will not fit the Jewel,  as I was warned. The RADA apparently
> works with the Zeiss Ikon  Favorite and  Maximar, the Voigtlander Bergheil
> and Avus  and the Kodak Recomar, but not the Jewel. The tabs that lock the
> back to the Jewel are simply too shallow  to accomodate the thicker RADA
> sides. So if anyone has a Suydam back they'd like to sell I'd love to hear
> about it. Thanks. Arthur 


From camera makers mailing list:
From: "Gene Johnson" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] 9x12 to 4x5 adaptor
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 

It's called a BeeBee.  Made by Certo for Burleigh Brooks.  I imagine it
would fit on any number of 9x12 cameras of that era (20's, 30's?).  No pics
yet.  I'll try to get some.

Gene


From: "Richard Knoppow" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Film Holder Recommendations...
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 

...
  The current American made holders are all made by the
same company. Not much difference although the self-locking
variety (Riteway) may not release their dark slides in some
cameras.

   If you are looking for used holders Riteway, made by
Graflex are easily the best. I have a lot of old holders,
the Riteways are the only ones having consistently correct
spacing. Avoid old wooden holders, they are often warped.

  Holders should be checked using a depth micrometer and
flat plate. The correct distance for the back plate is 0.197
inches _without_ film or 0.190 with  film (standard sheet
film is 0.007 thick). Correct and uniform spacing is
important if you want sharp pictures.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]


From: "Richard Knoppow" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Speed Graphic HELP
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002


"Dan Fromm" [email protected] wrote 
> "Richard Knoppow" [email protected] wrote 
> large snip...
> >   I have about a 1946 Miniature S.G. and have been
> > frustrated trying to find a Graflok for it. The small ones
> > are quite rare and tend to be too expensive. That's why I
> > recommend finding a late model camera with the Graflok on
> > it. The regular spring back does not take accessories, at
> > least not without makeshifting.
>
> Um, Richard, if you're willing to dispense with flash sync for the
> focal plane shutter, the Graflok back for 2x3 Pacemakers will do just
> fine on your Mini. I once bought a Mini Speed with a Pacemaker
> Graflok, and swapped backs between the Mini and a Pacemaker with a
> spring back.  Yes, I know, they're not cheap whether correct for the
> Mini or not.  You might be better off selling the Mini, even though
> I'm sure you have a good reason for keeping it, and using the proceeds
> as partial payment on a 2x3 Pacemaker.
> Cheers,
> Dan

The back for the Pacemaker will fit but even these are
rare in this size.

  Its quite possible to makeshift a mounting for roll
holders on the old style spring back. The ground glass panel
and springs are removed (two screws) and either a shaped bar
or even just large washers with rubber bumpers used to
fasten the roll holder in by screwing them to the back. This
works but, of course, its not possible to change from holder
to ground glass rapidly. Nonetheless, its a way of making a
nice rangefinder 2x3 camera out of a miniature Speed Graphic
without any really permanent surgery.


---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]


From: "Brian Ellis" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Best LF camera for MF
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002


Many people use roll film backs on 4x5 cameras because they want the
movements available with a large format camera but don't want the hassle of
dealing with the film and holders or don't want to be  restricted in the
number of photographs they can make.  And some people use large format
cameras and large format film because they want to individually develop each
negative. But until now I've haven't heard of anyone getting into large
format work because of the range of choices of large format lenses.

When you refer to "the enormous range of choices" in large format lenses, do
you mean that there is some focal length lens that is available in large
format that isn't in medium format? Or do you mean that there are a lot of
old, inexpensive large format lenses around?  In other words, what is it
that you plan to gain with this range of choices of large format lenses that
you can't otherwise get?

