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

[Steven Lee]

One of the reasons I purchased a 4x5 camera was a bigger negative. Specifically, I wanted better panoramas, as my current method is cropping 6x7 which doesn't produce a large negative. Looking at my options now I am trying to understand the purpose of 6x12 roll film backs for 4x5 cameras.

If my math is correct, a regular 4x5 sheet is wider than a 6x12 negative. Meanwhile, these roll film backs do not seem as convenient to use as sheet film. You have to focus on the ground glass, then take the regular back off, mount a 6x12 back, etc. Basically smaller negative + slower shooting + extra weight + extra cost. And despite this, they do exist.

I am obviously missing something here. What is it?

 

[BradS]

Imagine using a roll film back on a Crown Graphic or Linhof that has an accurate range finder. No need to futz with the GG.

Otherwise, yeah, your observations are spot on. Roll film backs are just a clunky compromise.

 

[cramej]

5 inches is 127mm, so not appreciably larger than 6x12.

Consider this:
20 sheet box of 4x5 Provia = $125
5 roll pro pack of 120 Provia = $65 (10 more exposures than the 20 sheet box)

I'd take a little inconvenience for less than half the cost per shot and unless you've bought or built a dedicated 6x12 camera, a back is your best bet.

 

[Steven Lee]

Imagine using a roll film back on a Crown Graphic or Linhof that has an accurate range finder.

 

[Steven Lee]

@darr are Linhof and Horseman 6x12 backs the same thing? They look strangely identical in Google searches. I do not think I should be making any additional gear investments given the fact that my first 4x5 camera just arrived at my doorsteps. But I am curious, and this may be helpful to know for the future.

 

[Oren Grad]

@darr are Linhof and Horseman 6x12 backs the same thing? They look strangely identical in Google searches. I do not think I should be making any additional gear investments given the fact that my first 4x5 camera just arrived at my doorsteps. But I am curious, and this may be helpful to know for the future.

Not the same at all. Very different in both appearance and construction.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. A few misconceptions to clear up. Most 6x12 roll holders' gates are 56x112 mm. The big exception is the Linhof Techno Rollex, whose gate is 56x120.

There are insertion type 6x12 roll holders. Cambo/Calumet and Sinar come to mind. No more trouble than a cut film holder.

Some emulsions are available on 120 film but not on 4x5. 120 is less expensive than 4x5.

Some of us want wider than 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 (6x9 is a poor metric approximation) but don't want the bother of sheet film.

Hi, Darr.

 

[ic-racer]

One of the reasons I purchased a 4x5 camera was a bigger negative. Specifically, I wanted better panoramas, as my current method is cropping 6x7 which doesn't produce a large negative. Looking at my options now I am trying to understand the purpose of 6x12 roll film backs for 4x5 cameras.

If my math is correct, a regular 4x5 sheet is wider than a 6x12 negative. Meanwhile, these roll film backs do not seem as convenient to use as sheet film. You have to focus on the ground glass, then take the regular back off, mount a 6x12 back, etc. Basically smaller negative + slower shooting + extra weight + extra cost. And despite this, they do exist.

I am obviously missing something here. What is it?

Processing! I can process ten ROLLS of 120 at a time, but only ten SHEETS of 4x5 at a time.

 

[Steven Lee]

@darr Thank you. I looked this up and I'm shocked by these prices. Your back is more expensive than my camera! In fact, the price is comparable to a dedicated panoramic 120 camera (something like Shen Hao).

I will revisit this in a year or so, after getting more comfortable with LF in general. There appears to be

 

[mshchem]

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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Roll film backs can save a lot of weight on long treks but eliminating the need for multiple sheet film holders. I began using Horseman roll film holders when Readyload and Quickload sleeves went extinct. One problem with heavier holders like the Linhof is not only the obvious, that they add more cumulative weight to your pack, but significantly worse, many light field camera might not hold the film plane well as weight and leverage increases back there.

So it's a tradeoff. Sheet film, even if you crop it down to the same proportion, is still a lot nicer to work with in the darkroom, plus you have option of full film size when you need it. Working with a roll film device in bad windy weather can be dicey if you're inexperienced. But roll film is cheaper and a lot more portable. And these options aren't mutually exclusive. Sometimes I carry a roll film holder plus just a few sheet film holders for those special images worthy of big enlargements.

 

[Roger Cole]

Sheet film is a PITA. It costs more, not as many emulsions are available, and no matter HOW careful you are it's prone to occasional dust on the negative leading to black spots on prints. I haven't seen dust mentioned above but that's a huge reason I prefer roll film when possible.

 

[Dan Fromm]

PS: When I was little, my mom would take us to Pakim Pond to swim in the cedar water (cranberry bogs?).

All well here, thanks. Not as hot generally as where are you are, but we had a couple of weeks in July that were truly hot. We stayed indoors in the cold air, ventured out only in the evening.

Pakim Pond? Like most if not all ponds and lakes in the Pine Barrens, it is artificial, has a dam at one end. Its water is normal ordinary Pine Barrens water. Soft, acid, usually brown. As far as I know, the cranberry bogs are all excavated.

Stay well.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hi Roger, good to hear from you after an absence of a few years perhaps? I find sheet film a lot easier to clean than roll film in preparation for printing. Of course, the whole point is to load either under clean conditions to begin with. And I do work with both kinds.

