Lomograflok film back for 4x5 sheet film cameras -- a biased and overly opinionated review!

I investigated how a Lomograflok back works for me. Well .....
Here are some of my earlier videos and resources mentioned in the review:
Lomo LCA 120 camera:
• Lomo 120 A -- What if ...
• Lomo LC-A 120 and Graf...
Lomography film:
• Video
An article they wrote:
www.lomography...
My earlier experiences with Instax film:
• How to use Polaroid-ty...

[@tylerhuttosmith]

I had the same frustrations with using the lomograflok, but I will say its a good way to learn 4x5. By the time you graduate to sheet film you're relieved that the process is much simpler! Excited to try your ideas and thank you for the video

[@ShootOnFilm]

Thanks thanks!! I believe there are good usage scenarios for this thing. It just doesn't work for me. :-)

[@borderlands6606]

Since film photography's demise as a popular medium, there have been endless reinventions of things we used to take for granted. Nearly all of them are worse. Instant film accessories are a case in point. In film days, studios shot a prodigious amount of instant film to check lighting, focus and exposure prior to loading with transparencies (mostly). I don't recall any major hassle with professional Polaroid backs, and don't have the patience to beta test homespun equivalents.

[@ShootOnFilm]

True. I have a Polaroid back. It's perfect. I just wish somebody made similar for Instax. Just copy it - for crying out loud!!!

[@peinmilan]

For me this is the only (realistic) option to make color positives with 4x5. Real positive film is too expensive, rare and complicated, color negatives are also very expensive and then I have to go through all the hassle with C41 developing, scanning, printing... 1 EUR Instax is the simplest way to go for color paper positive. And I almost always use tripod so that's not an issue for me. All the problems you were talking about are the same with the Horseman rollfilm backs (6x7, 6x9, 6x12) except that they are centered, you are right about that, strange design decision.

[@CalumetVideo]

I also had that issue with the Lomography Instax back, my first attempt also ejected the entire pack of film. I found out that mine does this when the back has been left in a cold car etc. I allowed it to warm up inside and never had any more issues. I think if mine is used below 35 degrees Fahrenheit it will eject out a full pack of film. I think using a 6x9 roll film holder is a better option.

[@ShootOnFilm]

I live in Finland ... it is ALWAYS below 35F :-). But seriously, I've been using that 4x5 sheet film holder trick quite a bit. It works fine for me, and the device itself stays at home, indoors, warm and cozy!

[@Joe_VanCleave]

Ethan at Cameradactyl has a 3D printed focusing spacer with its own Graflok mount and built-in focus screen. So you leave your camera’s focus screen at home and click in his focus screen, then quickly swap it out for the Lomo back to shoot.

[@ShootOnFilm]

That might be a partial solution. But still, if I need to take it out to put the Lomo graflok back in misses the point, IMHO.

[@vertigoheights]

Love your frank approach as always! The method you use putting the instal on a cut sheet film is something people (like Dave Roland) have been doing for instax wide for a while. So much so that a company (I forget who exactly now, but think it might have been 20th century cameras) actually made a 4x5 holder that has an instax adapter built in, that you just slide in. That could be something useful for you to try, as it suits more your use case. Great idea on the pinhole too! If you sold that I’m sure people would buy it 🤓. I’ve actually successfully handheld my crown graphic using the lomograflok back and composed evenly (takes some getting used to for composition, but it’s possible), just leaving the back on the camera. Not sure how much they can do on the thickness considering battery unit and all that, but it’s a great start I’d say. If it does well enough a version 2 that addresses some of the issues you mentioned could well be underway.

[@ShootOnFilm]

I hope they are working on version 2. So much promise in the concept!

[@derekstevenson8885]

Love your honest opinion and the way you think of different ways of using your cameras and film it makes photography more interesting

[@ShootOnFilm]

Thanks for watching!

[@TrueFisp112]

Such a good and true to reality review. You've now given me tips of new ways of using this so-so LF instant film back. I also had a faulty device at first (a small dot on the feeder roller gave white spots on the film), but without any hassle got a replacement from Lomgraphy. So I second you that their customer service is good. Also using it on a Graflex Crown Graphic. Happy shooting/Johan.

