[LFLee]

I'm all for experimenting photographically.
It makes it a lot more interesting that going "oh look, another shot of that same rose I've used 6 rolls on already"

I'm just curious on a couple of things.
Without the frames, what keeps the film flat?

Also, (ignoring the experiment part) would future pano shots be simpler to just use a normal 120/220 roll and cut down the negatives afterwards?

The back panel is adequate? I don't know, I heard some said no need for "perfectly flat", will see how it turns out.

Yes, it will be easier and certainly better quality to cut 120/220 negatives. I can think of two "advantages":
1. use of more film types in 35mm?
2. cheaper and you get more frame per roll?

But, this is like putting a 480p video in HD TV, yeah.... just for fun and cool way to get 35mm 'panoramic' shot, I guess.

[K David]

And just how does that jam the shutter curtain? The film in the canister is taped. I take it you don't force it out of the canister on the last frame?

How does it not risk this? The film curls inward and is narrower than the shutter opening. All it would take a curl and the film end to be at the wrong spot for the film to get into the shutter curtain. Also, the film is narrower than the largest opening dimenions on the mask, so it could potentially get into the shutter. I've paid to have my 6X7 repaired once. I never want to pay to have that done again.

And how does one remove the film when it's done? In the complete dark? That's pretty useless in the field. Doesn't it make more sense to have the film be taken up into an old cassette instead of onto a spool?

[tuco]

How does it not risk this? The film curls inward and is narrower than the shutter opening. All it would take a curl and the film end to be at the wrong spot for the film to get into the shutter curtain. Also, the film is narrower than the largest opening dimenions on the mask, so it could potentially get into the shutter. I've paid to have my 6X7 repaired once. I never want to pay to have that done again.

And how does one remove the film when it's done? In the complete dark? That's pretty useless in the field. Doesn't it make more sense to have the film be taken up into an old cassette instead of onto a spool?

Meanwhile, it sounds like LFlee is using it just fine.

[LFLee]

How does it not risk this? The film curls inward and is narrower than the shutter opening. All it would take a curl and the film end to be at the wrong spot for the film to get into the shutter curtain. Also, the film is narrower than the largest opening dimenions on the mask, so it could potentially get into the shutter. I've paid to have my 6X7 repaired once. I never want to pay to have that done again.

And how does one remove the film when it's done? In the complete dark? That's pretty useless in the field. Doesn't it make more sense to have the film be taken up into an old cassette instead of onto a spool?

hm... to be honest, I am not the first one to do this.
I think the risk you mentioned is possible, but have not heard anyone playing this report the problem. This kind of conversion kit is available to other system like mamiya as well.
yes, remove film in complete dark. As I mentioned in later post, taken up film into old canister is another option that others have suggested (useful in the field), the kit come with another set of 'nuts' to adapt another 35mm canister at the other end. But you probably 'ruin/lost' the last frame as you open the back.

Meanwhile, it sounds like LFlee is using it just fine.

I don't know yet, so far the shutter firing fine... will see how the result turn out!

[Paul MaudDib]

I've always been somewhat curious to try something like this. If it works well enough, it looks like fun, plus a great way to sometimes shoot 35mm panoramic images. The alternative is a Hassy (Fuji) Xpan, and they ain't exactly inexpensive.

No, the alternative is to put 120 film in the camera, and crop it afterward.

I mean, it's a stupid idea to throw away that resolution anyway. You're carrying around a huge, expensive, heavy camera designed to cover a 6x7 negative and you're only going to use a strip of it? But if that's really what you want to do, spend the extra $60 you would have spent buying a wobbly adapter kit with poor film flatness on buying the kind of film your camera was designed to handle.

There are also other ways to make panoramic images. A Horizon 202 is only about $200. Or you can stitch together several shots handheld or with a pan head. Auto Stitch in Photoshop does wonders.

[LFLee]

No, the alternative is to put 120 film in the camera, and crop it afterward.

I mean, it's a stupid idea to throw away that resolution anyway. You're carrying around a huge, expensive, heavy camera designed to cover a 6x7 negative and you're only going to use a strip of it? But if that's really what you want to do, spend the extra $60 you would have spent buying a wobbly adapter kit with poor film flatness on buying the kind of film your camera was designed to handle.