I have 4x5 and 8x10 cameras and the whole process of making a photograph
with either system is much more enjoyable and rewarding to me than using my
medium format system. However, many people don't like the process at all.
The equipment tends to be bulky and heavy, carrying it around on hikes is
tiring, it takes a relatively long time to set up and then make only a
single photograph, because of that time and effort you tend to make far
fewer photographs than you otherwise would (which may be good but may be bad
too), and there are a whole lot of steps that have to be taken in order to
make the photograph and a whole lot of things in each step that can and will
go wrong to ruin those great photographs you thought you made.

It's unusual, in my experience at least, to conclude that the range of
choices in large format lenses justifies these difficulties and problems..
This doesn't mean your reason is wrong, if it works for you it's right, just
that because it's an unusual reason you might want to carefully consider
exactly what you're getting into for what seems to me to be the fairly
minimal benefit of the range of large format lens choices.

[email protected] wrote 

> I was thinking about getting a Graflex 4x5 camera with a 120 rollfilm
> back.  I like the enormous range of choices of lenses in LF but I don't
> have the $$$s or inclination to actually shoot 4x5.  Does anyone have
> any better suggestions?  If this has been beaten to death in a previous
> thread, please let me know the name of the thread so that I can look it
> up.
> Thanks


From: [email protected] (Largformat)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 15 Feb 2003 
Subject: Film Holder Choices

On the View Camera web site in the free section there is an article from the
Fall of 2001 on using different combinations of pre-loaded films and the
various film holders.

It is in the archives section at the bottom of the home page.

www.viewcamera.com

steve simmons


From: [email protected] (Andreas Schmidt)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Source for the precision 4x5 back?
Date: 16 Feb 2003 

[email protected] (J Stafford) wrote
> Didn't Schneider once make a precision 4x5 back with a special film
> holder? I don't find it on their site. If not them, then who?

since nobody answered so far, I will write what I "know". I think you
are referring to a film holder (not a complete back?) with vaccuum
pump to keep the film flat. Such kind of holder was once made by
Schneider, but as far as I know they stopped making it some years ago.
That's why you probably cannot find any information on their website.

Well, I've actually never seen this beast and only remember what I
have read somewhere in the internet before. It must have been pretty
expensive so that you would consider the Sinar single-sheet holders a
real bargain...

Andreas



From: David Littlewood [email protected]
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.marketplace.medium-format
Subject: Re: medium format and shift lenses
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003

Frank Pittel
 writes
>I know that this will likely start a flame war but I'm going to say it
>anyway. :-) If a person is going to go through the time and effort of
>getting and setting up a LF format camera. Why wouldn't that person
>use 4x5 film??
>
Cost?
Speed?
Not having a 5x4 enlarger?
Better coverage with older lenses?
Less need to fiddle around loading darkslides in motel bathrooms?
Less weight to carry (no/less darkslides in bag)?
Easier to find more film in emergency?
Easier to find film processing in strange places?
Easier to home-process if you don't have 5x4 processing stuff?
More useful for projection?
Cheaper to find a scanner to suit?
Better aspect ratio (well, a matter of opinion)?

(This is beginning to sound like "50 ways to leave your lover")

I use mostly 5x4 film, but still find it useful to have a rollfilm back.
--
David Littlewood


Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 
From: Samuel Tang [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] MIDO system

Hi Alberto,

Good to hear that you also like the Mido original! I have found a webpage which
discusses the pros and cons of various 4"X5" holders:

http://www.butzi.net/reviews/filmholders.htm

All the best,

Sam.




Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 
From: Andy Buck [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Cameramakers] Re: roll film holders

An interesting, 'funky' but functional design: http://www.cyberbeach.net/~dbardell/panorama.html


[email protected] wrote:From: "Harry Smart"

To: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:17:13 +0000
Subject: [Cameramakers] Roll film holders
Reply-To: [email protected]

Hi,

Does anyone know where I can find plans / information for building a RFH to
use 120 in a panoramic format?

I've been using old Kodak 3A cameras (postcard format) with 120 film to get
a panoramic (6 x 14) negative. After a few months of this, using a very neat
little pair of adapters to hold the film spool, and with some take-up spools
made of old 120 spools, I've reached the conclusion that it's time to build
my own roll-film back. I plan to adapt one of the Kodaks first, then build
something for a 5x7 back (I plan to buy a Plaubel or something similar).

