What is the purpose of a 6x12 roll film back?

[xkaes]

While 4x5 has limitations -- cost, film options, dust, etc. -- it lets me decide later, over and over, if I want 4x5, 3x5, 2x5, 1x5 or whatever. And often, it's more than one!

 

[Besk]

The most compelling reason for me to want to purchase and use a 6x12 roll back would be for color film.
The cost of color roll film and processing vs 4x5 sheet film and processing would be a lot less, I would think.

B&W is a different story.

 

[MTGseattle]

I've had the various panoramic formats tickling my subconscious for many years. the big 6x17 cameras have always held an interesting place in the back of my mind and I like many of the images I see people make with them. 6x12 for me, is a bit more realistic in that I already own some of the needed gear. I stumbled upon one of the Lomo Bel-air 612 cameras locally, but had forgotten that it is pretty un-sharp unless one sourced the "belairgon" lenses which are uncommon to the n'th degree.
I am back in the research/GAS phase for 612 on 4x5. As far as "normal" 612 backs go, is it really just the Horseman and Linhof? Wista never made one? What about cambo/Calumet? (by "Normal" I mean somewhat fat and lever wind).
Also, what the heck is up with the Techno-rolex 612 prices? Did they only manufacture 50 of them?
As to the Horseman 612 back, what are the common faults? Light seals, bent dark slide, faulty winding? It's just a roll film back, repairs should be somewhat simple right?

 

[xkaes]

The most compelling reason for me to want to purchase and use a 6x12 roll back would be for color film.
The cost of color roll film and processing vs 4x5 sheet film and processing would be a lot less, I would think.

B&W is a different story.

A lot depends on how many pictures you take. If you only want one or two exposures on color film, a 4x5" makes sense whether you are thinking 4x5 format, 6x12 format, or something else like square format or 6x19 format. No need to wait until the end of the roll. And with tube processing, the cost is next to nothing for 4x5" color. A lot cheaper than a separate 6x12 back.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I am back in the research/GAS phase for 612 on 4x5. As far as "normal" 612 backs go, is it really just the Horseman and Linhof? Wista never made one? What about cambo/Calumet? (by "Normal" I mean somewhat fat and lever wind).
Also, what the heck is up with the Techno-rolex 612 prices? Did they only manufacture 50 of them?

Why don't you like slimmer 6x12 roll holders such as the various Sinar models and the Toyo?

Most 612 roll holders have 56 x112 gates. The Techno-Rollex's gate is 56x120. Bob Salomon, who is only slightly prejudiced, insists that it is the best of class.

 

[GLS]

Bob Salomon, who is only slightly prejudiced, insists that it is the best of class.

At the price they go for, they better be!

 

[BHuij]

Late to this party. I don't use 6x12 as I haven't really put a lot of effort into composing effectively in panoramic aspect ratios. Still working on getting good compositions in normal aspect ratios, and suspect it will be a lifelong pursuit

That said, I 3D printed a 6x9 roll film back for my 4x5 and use it from time to time. If your goal is to shoot 6x9 anyway (or 6x12 in your case), then a roll of 120 offering several exposures is a lot more cost effective than cropping from 4x5 sheets. It is slightly less convenient to use, but I didn't get into large format for the convenience.

 

[xkaes]

Shooting everything in the 4x5 format is very limiting. My first 35mm darkroom taught me that I can't shoot in 24x36mm format, unless I want to cut all my paper to that shape. I learned that 35mm can be used to make square format as well as panoramas. The same with 4x5 film -- and all I need are actual or imaginary rules on the ground glass to create any format I want, from square (4x4) to 1x5 (6x30).

 

[MTGseattle]

@Dan Fromm I have never stumbled across a Toyo 612 back and didn't know that they existed. I've looked at the Dayi, the Shen-hao, and a few others. The Sinar "zoom" model trades at a higher price than the horseman. For a format that may prove to be a passing fancy for me, a smaller cash investment is the intent.
At the price point of the Techno-rolex, I would just go the extra bit and buy a Horseman SW612 camera I think.

