Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Classic Film RangeFinders & Other Classics > Large Format Film RF

Large Format Film RF Forum for Large Format Rangefinders (generally 4x5 or larger format) iIncluding Linhof 4x5, Graflex 4x5, and other Large Format Rangefinders.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 02-12-2015   #41
mbisc
Silver Halide User
 
mbisc's Avatar
 
mbisc is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
Tom, if you are really interested in pursuing this, I would highly suggest making a thread over at the Large Format Photography Forum and a poll to boot. You might want to figure out the cost and how you'd manufacture them too for the interested.

Frankly I think the # of photographers shooting handheld 4x5, and a lot of it, numbers in the dozens or maybe a hundred or so tops, but I could be wrong. Hence the poll. Even then they might not be interested despite their shooting habits, like me.

Personally I have over 1000 sheets in my freezer so I wouldn't be even thinking about it before I shot all of that!
Is that how the Wanderlust Travelwide project at Kickstarter got started?
__________________
Mike

----------------------------------------------------------------
Life is too short for cheap film

Flickr
----------------------------------------------------------------
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-12-2015   #42
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 743
Yes that is correct.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-12-2015   #43
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
 
sevo is online now
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 6,221
And contact the New 55 Project! As far as the pack mechanics are concerned, peel away Polaroid is the closest relative to pack film, if these guys find a way to produce Polaroid 55 in 4x5 again, they should have machinery that could pack pack film with very minor modifications, giving them a second leg to stand on.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-12-2015   #44
mbisc
Silver Halide User
 
mbisc's Avatar
 
mbisc is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 543
Tom: Keep us posted !
__________________
Mike

----------------------------------------------------------------
Life is too short for cheap film

Flickr
----------------------------------------------------------------
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-12-2015   #45
graywolf
Registered User
 
graywolf is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 525
I have been posting on this forum (LFRF) because I thought it was the best place to post about what folks thought about reintorducing Film Packs. But it seems like there is not as much activity as there used to be. Not just here but in the folders forum and the TLR forums.

Large Format Photography has some hefty restrictions about kickstarter posts. I do not know if that also applies just to trying to find out about whether folks may be interested in the stuff being reintroduced.

Prodject 55 is for a shingle sheet pos/neg improved offspring of Polaroid 55 film. Nothing there about film packs, even Polaroid Film Packs. And while Polaroid Film Packs are somewhat similar to what we are talking about, they are not that similar. However that is not a problem because the old 523 Film Packs are not that difficult, and there is no need to reinvent the wheel there.

The tin work would probably be the most expensive part of the thing (6 stampings). The interleave paper should not be difficult to have made. And the film is just a matter of being able to order enough cut to size. Nothing real difficult just rather labor intensive.

Of course a robot assembly line could be made, but then we would have to be able to sell enough to pay for that $500K machine (I used to help build prototypes of such stuff, so I do know something about that).

What has amazed me so far is how little most people know about a very convenient type of film packaging that was produced for 90 years or so.
__________________
Tom
www.tomrit.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-13-2015   #46
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 743
As long as you are not announcing a new product or offering something for sale, it's not a problem, at least from what I understand. I am not a moderator. I think an "interest" poll would be justified and understandable.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-08-2015   #47
BW400CN
Bessamatic forever!
 
BW400CN is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 388
Mmmh - I used an old 9x12cm pack once in my Bergheil - but where would be the improvement over a grafmatic back?

For these old 9x12cm folder where are not a lot films available and no grafmatic - please do it!!!
Ive got 3 packfilm holder and it would be nice to bring them back in business.
BTW - I could give you an used cassette to find out the sizes.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-25-2015   #48
kram
Registered User
 
kram's Avatar
 
kram is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: South Wales, UK
Posts: 403
I have just purchased my second grafmatic back. They are very useful with a rangefinder 4x5. Looking at the construction they would be expensive to make, but I wish any project the best of luck if going a head with a new back.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=1701'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-01-2015   #49
graywolf
Registered User
 
graywolf is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 525
Life has had me going in different directions, so nothing further has been done about this. However, I think it is clear that there is not much interest, so I guess it does not matter.

Thank you all for your comments
__________________
Tom
www.tomrit.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2016   #50
graywolf
Registered User
 
graywolf is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 525
Such is life.

I shot the last 4 frames on that old pack of tri-x intending to develop it.

First problem was the old paper backing was rotted out on the last two frames and they did not pull around to the back properly. Had some things going on so I put off dealing with that until today.

Put up the light baffle in the bathroom and the building had shifted some more and it was not light tight --had been about 3 years since I last used it. So I had to wait until after dark to get the room dark.

With my health problems I am not too steady, but I thought I had loaded the film right. Wrong. I made a guess of 27 minutes with Rodinal 25:1 but room temp was 70 so I cut that to 24 minutes. Then I found I did not have quite enough hypo. Come from the rinse not cleared.

Just enough of an image to tell me I had the development about right. Could see that one of the old images was someone standing in front of a wall with diplomas on it, and another looked like someone wearing a hooded bathrobe.

The main problem was I did not get myself organized first but tried winging it. I could claim the problem was that the pack film was hard to load in the hangers, but that would just be an excuse. Anyone is going to have problems working with 60 year old film, and being old and disorganized to boot sure does not help.
__________________
Tom
www.tomrit.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-05-2016   #51
graywolf
Registered User
 
graywolf is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 525
Quote:
Originally Posted by BW400CN View Post
- but where would be the improvement over a grafmatic back?
A Grafmatic needs to be loaded in the darkroom or a changing bag. A film pack is daylight loadable. When you have taken your 12 (or16) shots you can remove and replace the film pack in daylight.

The two advantages the Grafmatic has are that you have a wider choice of films, and that when you darkroom removed the exposed frames you can replace them.

Well make that three advantages, you can get a Grafmatic, while you can not get a fresh film pack.
__________________
Tom
www.tomrit.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-05-2016   #52
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
 
sevo is online now
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 6,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by graywolf View Post
Well make that three advantages, you can get a Grafmatic, while you can not get a fresh film pack.
Four - pack film is quite thin and wobbly, the same stock as 120 film, which made it more difficult to handle than regular sheet film. That would be even more valid today, as modern sheet film usually has a polyester base that is stiffer than the acetate film common in the pack film era.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-06-2016   #53
graywolf
Registered User
 
graywolf is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 525
Sevo, read the whole thread. Those of us who have actually used the stuff tend to disagree with that ole wive's tail, at least when the packs were new.
__________________
Tom
www.tomrit.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-06-2016   #54
Ronald M
Registered User
 
Ronald M is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,992
My neighbor used to do weddings with 4x5 and regular sheet film holder for 6 sheets. Forget the exact name.

I only used regular holders
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-06-2016   #55
JChrome
Street Worker
 
JChrome's Avatar
 
JChrome is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NYC
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald M View Post
My neighbor used to do weddings with 4x5 and regular sheet film holder for 6 sheets. Forget the exact name.



I only used regular holders

Sounds like a Grafmatic to me :-)


www.stillthrill.com
__________________
www.stillthrill.com
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:05.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.