The main problem with the existing arrangement is just how slow and fiddly
it is, and how easy it is, after composing with a matt screen, to bump the
camera and shift things while loading the film, even on a heavy tripod.
Also, once a film is loaded, you have to take your four shots without any
chance to recompose. Frame spacing is actually not a great problem once
you've worked out how many turns. The 3As vary greatly in construction and
quality, but with some you even get decent film flatness courtesy of the
winding mechanism having just enough tension; it would be great, of course,
to fix this properly.

If anyone wants to see the kind of stuff I've been doing, there are some
figure images on my website at www.harrysmart.net ... a link off the home
page goes straight to the panoramics.

Cheers,
Harry


Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 
To: Russiancamera-user [email protected]
From: Peter Irwin [email protected]
Subject: [Russiancamera] Re: Help! before I buy again (medium format this time)

I bought a Rollex Patent rollfilm back from Cupog which fits
9x12 plate backs. It will fit both my Fotokor and my Certotrop,
and probably most other similar type 9x12 cm plate cameras.

You can also buy film sheaths which will allow you to use
9x12 film in the plate holders. The cut film sizes are
slightly smaller than the glass plate sizes of the same nominal
dimensions.

One "gotcha" with old plate cameras like the Fotokor is that
they may leak light. I bought one from Vikenty back when he
was still selling on Ebay and I still haven't got around
to repairing the felt/velvet light trap at the top of the
place where the plate holder goes. There was also a small
worn patch on the bellows which was caused by the spirit level
rubbing against it. I made an appearently successful repair
using some black gutta from an art store. I only just recently
got the courage to open up the shutter for a much needed cleaning.
(Mine is one of the first ones with a dial-set Compur shutter).
I'm pretty sure that it will make good pictures when I am done
with it. Since this camera was from Vikenty, who is generally
a good seller, I think there is a pretty good chance that other
Fotokors bought from reliable sellers may need some work.

If anyone has advice on how to neatly replace the light trap
felt/velvet I would be glad to hear from them.

There are lots of other old plate cameras available, and unless
you are sold on a Soviet camera for idealogical/collecting theme
reasons, you might look at other makers. The Fotokor is a pretty
ordinary plate camera of it sort and it isn't as nicely made as
my Certotrop.

Peter.


From camera makers mailing list:
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 
From: "DAYTONDIGITAL.COM" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Cameramakers] 8x20 filmholders

I suggest you buy one or two from sandy king ([email protected]). He
has reasonable prices and you can get moving with other parts of the
camera that way. I've seen photos of his work and the film holders are
very nice. FWIW. Cheers, joe



Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 
From: Nathan Smith [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Cameramakers] film holder spec.

You might find this interesting: 
go to www.focalPress.com,
look for a book named "Primitive Photography",
on the page for that book, click on "sample chapter"
in the right column.

The sample chapter is how to make a film holder for
his camera. It doesn't look like the standard type or
width, but if you're making your own camera that
doesn't matter I guess.

It's a very interesting book although it really wasn't
what I was after so I passed, another interesting book
that I did buy is "Photographic Cameras and
accessories" from http://www.lindsaybks.com/
In fact, if you haven't seen their site you really
ought to, Lindsay's idea of DIY is definitely not the
average 'artsy-craftsy' variety.

Nathan
...


From: "Ken Strauss" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Cameramakers] film holder spec.
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 

It doesn't include 8x20 and I have no idea of the accuracy but
http://home.earthlink.net/~eahoo/filmhold.html has the dimensions of many
size holders. There is extensive discussions of holder sizes in the archives
at http://rmp.opusis.com/pipermail/cameramakers/2001-August.txt The official
ANSI/PIMA IT3.108-1998 standard for film holders is available for download
at http://webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore/dept.asp?dept_id=94

Warning: The ANSI document is a us$21 download. There are many other
photography related standards at the ANSI site but a fee is charged for all
downloads.