 

[Dan Fromm]

@Dan Fromm I have never stumbled across a Toyo 612 back and didn't know that they existed. I've looked at the Dayi, the Shen-hao, and a few others. The Sinar "zoom" model trades at a higher price than the horseman. For a format that may prove to be a passing fancy for me, a smaller cash investment is the intent.
At the price point of the Techno-rolex, I would just go the extra bit and buy a Horseman SW612 camera I think.

The least expensive 6x12 Sinar roll holder is the Panorama. Fixed format 6x12. I have one.

For a comprehensive account of roll holders, with links to manuals etc., use "the list." The first post in this https://www.largeformatphotography....to-look-for-information-on-LF-(mainly)-lenses discussion has a link to it.

 

[Graflex Garage]

I have several roll film backs. The first one was a 6x9, over the years i kept getting wider versions to what i have now is a shen hao 617. The super wide pano's are awsome !!!

 

[MTGseattle]

The original Sinar panorama back seems fairly uncommon. 617 is intriguing. I would need to put the 8x10 into service for that format.

 

[Steven Lee]

Don't 6x17 backs have limitations on focal lengths you can shoot with? The standard placement of a 4x5 negative is not wide enough for 17cm, so these backs move the focus plane further away. That must be introducing caveats, no? Perhaps this is camera dependent.

 

[GLS]

Don't 6x17 backs have limitations on focal lengths you can shoot with? The standard placement of a 4x5 negative is not wide enough for 17cm, so these backs move the focus plane further away. That must be introducing caveats, no? Perhaps this is camera dependent.

Yes. You will get mechanical vignetting from the 4x5 gate with focal lengths greater than about 180mm.

 

[BradS]

Don't 6x17 backs have limitations on focal lengths you can shoot with? The standard placement of a 4x5 negative is not wide enough for 17cm, so these backs move the focus plane further away. That must be introducing caveats, no? Perhaps this is camera dependent.

Partly correct...6x17 doesn't really fit into the 4x5 frame - the 5inch opening is much smaller than 17cm - so a 617 back for 4x5 must incorporate some kind of extension. 617 back designed for 5x7 (like the one from Canham camera) do not need that extension box and so don't impose (as severe) constraints on the focal length.

 

[grat]

Don't 6x17 backs have limitations on focal lengths you can shoot with? The standard placement of a 4x5 negative is not wide enough for 17cm, so these backs move the focus plane further away. That must be introducing caveats, no? Perhaps this is camera dependent.

Both. The 6x17 back moves the focal plane back about 30mm, so if you could previously only use a 90mm lens due to camera limitations, now you're limited to about 120mm. My Chamonix, I can just barely get a 90mm to focus to infinty-- but with practically zero movements due to bellows compression (obviously, a bag bellows would help here). At the long end, I get a small amount of vignetting at 210mm at the extreme edges (maybe a mm or two at each edge).

 

[Graflex Garage]

The 617 back is extended, with out Measuring it's around 2" to 3" Extension. I use this on my shen hao 4x5 and graflex cameras with lenses that produce a 220 or better image circle.

 

[Neil Poulsen]

I think that 6x12 backs avail photographers of the advantages of roll-film, versus sheet film. That said, they're more advantageous for color, versus black and white film.

> I'm sure that many cities have labs that will process roll-film, but not sheet film.

> I have to think that roll-film overall, is less expensive.

> Roll film can be easily loaded on location. It's also easier to load.

> For air travel, roll-film is more recognizable than sheet film. I can see where I might be able to keep roll-film from going through scanners, versus sheet film.

> Roll-film is more compact. Compare a single roll can hold four panoramic images on a single roll, versus four het film holders.

> It's more likely that roll-film can be purchased on the run, versus sheet film.

> Etc.

 

[MTGseattle]

I agree with almost every point Neil P has made above. I have only tried to "Gate check" my film once, it was roll film and it turned into a debacle.
I don't think it matters whether you hand/show the security staff rolls or sheet film boxes. The only thing that helps is if you end up with a film shooting security person.

 

[BradS]

I agree with almost every point Neil P has made above. I have only tried to "Gate check" my film once, it was roll film and it turned into a debacle.
I don't think it matters whether you hand/show the security staff rolls or sheet film boxes. The only thing that helps is if you end up with a film shooting security person.