[@tedphillips2951]

This is another amazing video! I have the Lomograflok back & I love it. I use it with a 4x5 field view camera & a snapshot 4x5 camera using zone focus & a viewfinder. I find it to be a very good hand held option. I understand your complaints but I am a simple guy & I find it very adequate for what I want, but I also feel that Lomo should except your challenge because I think they could benefit your input. You are a genius IMO & I still love your back ground music.

[@ShootOnFilm]

Ha! Thanks for watching. The thing may be totally useable if your process is different from mine. :-)

[@filmguy3d]

Inspiring. I am using 3x4 Crown Graphic with sheet film from China. Not bad stuff. Just getting used to it. Will grow up to 4x5 eventually. Am a fan of Ansel Adams' work and live in Carmel California where he lived. He used to visit my cinemas in Monterey. ..Inspiring guy. Thanks for your videos. I love shooting with the Crown Graphic and I use a tripod. Just me. Thanks.

[@kstrohmeier]

The squeeze box workflow is brilliant and the pictures were great. Maybe too fiddly as a process, but the results hold promise for your potential version 2 refinement effort.

[@ShootOnFilm]

Yeah, the process has some issues. It removes Instant from Instax.

[@baggerrider8073]

Ari, I was watching this early in the video and I saw the tripod come out. I told my wife, “this is gonna go downhill from here”. I wasn’t wrong! But another great video. I always enjoy your videos and how you look at the world and the photographic process. Since I am commenting and I know you read the comments, I have a suggestion for a future video that I think would be interesting and very helpful. During a previous video you mentioned HP5 film. You said you can push it, pull it and do all kinds of tricks with it. I’d love to see a video that explores your comment and the results from using your tricks with HP5 (or any other film). I think it’s an interesting subject. Thank you for taking the time to make videos. I know you are busy and the making of these videos is very time consuming, so thank you very much.

[@ShootOnFilm]

😅. Thanks for watching. That push/pull idea is actually great. Let me think ….

[@davidottman9501]

Thank you, I've been itching for one of those. Maybe they set the design based on a more typical view camera, usually following the more stereotypical large format process? Anyhow, there are plenty of interesting ways to make a photograph. My favorite part of your video here is when you put a pinhole in the right place over their back and used it that way. 😃 You can make a camera out of any box that keeps the dark in.

[@ShootOnFilm]

:-). I think that somebody with a more traditional 4x5, tripod, take-your-time -process would find this more useful. But then, why instax? 😅

[@mickcookson8009]

Ari love you're thinking, a true pioneer and outward thinker, cant wait for you to get you're hands on another to see what you come up with. I have one of these but I almost always use a tripod, as you say its a bit finicky to use, I mainly user it to see composition on some shots.

[@ShootOnFilm]

Yeah. If you process is different from mine it may be useful. This was a bit selfish review really from the point of view of my working habits 😊

[@206coconutz]

It’s been said that any fool can make something complicated, but it takes a genius to make something simple. In 35 minutes I just witnessed what should have happened in designing the Lomo thingy. It will be interesting to see if they take you up on your offer! I personally miss the individual Polaroid 4x5 Land film packets used in the manually-operated Land film holders, especially the B&W PN film. Not 100% perfect, but simple.

[@ShootOnFilm]

I agree -- I miss Polaroid 4x5 Land film and manual holders, too. I also don't like that the Lomo thing is battery-operated.

[@michaelpetersenfilm]

No need to use old 4x5 photos for inserting Instax Wide into film holders. You can put them in directly to the upper edge and fix them inside with a little piece of tape. Also you have to insert them upside down AND back side pointing to the front since they are exposed from the back not as shown in the video. Yes, it is cumbersome using the spacer but If they had been capable to design a thinner back and with image centered they would have done I'm sure!

[@markusklein6309]

Hey, Ari! Very useful video! I can confirm everything you said. I have a Wista 45. Since it has no Graflok back the Lomo piece cannot be attached. I also have a Intrepid 45. The Lomo piece can be attached but the Instax wide is not in the middle - as you said. I’m thinking of marking a template on my groundglass to know where the picture will be. Thanks for your ideas (pinhole!).