There are also other ways to make panoramic images. A Horizon 202 is only about $200. Or you can stitch together several shots handheld or with a pan head. Auto Stitch in Photoshop does wonders.

calm down Paul~

There are many ways to shoot, its a gimmick, and a fun way to shoot. not more, not less!
I just want to share my experience as I can't find much info on the web. take it easy!

I notice some have tried this in PF but was quickly discouraged by comment like yours, but let's relax and see how it goes, OK?

[Silent Street]

No, Paul doesn't need to calm down. YOU need to come off the glue.
The idea is complete madness. I guess you have the money to afford a new 67 given that replacing the shutter is so uneconomical (labour charges alone — where you can find them, will be about 8x the cost of a mint-used camera). Go ahead and screw the 67's imaging quality with a piss-poor Chinese toy to take film no bigger than a postage stamp and which in all likelihood could well tear and perforate the shutter; it appears from your previous posts you have no real idea of the risk at the moment. Perhaps try and learn from the experiences of photographers who have worked in the industry for decades rather than in toy shops. Some of us know how and why disasters happen.

[bibz]

I like the effect, and it looks fun. That's what photography is about. If you really are after the superior image quality why are you using some punk 67 and not a real camera like a 16x20?

Rules in photography or any art are completely bloody stupid.

[LFLee]

No, Paul doesn't need to calm down. YOU need to come off the glue.
The idea is complete madness. I guess you have the money to afford a new 67 given that replacing the shutter is so uneconomical (labour charges alone — where you can find them, will be about 8x the cost of a mint-used camera). Go ahead and screw the 67's imaging quality with a piss-poor Chinese toy to take film no bigger than a postage stamp and which in all likelihood could well tear and perforate the shutter; it appears from your previous posts you have no real idea of the risk at the moment. Perhaps try and learn from the experiences of photographers who have worked in the industry for decades rather than in toy shops. Some of us know how and why disasters happen.

don't mean to start a war, and when I said 'clam down', it meant to be easing the tension, not as instruction.
each to it's own. Some like it, some don't, for those who is interested, my experience here may helps.
But I do appreciate you sharing your concerns and experience of what this might do to the camera.

I like the effect, and it looks fun. That's what photography is about. If you really are after the superior image quality why are you using some punk 67 and not a real camera like a 16x20?

Rules in photography or any art are completely bloody stupid.

FF shooter said APSC shooter is amateur, MF shooter laugh at FF shooter, but then we have Large Format shooter... I am not going into that for sure.

I do find couple more images, for those interested! (this guy seem to have shoot a lot of it), he shared his experiences with me.
I already did most of what he suggested, but the following may helps others:
1. cock the shutter right before you shoot will help with film flatness;
2. Also, turn the film back to it canister to 'tighten' it before you put it in the camera, this will helps the film stay flat.

[donesteban]

I use my 67II as panoramic camera only. But using 120 type film. I just put a mask in the view finder, limiting the view finder to a 1:2 ratio (35x70mm). I like this better than 1:3, that's too wide for my purposes. 1 roll 135 film will be enough for about 15 shots 6x7, right? 120 film is just for 10 shots, but the film is cheaper per roll here in Switzerland, the processing is, too. At the end the same price per shot, or even a bit cheaper. The big advantage: If you find out later you'd better had moved the picture 1mm upwards on the film, you can easily do this if the shot has been taken on 120 film, as the camera still records full 6x7, just the view finder shows less.
I prefer the 67II to a 6x12 camera for this purpose, as I not just like the 45 and 55mm lenses on it, but the 90-180mm, too. If doing something similar using a 6x12 camera, one ends up using rather long lenses, bing much bigger and heavier.

[LFLee]

I use my 67II as panoramic camera only. But using 120 type film. I just put a mask in the view finder, limiting the view finder to a 1:2 ratio (35x70mm). I like this better than 1:3, that's too wide for my purposes. 1 roll 135 film will be enough for about 15 shots 6x7, right? 120 film is just for 10 shots, but the film is cheaper per roll here in Switzerland, the processing is, too. At the end the same price per shot, or even a bit cheaper. The big advantage: If you find out later you'd better had moved the picture 1mm upwards on the film, you can easily do this if the shot has been taken on 120 film, as the camera still records full 6x7, just the view finder shows less.
I prefer the 67II to a 6x12 camera for this purpose, as I not just like the 45 and 55mm lenses on it, but the 90-180mm, too. If doing something similar using a 6x12 camera, one ends up using rather long lenses, bing much bigger and heavier.