 

[Steven Lee]

@DREW WILEY so you've been using the Horseman 6x12 roll back? Do you recommend it? I hear your argument for less weight. Anything else to consider when choosing one? Automatic frame counting vs manual via a red window? How about film alignment? Frankly I find it incredible that 4x5 cameras manage to keep the focus plane aligned on the ground glass and the film plane in a holder or a roll film back.

Are all holders and film backs equally well-aligned with the focus plane on the glass? Is this a concern?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

One of the reasons I purchased a 4x5 camera was a bigger negative. Specifically, I wanted better panoramas, as my current method is cropping 6x7 which doesn't produce a large negative. Looking at my options now I am trying to understand the purpose of 6x12 roll film backs for 4x5 cameras.

If my math is correct, a regular 4x5 sheet is wider than a 6x12 negative. Meanwhile, these roll film backs do not seem as convenient to use as sheet film. You have to focus on the ground glass, then take the regular back off, mount a 6x12 back, etc. Basically smaller negative + slower shooting + extra weight + extra cost. And despite this, they do exist.

I am obviously missing something here. What is it?

Some people prefer processing role film over sheet film.

 

[abruzzi]

One that Drew hinted at but didn't say explicitly is that roll film can be reloaded in daylight. So if you are away from true darkness for a period of time, its easier to reload. I think someone also mentioned that there are a lot of films available on 120 that aren't on 4x5. I actually don't do roll holders on 4x5 cameras (I have a couple of Adapt-a-Roll 620 holders but I rarely use them), but on a 6x9 view camera roll film is way better than sheet since 2.25x3.25 or 6.5x9 sheet film is almost extinct and I have a bunch of Horseman roll holders for 6x9. If the 6x12 is similar quality, they are fine. Not super heavily built but they do the job. I have like 5 for 6x9 cameras.

 

[beemermark]

Get a 6x17 (17cm~ 5") roll back. I have one made by Linhof and while it's true that it's somewhat of a PIA to use that's made up by the convenience of developing 120 film (since I no longer have a darkroom). And I do like a panoramic picture.

 

[Vaughn]

I used a 6x7 rollback on my 4x5 when traveling (Cows on the in-laws farm, NSW, Oz...can't seem to get the color right):

1) Easier to use color film
2) Wider choice of film...both bought and carried
3) Get to use the view camera movements I am use to in composing an image
4) Roll back is lighter/compact than most MF cameras of similar quality (since I will have the 4x5 anyway)
5) Still can photograph when I run out of loaded 4x5 holders of unexposed film.

I only had a 150mm lens, so that was a limitation, but easy for me to live with. But the sheet film was my main 'focus', so I was willing to compromise on the roll film.

I rarely take the little 4x5 out that much -- had some fun this summer backpacking with the 4x5, but usually it is the 5x7 or larger.

 

[grat]

Get a 6x17 (17cm~ 5") roll back. I have one made by Linhof and while it's true that it's somewhat of a PIA to use that's made up by the convenience of developing 120 film (since I no longer have a darkroom). And I do like a panoramic picture.

I have to disagree on the 6x17 for 4x5 cameras. They work-- I have one, and I have successfully used it. But they're very limited in what lenses you can use, and they are a pita to use. I can kind of use a 90mm with mine, but reality is, I reach for the 120mm or the 150mm. And the 210mm is pushing my luck. Switching out the regular ground glass for the spacer + ground glass, then switching out for the film back-- it's all tedious.

Still-- it's hard to beat a good 6x17 image.

I've also got one of the Dayi 6x12 backs, and it's far more likely to get use, since it works with all my lenses, and I can use the regular ground glass to compose/focus. The fact that it can also be used as a 6x9 back is nice, since that's one of my favorite formats.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

The Sinar Vario Roll-Film holder (SINAR ZOOM 2) is an interesting alternative as it can slide in some 4"x5" camera's, so no need to take off the GG...
Sinar is very wel buit too (and as costly) and way more versatile.

 

[grahamp]

My 6x9 back is a Cambo, and the 6x12 is a 3D printed item. I find 6x12 a bit short for panoramic without cropping, but it is a bit more convenient than using the 8x10 in 4x10 mode.

My 6x12 tends to be used with a point and shoot 4x5 using an f8 90mm Super-Angulon and scale focusing. It fills a particular niche for me.

 

[Roger Cole]

Hi Roger, good to hear from you after an absence of a few years perhaps? I find sheet film a lot easier to clean than roll film in preparation for printing. Of course, the whole point is to load either under clean conditions to begin with. And I do work with both kinds.

Yeah long story, and thanks.

I can see that, but loading the holders and getting dust on the film pre-exposure is, for me, an entirely sheet film experience and a much harder one to deal with.

I'm having the rest of my basement built out now which will have a purpose built darkroom (with plumbing and darkroom sink!) at last. I'll get back to you on it after I've got that work space and get back to 4x5. I'm tired of my ancient and creaky Technika III with more tape than leather on the bellows (among other issues) so I'm sticking to MF and 35mm until I can get a new 4x5 camera but I will do that, probably by winter. I love the big negative and the camera movements and the whole style of working with LF. But roll film for me is much easier. (And cheaper and has a bigger selection.)

 

[MTGseattle]

Sorry if someone already mentioned this, but just to experiment with the approximate format, what about the old cut the dark slide in half trick?

 

[Ai Print]

I love using a pair of Horseman 6x12 backs on my 4x5, it's a great aspect ratio and there are lots of films available. The fact I can apply tighter dust control methods and re-load them in daylight makes them a no brainer on many outings.

Paired with regular 4x5 cut film holders, the setup allows me to really produce a diverse set of images.