[@ShootOnFilm]

:-) With the right attitude it is workable. But it could be so much better ....

[@jean-claudemuller3199]

@@ShootOnFilmMarkus, You don't have to mark a template for the groundglass. The focusing spacer has a reduced size frame the size of the Instax picture, and this frame is offset the right way to fit the Instax back What you see with the focusing spacer is exactly what you get on the Instax picture.

[@keithdmyers]

I agree with you on this - I own one of these backs and purchased a 4x5 camera with a Graflok back just so I could use it. If you come up with an Instax back that is the same size as a standard 4x5 film holder it would be excellent. It seems if it you separate the motor and film roller mechanism from the film holder it might be doable. Best of luck!

[@ShootOnFilm]

It can be thicker than a regular 4x5 cartridge. Quiet considerably, but not as much as the current implementation :-)

[@skipwilliamsnj]

Always fun to see your videos, even if I don’t shoot 4x5 in this case. I remember looking at that product a while ago and had the same initial reaction when I saw that the film wasn’t in the middle of the frame. Obviously the people who make the design decisions didn’t actually use the product to take photos.

[@ShootOnFilm]

:-). It looks good on paper, they say ....?

[@maf421]

Ari- you can get a 3d printed lomographic focusing spacer that has a ground glass in it. You just remove the latching ground glass back from your speed graphic, focus with the new spacer glass, then swap in the lomo back. Of course this is for GG focusing, and not your standard workflow. Probably better for the view camera guys. I wondered if you would pinhole the lomo back- I will have to try that. I too have a lomograflok, and disappointed that it makes the sheet film process even slower.

[@ShootOnFilm]

Yeah, it has some promise but falls definitely short. Unfortunately!

[@cinnamon--girl]

Everything you said about the Lomograflok back is true. Initially, I tried to use it on my Linhof MT, but when the film tried to leave the 'pasta squeezer,' it would stop because the slot was too close to the back of my camera. It works fine on my Sinar Norma. I like your pinhole idea. I might try that with black foamboard and a pinhole. I am a new subscriber and wonder why it took KZbin so long to put us together. Thank you! Hello from Florida. 🌴

[@ShootOnFilm]

Hi, Florida!! Thanks for watching, commenting, and -- finally -- being here :-). !

[@jean-claudemuller3199]

Hello interesting review This Instax back is designed only for Graflok cameras and sold as such. So it not a default if it does not fit on older non Graflok cameras. I use it on a Linhof Technika with the Graflok screen that is much easier to remove and refit (you have just to press at the same time with you two thumbs on two metal hooks). The distance scale ruler slides on the camera bed and can easily be recalibrated at infinity with the ground glass, after this the focus can be guessed and set on the ruler. Of course it can only work on a tripod and the off center framing is weird and should be corrected

[@ShootOnFilm]

Thanks for watching. Yeah, my point was that designing only for the new backs is, IMHO, a wrong design decision. For me, that is! It would be pretty hard to retrofit a new back to my Graflex RB Series B as it has a rotating chassis, for example. I understand that for some it is totally fine. But to me, almost all design considerations we -- well -- wrong :-)

[@notopogadane5153]

absolutely awesome. thanks!

[@ShootOnFilm]

Glad you liked it!

[@rbrowning8088]

Ari, did you get any response from lomography regarding your final comments?.....

[@buyaport]

Thanks a lot for this review, saved me 174.90 €.

[@Mattje8]

So why can’t you just use the camera back movements to centre the Instax panel on the lens circle ?

[@ShootOnFilm]

There are no camera back movements in a Graflex or any 4x5 press cameras.

[@captainbackflash]

The piano music sounded familiar. Was it played by Stobe the Hobo?

[@ShootOnFilm]

Yes!! After all these years!

[@captainbackflash]

@@ShootOnFilm Cool! I think, a lot of people miss him!