Did you find using the mask in view finder affecting the metering? or you are using a light meter?

I do find I prefer longer focal length, 105mm compare to 45mm in my set up. I am shooting with 105mm for the remaining shots...

[donesteban]

Well, I have not done intensive tests, but some basic quick tests have been done before I used it outside. I use the internal metering of the 67II AE prism. In most cases the matrix metering. I haven't seen any difference in the behaviour so far. 35mm frame hight (1:2)is obviously just cutting border not being that important for the metering, 24mm height (1:3 ratio) might be different. I use slide film only, so correct metering is very important.

[Paul MaudDib]

calm down Paul~

There are many ways to shoot, its a gimmick, and a fun way to shoot. not more, not less!
I just want to share my experience as I can't find much info on the web. take it easy!

I notice some have tried this in PF but was quickly discouraged by comment like yours, but let's relax and see how it goes, OK?

I'm not opposed to experimenting, just saying that you're creating problems for yourself here. Unnecessarily from my point of view.

The P67 does a great job with film flatness, which is a challenging issue at medium format sizes (which is really what 35mm panoramic is). It was not designed to have a mask put into the film gate. It was not designed to hold the film flat against that mask. It wasn't designed to have sharp edges of undersized film poking around the shutter. It won't rewind film at all, so you'll be stuck unloading in a darkroom.

This will be tougher than if you just took the shots on 120 film and then cropped it back to the same negative size, and apart from any issues caused by the adapter the results will be identical. The money you save not buying a cheap adapter kit can offset the increased film/processing costs. If you really want the barcoding from film you can come up with a photoshop layer and mask it on the finished product, or there's probably an Instagram filter or something that does it.

Or, again, you can take two shots and stitch them together. If you have a steady hand you can do it handheld, or many tripod heads have a special feature to allow you to take these shots easily.

---------- Post added 02-12-2014 at 04:34 PM ----------

Did you find using the mask in view finder affecting the metering? or you are using a light meter?

I do find I prefer longer focal length, 105mm compare to 45mm in my set up. I am shooting with 105mm for the remaining shots...

Yes, 105mm is "normal" for 6x7 (0.5x crop factor). 45mm is superwide, I found mine rather difficult to use effectively.

Technically I guess the "normal" for panoramic shots is probably shorter than 6x7, since the diagonal of the negative will be smaller. On the other hand I'm also of the opinion that aspect ratio affects that too.

[LFLee]

I'm not opposed to experimenting, just saying that you're creating problems for yourself here. Unnecessarily from my point of view.

The P67 does a great job with film flatness, which is a challenging issue at medium format sizes (which is really what 35mm panoramic is). It was not designed to have a mask put into the film gate. It was not designed to hold the film flat against that mask. It wasn't designed to have sharp edges of undersized film poking around the shutter. It won't rewind film at all, so you'll be stuck unloading in a darkroom.

This will be tougher than if you just took the shots on 120 film and then cropped it back to the same negative size, and apart from any issues caused by the adapter the results will be identical. The money you save not buying a cheap adapter kit can offset the increased film/processing costs. If you really want the barcoding from film you can come up with a photoshop layer and mask it on the finished product, or there's probably an Instagram filter or something that does it.

Or, again, you can take two shots and stitch them together. If you have a steady hand you can do it handheld, or many tripod heads have a special feature to allow you to take these shots easily.

---------- Post added 02-12-2014 at 04:34 PM ----------



Yes, 105mm is "normal" for 6x7 (0.5x crop factor). 45mm is superwide, I found mine rather difficult to use effectively.

Technically I guess the "normal" for panoramic shots is probably shorter than 6x7, since the diagonal of the negative will be smaller. On the other hand I'm also of the opinion that aspect ratio affects that too.

Thanks for sharing your experiences!

I was able to get 12 shots out with the 24 frames 35mm film. One suppose to get 18 shots with the 36 frames 35mm film, so the math is right.
At the last frame, the resistance is too large halfway I cock the shutter.

[LFLee]

My test roll came back. Showing some low res scanned by Dwayne's Photo, edited in LR for color temperature.