From: "Nandakumar Sankaran" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Newbie questions on 4x5
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 

Film holders are NOT absurdly expensive. You can typically find brand new
(or really close to it) film holders on eBay for around $12 apiece.
Quickload and Readyload holders cost upwards of $100. The really expensive
part is film - quickload and readyloads cost close to $3 per sheet whereas
regular film costs around $2 per sheet.

For the cost of a quickload holder, you can get 8 double-sided film holders.
You start saving money with the very first sheet of film you shoot.

The bigger advantage to regular film is the variety of emulsions available
for the photographer. Quickload and Readyload formats are not available in
every 4x5 emulsion out there.

Yes, loading film is tricky but if you have access to a darkroom, it is
really simple. Even if you dont have a darkroom in your house, you can use
one at a nearby photo lab.

I've been shooting Quickloads and Readyloads for about two years now and
recently added Fidelity Elite film holders to my arsenal. I'd been
apprehensive about making this move, especially given all the negative
publicity of dust problems. But if you are diligent about cleaning your film
holders before loading every sheet of film, dust is a non-issue.

Bottom line: if you shoot a decent amount of film, regular film can really
save you money over quickloads and readyloads.

Nandakumar
http://crookedtrunk.com/Photo/

"Tom Thackrey" [email protected] wrote
>
> memyself [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I am a 35mm user but have been interested in 4x5 lately. I mainly shoot
> > landcapes at 14-24mm range, 135mm, 300mm. What type of kit would I need?
> > camera preferably one that can tilt, holders, lenses. Im real new, i think
> > a 58mm will gice 16mm eqivalent. I have big tripod (can handle a up to
> > 11kgs) and a lightmeter that reads both ambient and relected light.
>
> www.largeformatphotography.info has pretty good dope on getting started with
> LF.
>
[snip]
> Ready/Quick loads give you a lot of flexibility in the field. You can pack
> as much film as you can carry without having to load and unload film holders
> in a changing tent. Film holders are absurdly expensive and bulky so it's
> impractical to have large numbers of them. I have 14 which is 28 shots, on
> the road I spend each evening (and sometimes lunchtime) unloading and
> reloading film holders.
[snip]
> --
> Tom Thackrey
> www.creative-light.com



From: [email protected] (Mark Cudworth) 
Subject: Re: Graflex 
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format 
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 

"Norman Worth" [email protected] writes: 
>One of the features of Graflok backs is that they can be removed. I have a 
>Century Graphic, and the back comes off. 
There may be some confusion about what a "Graflock back" is. The Graflock 
back allows the easy removal/attachment of the focusing hood & spring back, 
roll film holders, etc. The Graflock back itself, however, is integral to 
the body of the Century Graphic and cannot be removed. This is different 
from the Crown Graphics, where a standard spring back could be replaced 
with a Graflock back if desired. (The Crown Graphic is made of multiple 
wooden pieces held together with screws, the Century Graphic is a single 
molded piece of mahoganite/plastic.) 
-- 
Mark Cudworth 


From: "Bandicoot" "insert_handle_here"@techemail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format 
Subject: Re: Graflex 
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 