[@kdj.imagery4317]

Interesting about the film back. Are you familiar with the old Polaroid, is it the 500 or 800 landcameras? I've recently watched some videos in which they were modifying them for use with a 4x5 back. I've thought about using the instax wide in my old Agfa Ansco pinhole box camera since they have stopped producing the medium format film in 620mm.

[@ShootOnFilm]

I've got a few polaroid backs -- but film is very hard to find and super xpensive!

[@kdj.imagery4317]

@@ShootOnFilm When you say film is hard to find, do you mean for the Polaroids? BandH used to sell the 120 film on 620 spools, before I could obtain any of it they pulled it from their inventory. You may try looking for film at FILMPHOTOGRAPHYSTORE.com.

[@seandwyer3598]

Ari- I’m surprised the background music for this video wasn’t “Squeeze Box.”

[@ShootOnFilm]

Oh dear, I missed that. A lost opportunity to play music by The Who!

[@niilaheikki]

Terve Ari. Mulla oli myös viallinen lomograflok, kaksikin. Mun täytyi repäistä filmiluukut irti todisteeksi, ei tarvinnut atomeiksi koko laitetta lyödä. Mä käytän näitä muotokuvaukseen Intrepid kameran kanssa, ja homma on toiminut aika hyvin kun oikea työtapa on löytynyt. Koska olen vähän nortti, suunnittelin ja 3D tulostin itselleni ”välilevyn” jossa on kiinteä tarkennuslasi. Tämä helpottaa kuvausta todella paljon. Kiitoksia videosta, laitanpa kanavasi seurantaan! -Niila Ps. neulansilmäkameraideasi on nerokas!

[@ShootOnFilm]

Mukava kuulla että olet saanu pelaan. Itsellä kun kuvaus on lähes kokonaan käsivaralta niin se ei oikein tahdo toimia. Mutta varmaan jaustalta tapahtuvaan muotokuvaukseen ihan jees laite --- mukavaa kun kommentoit :-)

[@ejorbe]

Wow! I would have questioned what they were asking you to do as well! Also, wow that seems like they made a product that is almost unusable for most cameras. What camera did they model the “pasta machine” to be used on? When are we going to hear the telecaster in your videos?

[@ShootOnFilm]

I think they cut all possible corners to make an affordable and almost functional product. :-). I love my tele but I’m not a very good player!

[@matejphoto]

In the method where you put the instax in the normal sheet holder: in your demonstration you are putting in the film in the wrong orientation, the white borders needs to face away from the lens. Obviously you know this, but your viewers might not. The pinhole cover is idea is amazing! I will definitely copy that. I still think it is a great product, cameras for Instax wide are dismal (aside from the RF70 which costs insane amount for an instax). But I agree with you on all the points and they should make a version 2 where the film opening is centered. I am not sure if they can make it thin enough for your spring backs. This is still an amazing product for people who want to shoot with vintage cameras but don't want (or can't have) a darkroom.

[@ShootOnFilm]

I'm demonstrating an exposed film from the pack that was spat out by the original Lomograflok. So they are the right way round -- the right way has those white edges, whereas the back side is totally dark with the text "Instax" at the side. The white edges MUST be facing the lens. Also, you need to feel the "right side up" in your dark and cannot look at which side is white and which side is dark. By looking you'd expose the film. :-) But this is a good point -- pay attention that you don't accidentally rotate the film sheet the wrong way round when you push it out from the cartridge :-)

[@matejphoto]

@@ShootOnFilm I am confused. At 27:42, should the instax sheet be loaded reversed? (i.e. the black side facing the lens)

[@ShootOnFilm]

@@matejphoto yes :-) In 27.42 the film is right. The light-sensitive side is outwards -- I'm showing that light-sensitive side to the video camera at exactly 27.42. And, that would then be facing the lens. ... and then, if you look at 27.54 I'm pushing the dark slide to cover that light-sensitive surface that will eventually face the lens. The film sheet is black with white corners -- as it is an exposed film sheet.

[@matejphoto]

@@ShootOnFilm I believe that the light sensitive side is the black side (it is purple before the film is processed). If you push out the dark slide on a brand new cartridge you will see purple film (which turns black during processing through the rollers).

