This time of year, at least here in the north, the air you seal in the bag isn't so dry. You could possibly get condensation just from what's in the bag after you put it in the fridge. With things like unsealed rolls of film, you can at least exclude most of the air. But you can't do that with a back unless you use one of those vacuum gadgets. Refridgerating or freezing a back doesn't seem like a good idea, unless the film in it is really sensitive to degrading at room temperature.
That said, I have put film holders loaded with color in the fridge occasionally, I chill the holder first, then quickly take it out, bag it, and put it back in. But it's not something I'd consider for a MF back.
BTW - Zeiss of all people did a study on the matching insert issue and found there to be ZERO difference between matching and non-matching inserts vis-a-vis sharpness - most concluded it was hasselblad hype to get people to buy new backs rather than 2nd hand ones.
The bad thing about storing backs with film in it is that the film warps, so that the next frame becomes useless (read: "non-flat"). This happens to the film regardless of being stored cold or not. This is the flipside of the convenience of having the backs loaded and ready to shoot.
The "short" 12-frame film is an advantage to me, as I find myself often shooting around that number of frames on any given subject. Then I can develop the film to match that scene.
(I do understand that you most probably use slide film, which is more sensitive to temperature and storage. But the same thing applies to slide film. It looks terrible when a part of the slide is unsharp, which can happen if the film have been sitting in the back for too long.)
Originally Posted by Brandon D.
So how long after the film is cut and subsequently wound rather tightly around a small diameter spool in the factory are you using your rollfilm...?
Originally Posted by edtbjon
polaroid back for HASSELBLAD 1000f
ok so i've got a 1000f. it has two backs, all is well. but i'm looking to get a polaroid back for it.
can someone educated on the subject please give me a rundown on the whole thing?
what backs (if any) will fit the 1000f? what polaroid film type should i use? is polaroid film still available enough that it would be worth it to get a back? where is a good place to buy from? et cetera....
please let me know! i'm looking to make a purchase soon.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I have both A and C 12's. I always use the C's first just out of habit.
You will have noticed how on the back of the 1000 F, above the wind gear, a little pin shoots out briefly when you wind the camera.
Film magazines, including Polaroid magazines, must have a hole to allow that to happen.
The early, 1000-series magazines had a catch that needed to be tripped by that pin to allow winding (reason why you shouldn't use those behind a 500-series or later camera: it will wind, but also force the catch mechanism, breaking it).
Later magazines, though no longer needed when used with 500-series or later cameras, still had that hole.
But after a while, it disappeared.
The Polaroid magazines do not have that hole, so cannot be used on a 1000 F.
It is not the sharpness that is the issue, but the transport and, particularly, the spacing between the neg’s. This was not tested by Zeiss, film transport mechanics is not their core business...
Originally Posted by Sparky
"...If you can not stand the rustle of the leafs, then do not go in to the woods..."
(freely translated quote by Guido Gezelle)
PS: English is only my third language, please do forgive me my sloppy grammar...
The matching was done to have the rollers on the insert paired to the rollers on the shell such that the film runs under an exact angle between them and over the pressure plate, keeping it tau as best as possible.
It had nothing to do with frame spacing. Sorry!
As i mentioned elsewhere: the idea is sound. But not quite necessary, since the backs are made well enough that the film runs through it the best it can anyway.
A matter of people 'being anal' about quality 'being anal' about quality.
I have never seen or heard about a Zeiss study on this subject. Would be great to see it.
It may be a marketing thing. But since you can get plenty matched backs used as well as new, probably not for that reason.
Seems like it would only make sense if the Fuji instant print products fit the Polaroid back. There is no Polaroid material. Hasn't been made in 2+ years now.
Originally Posted by Goodman5390
Deep in the darkest heart of the East Texas Rain forest. Apprentice Analog Activist.
My Photos Online
... And to paraphrase Yoda, there is no how, only do.