> "ATIPPETT" [email protected] wrote
> > I just was given a Century Body. Are lens boards, backs, etc  availiable. 
> > Alan Tippett 
> > San Jose, CA 
> "Norman Worth" [email protected] wrote 
> I guess you mean the 2-1/4X3-1/4 Century Graphic. Yes, a lot is still 
> available on the used market. This, and its bretheren, was a pretty  common 
> camera in the 50s. Often, you find this stuff in the large format  sections. 
> I've seen several roll film backs for sale on ebay. Lenses come up 
> regularly, too. The 101mm Kodak Ektar is usually preferred. You may have 
> to adjust the infinity stops and rangefinder for any new lens. Sheet film 
> has been discontinued in this size, but you can cut down 4X5. Sheet film 
> holders are available used, but finding a Graflok back to fit the camera  may 
> be a problem. 
The Century has a Graflok back already moulded into it. It is non-rotating 
though, so for verticals you have to turn the camera on its side, which 
means you can't use tilt with verticals (the front standard has no swings) 
and have only limited rise (and fall) for verticals becuase cross front is 
limited. However, those limitations aside, the Century is an excellent 
body, very usable. 
Used roll film backs are common on *Bay. Any Mini-Graflok back (Horseman, 
Calumet, Wista, etc.) will fit, but the Graflex ones are actually pretty 
good, so long as you get the later model ones. 
Lens boards are hard to find used, but Bromwell makes new ones. B&H have 
them, though I think they are a special order item. Because the lensboard 
is rather small, you may find you can't use lenses with large shutters - a 
Copal 0 is about as big as will fit. This also limits you with some of the 
larger lenses. The bellows draw is not huge, but will take up to a 180mm 
perfectly easily, maybe a little longer. 

See www.graflex.org for everything you could want to know.

Peter 


From: [email protected] (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: roll-film backs
Date: 18 Oct 2003 

Stacey [email protected] wrote 
> Dan Fromm wrote:
>
> > Stacey [email protected] wrote 
> >> Roland wrote:
> >>
> >> > The troube with roll-film backs for old cameras accustomed to cut plate
> >> > is that the film gets gathered up with the film surface on the outside
> >> > which must then be protected by the spare paper at the end.
> >>
> >> ??? Are you turning the knob in the wrong direction? None of the backs
> >> I've seen wind the film onto the takeup spool wrong side out unless you
> >> load them wrong and turn the knob backwards..
> >
> > Adapt-A-Roll 620s take the film up "inside out." Don't fall into the
> > Rashly-Very trap of assuming that the little you know is universally
> > true.
> Thanx for the info, I'll make sure I never waste my money on one of those..

Don't avoid them because of that. The Adapt-A-Roll's good point is
that it slips in like a sheet film holder. Its bad points are that
ity must take up on a 620 spool and its frame counter mechanism
requires attention from time to time. But when an Adapt-A-Roll is
working the frame spacing is very consistent, and very very tight. I
routinely get 9 57 x 82 shots from a roll.

They are the best option for using roll film in 2x3 press cameras with
spring backs, e.g., the Busch Pressman C.

Cheers,

Dan


From: "John Hendry" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Recommend 6x9 Roll Film Holder
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004

I have a Graphic "23" back that works well. I bought it for around $30 at a
swap meet though this is probably at the low end of the asking price. I did
expect on the basis of the '23' that this would have an aspect ratio of 2:3
ie 6x9 but it is more like 6x8 in the frame window (58mm x 78mm to be
precise). You see them around often enough.

"Raphael Bustin" [email protected] wrote ...
> Any recommendations for a simple and inexpensive
> 120 or 220 roll film holder that fits a standard 4x5 field
> camera back?
>
> Is "graflok" the proper term to describe the standard
> generic 4x5 back -- or is that term proprietary to the
> Speed Graphic?
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com



From: [email protected] (Brian Reynolds)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Recommend 6x9 Roll Film Holder
Date: 21 Jan 2004

Raphael Bustin [email protected] wrote:
>
>Any recommendations for a simple and inexpensive 120 or 220 roll film
>holder that fits a standard 4x5 field camera back?

I have a few of the Graflex lever wound rollfilm backs in 4x5 (a RH12
6x6 back) and 2x3 (a RH12 and a RH8 6x9). They work nicely. The
lever wound Graflex backs are supposed to hold the film flatter than
the Graflex knob wound backs, but I don't have any knob wound backs to
make the comparison.

>Is "graflok" the proper term to describe the standard generic 4x5
>back -- or is that term proprietary to the Speed Graphic?

Graflok is a type of back that lets you easily remove the ground glass
panel and attach different accessories (usually a rollfilm back). It
uses sliding tabs to hold the accessory in place.