[@ShootOnFilm]

@@matejphoto Nope. The sensitive side -- if you look at it in daylight and thus ruin it ( :-) ) is totally white. As the film develops, the edges stay white, and the pic emerges in the middle. Trust me, I've shot a lot with this, and it goes in exactly like in the video.

[@jmtubbs1639]

Excellent thinking and some neat solutions. BTW I'd say brass rather than bronze.

[@ShootOnFilm]

Good point! I actually do not know if they are copper+zinc or copper+tin alloys. But you say zinc?

[@jmtubbs1639]

@@ShootOnFilm I'm no chemist but it does seem to be zinc. Old style cameras are usually referred to as mahogany and brass.

[@ShootOnFilm]

@@jmtubbs1639 You are probably right :-)

[@Martin_Siegel]

If it was slimmer it would not work either as a slide in because the film comes out on the top and there would be the springs in the way of the film. You could also use the metal slide from the first set and mount a pinhole into it so you have still a wider angle (just a bit). I have a focusing back by Ethan Moses to use with the Graflok back it has a mate screen so you don't have to hassle with the spacer. Take care!

[@ShootOnFilm]

Yes -- and no. If it was slimmer, it would be easy to take in and out like a regular 4x5 cartridge. That would be far better solution as now you need to take both the groundglass AND the Lomograplock away between images. . I cannot use the metal slide to make a pinhole -- I thought about that. You cannot use the metal as such as a material for pinhole as it is too thick. I'd need to first drill a larger hole as I did into my plywood slab. And then attach either a separate pinhole or a piece of tin foil within the whole. However, if I used the dark slide, I could not attach it so, that any material would reach on top or under the dark slide slab. Like for example, I could not use tape to attach a piece of tinfoil as I did in my plywood case because even that tape would prevent the dark slide to slide in and out. You follow me?

[@Martin_Siegel]

@@ShootOnFilm Yes, I get it. You could attach the pinhole with tape on the outside for shooting and peel off the tape for removing in the darkroom when you're done with shooting for the day. But that all would be non permanent solutions. But I'd say 3mm wider is not worth the trouble.

[@tedcrosby9361]

Ironically this back will fit in the Wista DX which doesn’t have a Graflok back, and amazingly I can use my 65mm w/a lens.

[@ShootOnFilm]

Excellent!!

[@SilntObsvr]

I mount my LomoGraflok on my Anniversary Speed Graphic (with Graflok conversion back from 20th Century Camera, and infinity stops set back for the thickness of the spacer), wind up the focal plane shutter (because the lens I keep on that camera is in an empty shell of a shutter, aperture works but no shutter parts inside), focus with the Kalart Adjustable Rangefinder that's calibrated for that lens, compose by eye (LomoGraflok positions the film in the lower right of the camera's frame, so i use the upper left 2/3 or so of the viewfinder -- either the tubular one on the top of the body or the wire frame finder), pull the dark slide, fire the shutter, reinsert the dark slide (so as not to expose the film a second, uncontrolled time while rewinding the shutter), and push the button on the LomoGraflok. Barely any harder than using an old Polaroid 350 pack film camera (except that my Speed Graphic is a good bit heavier than my old 350 -- which I hope sometime to convert to Instax). And since I can get Instax film easily and at reasonable cost (barely more than negative-only home processed 120 color film), and can use my Speed Graphic the way it was designed to be used with the LomoGraflok, I like the thing a lot. Now if the film only had a little more latitude (it has less, in my opinion, than current production Polaroid -- but then, it's less than half the price!)... Oddly, I have a 3D printed pinhole camera (that I've never gotten around to gluing together) that has the ability to mount the pinhole in several locations. This is intended to give rise/fall and shift effects, but if I mount the hole in the lower right (from behind) of the four options, it should just about compensate for the off center frame. By the way, I agree on the off center frame -- the film depth wasn't optional; the mechanism that ejects the film has significant thickness in front of the pack shell, so there's no way around either using the insert or resetting your infinity stops (BTW, you can get a spare pair of stops for your Pacemaker Crown and they fold, so you can set them once and use them as needed without having to move the primary stops as I do). Centering the frame, however, would have required making the LomoGralok housing bigger (enough so to interfere with use of the viewfinder on your Crown or my Speed), the dark slide longer, and might have required setting the film plane back even further, because the Graflok mount on the camera won't let the mechanism protrude further to the left than it does. I do, however, use the tripod, spacer, etc. with my Graphic view II. I can streamline things a bit, though; I have a spare focusing panel from a first-gen Graphic View that's identical dimensions aside from not being Graflok; I can use that to focus and leave the LomoGraflok mounted on the Graflok back; I can swap between the two in fifteen seconds or with the little clips intended to let you shoot horizontal or vertical without turning the whole camera on its side.