When traveling with sheet film I bring a changing bag and an example box with all the inner packaging and a sacrificial sheet or two of film in it. Show them the example so they know what they're dealing with, load the boxes of sheet film into the changing bag and let 'em go after it. They seem to get a kick out of doing this. Only bad experience was once a TSA agent pulled his arms out of the changing bag without closing the box of film...but it turned out ok. No sheets were exposed.

A TSA agent at Oakland told me they trained with a device similar to the changing bag - so they can learn "see" with their hands. Of course, always arrive extra, extra early and be calm, respectful and polite.

 

[Ian Grant]

Don't 6x17 backs have limitations on focal lengths you can shoot with? The standard placement of a 4x5 negative is not wide enough for 17cm, so these backs move the focus plane further away. That must be introducing caveats, no? Perhaps this is camera dependent.

Yes. You will get mechanical vignetting from the 4x5 gate with focal lengths greater than about 180mm.

I looked at getting a 6x17 back for my Wista, it was not a practical proposition, in the end I bought a a Gaoersi 617 camera, that was around 18 years ago.

Whether shooting 6x17 or 6x12 you need to weigh up what you'll be shooting and what focal length lens or lenses you will want to shoot with. In my case I opted for a 75mm and a 90mm lens cones, but in fact never use the 90mm. The 75mm is effectively a standard lens for 120 but nice and wide for panoramic shots, I don't shoot in wide open landscapes.

Ian

 

[redbandit]

well the use depends upon the camera, some graflex seem to have some sexy view finders... even the cheapo looking "sports finder" of wire frame is handier then the ground glass method...

and besides... SOME of the roll film backs for large format cameras can use 220 format film...

b

 

[Axelwik]

I made myself a "point & shoot" 4x5 that can be scale-focused with its 75mm lens, and use a 6x12 back frequently. Nice to have a panoramic back that can use roll film. Less expensive per exposure, and roll film is more convenient to load in the field than 4x5. For 4x5 I usually use Grafmatic backs.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I had a Horseman 6x12 back I used, I had a Fotoman 6x12. The Horseman on my Crown Graphic was the best. I ended up with a Fujica 6x17, I lucked into a real nice 5x7 enlarger.

I prefer shooting 4x5 sheet film hand held with my Crown. I don't like lugging a 4x5 view camera.

I find a 4x5 metal-field camera transports a lot easier than a 4x5 view camera but delivers the same size negative.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Refer to my earlier post from last year. Portability can be a major factor. You can only carry so many sheet film holders at a time, and using a changing tent isn't always practical. Roll film is far lighter and more compact to bring along, besides being more affordable. I don't work in 6X12 proportion enough to justify a dedicated 6X12 holder, and can simply crop a full 4X5 shot were I to want that, or even 8x10 film into a similar proportionality. I do use a 6X9 roll film holders quite a bit, as well as 6X9 Fuji rangefinder cameras.
I backpacked with a 4X5 Sinar system and a dozen sheet film holders for 20 years. Along with camping gear, food, and climbing necessities, that amounted to an average pack weight of around 85 lbs. Leaving out half those holders and taking a film changing tent instead would save only about a pound and a half; and one simply can't always stagger to a campsite in the middle of blizzard, set up a tent, cook your dinner, and still reliably change out film without incurring dust or goosedown issues while trying to deal with cold numb fingers at the same time. Roll film makes things easier, and likewise with airline carryon logistics. I plan to print both roll film and full 4X5 tomorrow. But in the darkroom, sheet film makes life easier than roll film does.

As per Ralph's previous comment, my metal Sinar monorails are a lot faster to operate, and are way more versatile, than my wooden 4X5 folder. But due to its greater weight and volume, at my present age (73), I carry the Sinar only on dayhikes. I switched to a little Ebony folder for long-haul backpacking or airline transport. Likewise, I now shoot 8X10 only dayhiking or road trip shooting. Today's excellent lenses and films make roll film shots more realistic than ever for moderate enlargement purposes. But for anything big, there is no substitute for real sheet film. Wish I was still a teenager in my 40's; but I'm not.