Some companies call it a Graflok back, others call it an International
back.

The other common type of back is the spring back, in which the ground
glass panel is not removable. Some spring backs have enough movement
that you can slip a Graflex style rollfilm holder under the ground
glass panel. Others need a holder like the Calumet ones that slip
under the ground glass and keep all the film to one side.

There is also a Graflex back, but it's rare (only on early Graflex
cameras?) and not compatible with current backs. The locating ridge
is on the camera back instead of on the holder.

--
Brian Reynolds 



From: John [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Recommend 6x9 Roll Film Holder
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 

"Richard Knoppow" [email protected] wrote:
> The only roll film holder which is practical for a "spring
>back" is the one made by Calumet. These slide in like
>standard sheet film holders. They will fit most 4x5 cameras
>but not all. Some have fittings which interfere with the
>seating of the roll adaptor. I have at least one camera
>where the "ears" on the ground glass panel will not allow
>the holder to go in all the way.

Note also that the C2N rollfilm holders are also very wide and
that you need to be certain your springs will handle that width. I
found that I had to re-curve the springs on my Zone VI after I used
the CN a few times. I found this most annoying considering that I had
bought the both camera and film holder from Zone VI.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com


From: "Richard Knoppow" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Recommend 6x9 Roll Film Holder
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 

"John Hendry" [email protected] wrote ...
> I have a Graphic "23" back that works well. I bought it for around $30 at a
> swap meet though this is probably at the low end of the asking price. I did
> expect on the basis of the '23' that this would have an aspect ratio of 2:3
> ie 6x9 but it is more like 6x8 in the frame window (58mm x 78mm to be
> precise). You see them around often enough.
> "Raphael Bustin" [email protected] wrote 
> > Any recommendations for a simple and inexpensive
> > 120 or 220 roll film holder that fits a standard 4x5 field
> > camera back?
> >
> > Is "graflok" the proper term to describe the standard
> > generic 4x5 back -- or is that term proprietary to the
> > Speed Graphic?
> > rafe b.
> > http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Roll adaptors were made in at least three formats, 2-1/4 x
2-1/4, 6x8cm, and 6x9cm or 2-1/4 x 3-1/4. These give 12, 10,
or 8 pictures per roll. 6x8 has the same aspect ratio as
4x5. A few roll film cameras were also made in the 6x8
format, the Omega being an example.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]


From: "Richard Knoppow" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Recommend 6x9 Roll Film Holder
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 

"Raphael Bustin" [email protected] wrote 
> Any recommendations for a simple and inexpensive
> 120 or 220 roll film holder that fits a standard 4x5 field
> camera back?
>
> Is "graflok" the proper term to describe the standard
> generic 4x5 back -- or is that term proprietary to the
> Speed Graphic?
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com

"Graflok" was a trade mark of Graflex for a type of back
with removable ground glass spring panel which would accept
accessories. It became standard on all sizes of Speed and
Crown Graphics c.1950 and was available in a retrofit
version for earlier cameras of up to 4x5. Some modern 4x5
cameras have so called Universal or International backs
which are either identical or essentially similar to the
Graflok and take the same accessories. Many view and press
cameras have "spring backs" which take standard holders but
not accessories.

The only roll film holder which is practical for a "spring
back" is the one made by Calumet. These slide in like
standard sheet film holders. They will fit most 4x5 cameras
but not all. Some have fittings which interfere with the
seating of the roll adaptor. I have at least one camera
where the "ears" on the ground glass panel will not allow
the holder to go in all the way.

Calumet has buit these for many years. The original Model
C-2 is made entirirely of metal, the current version has
some plastic. Used ones turn up every so often but are not
cheap. The current version is fairly expensive but you will
have to check the Calumet web site for current prices.
If your camera has a slide out ground glass and spring
panel its a Graflok or similar back. These will have sliding
sheet metal strips above and below the window for holding
the accessories.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]








End of Page