[@ShootOnFilm]

Excellent. I’m very happy you find this useful. And I truly believe on one size fits all. That’s why I tried to make sure my video was really subjective and my point of you. And here, you very well explained yours. Thanks!!!

[@SilntObsvr]

@@ShootOnFilm I'm still interested in what you think could be done to improve the LomGraflok -- originally this was a Kickstarter crowdfunded project, which sometimes results in rushing a product to meet a promised ship date when another six months of development could have improved it. This trades off against times when another six months of development turns into six years and the developers just dropping out of sight taking tens of thousands to millions of Kickstarter dollars with them...

[@utekopka7920]

Thank you very much for this video and for making me saving my money! I totally agree with @Dann Corbit that I would expect Fuji offering a decent camera for their films. My workaround for instax wide is a hacked Instax wide 300 camera that I use with Mamiya Press lenses and an external rangefinder. It works great! The only downside is that I have to use my dark bag to change lenses.

[@ShootOnFilm]

Yeah. We'd need a proper solution for Instax films!

[@richardcannon7327]

Yea I had same issues. Had mine a year only shot 1 pack of film…. I also moved front standard back on my Linhof works ok in a crack handed Brocken way. But on the Linhof as you eject the film it catches and causes the development to get a bit faked up too. So u have to remove the back to eject the film. No longer point and shoot

[@ShootOnFilm]

Yeah. Kills the flow.

[@genegoranov5865]

The image at 26:19 , you at the keyboard is superb. I would like a poster of this one :)

[@ShootOnFilm]

Gene, I doubt you'd really want my picture on your wall. 🙂

[@danncorbit3623]

My opinion: They should build the whole camera, which would solve all these problems. Actually, Lomo or Fuji could make it. I think if Fuji made 8x10 it would be even more interesting. I think Elton John would approve of the piano playing image with the modified pinhole camera. I would only have patience for your modified pinhole version.

[@ShootOnFilm]

I agree. This doesn't work as an accessory.

[@toulcaz31]

That camera is the Mint RF670

[@MatthewJTalas]

It seems like the LomoGraflok 4×5 Instant Back design should have attempted to replicate something that functioned like a 6X9 120 roll film back for 4x5. There must have been problems that prevented that. I can't think of anyhthing I would rather do than show up at a party with a Graflex Crown Graphic that could take rapid fire Instax photos!

[@ShootOnFilm]

I took my 4x5 Graflex RD Series B to the bar last Saturday. It was a great conversation starter even without instant gratification :-)

[@toulcaz31]

The reason there is this space for infinity is because of the space required for the rollers taking into account the imposed dimensions of Fuji Instax. So either we accept the way it is or we don’t get a instant back for Fuji Instax…

[@ShootOnFilm]

Nope. You can put it at the right distance. You just need a little lever to lower the film cartridge before eject. Also other simple solutions come in mind ....

[@toulcaz31]

@@ShootOnFilm I guess yes one could design a solution that moves the cartridge if the final cost of the product is not a concern. At $150, I am not sure there will be a cheap solution but still curious to see what you can come up with.

[@bigjim4231]

Another example of "stuff" designed by engineers that never used a 4x5

[@ShootOnFilm]

That maybe the reason. I’d like to understand the design rationale behind this camera.

[@distagon6052]

Thanks for sharing

[@ShootOnFilm]

:-) Thanks for watching!

[@macwestcanon]

great piano playing

[@ShootOnFilm]

I’m still standing! 😅

[@macwestcanon]

@@ShootOnFilm 😄😄

[@toulcaz31]

I am a bit surprised Ari because you are usually more resourceful 🙂. There are two options to help the workflow with the Lomograflok with a Graflex: 1) some back accessories exist that you can use instead of the Graflex hood to compose faster on the ground glass. BFC sells one. 2) if you shoot with the RF, you can stop the front standard before the infinity stop for a distance equal to the spacer they provide. Then you just need a mask on the finder to compose. This works very well and speeds up the flow massively. I am afraid you review was a bit hasty but I can agree that it is far from plug and play.

[@ShootOnFilm]

🙂 1) I don't want to compose from the ground glass with a Graflex. Graflex is a rangefinder camera. 2) Did you watch the video :-) I feel bad because I like a lot of things they do. But not this one.

[@toulcaz31]

@@ShootOnFilm I still think you can use the Graflex with RF by keeping the Lomograflok back on it. You just need to stop the front standard before the infinity stop so the RF accounts for the space required.

[@ShootOnFilm]

@@toulcaz31 But that is exactly what I explained in the video :-) (17.10) kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpabhoRjas17qMU

[@toulcaz31]

@@ShootOnFilm maybe I don’t explain myself right. I will message you on IG with a picture and links to 3D printed solutions for the Graflex RB too.

[@valedmond]

Can I ask how you scan the Instax wide photo? Thanks

[@ShootOnFilm]

I have an Epson V850 scanner and I scan an Instax photo as a document. Here is more: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aoOccoKjndhslas

[@valedmond]

@@ShootOnFilm no matter what camera you use always turn out high quality art works. Truely amazing.

[@ShootOnFilm]

@@valedmond Thanks thanks. I try hard! 🙂

[@barlimonster]

I was super excited to get mine. It took me all of one pack of Instax to think "whattheactualfunkwiththisthing?" My tripod-mounted Toyo 45A has no problem with swapping out the back, etc. The Lomograflok is a juggling act but it works okay I guess for what it is. Still, every time I use it I think "what is the point?" It is in no way analogous to a Polaroid back for your 4x5. You can't use it to check focus or composition. It is its own device for creating photographs on Instax wide. But here's the thing: Instax wide is not a great image making medium. Instax is "crappy but charming." I do not shoot 4x5 to create crappy fuzzy lo-fi looking positive images. Especially not the field camera with all the tedium involved - it is too physically and mentally demanding. And I'm gonna waste all that effort on Instax? No bloody thank you. And you are absolutely right: at least center the frame, bring the film plane forward and make it skinny enough to insert like a film holder. The Lomograflok might have looked good on paper but in practice, it's dead weight.

[@ShootOnFilm]

Agreed! a waste o some totally good plastic :-)

[@Dahrenhorst]

I actually prefer the Polaroid Zink Paper over Instax - but - I very rarely use it. I once had a project which I called refrigerator pics, where I took pictures of friends and family with a Polaroid Zink Paper camera (or printed existing files with this camera on Zink Paper), to pin them on my refrigerator. There are now lots of such prints on it, and I sometimes dig out that camera to add a new picture of a new acquaintance. And that's all I use these "Polaroids" for, they are simply to small to my liking, and the image quality does not appeal to me. I would never have the idea to use my large format camera to produce such tiny low quality pictures. Especially not for 180 € for the back and 2 € for a single shot. For that money I rather buy lots of 120 film or photographic paper instead.

[@ShootOnFilm]

I kinda like instax look. But the process should be much simpler.

[@bluur101]

Just a word on the Instax price, in most of Europe they are costing under a euro per shot -- roughly the same price per picture as film+developing+enprint, which is probably why the price-point was chosen! Don't forget the boxes you see on sale contain TWO cassettes of ten shots, so one pays about nineteen euros for twenty pictures.

[@ShootOnFilm]

@@bluur101 True -- about 20€ / 20 sheets

[@Dahrenhorst]

@@bluur101 True for the Instax Mini, but this is Instax Wide ...

[@bluur101]

@@Dahrenhorst Not here in Netherlands. €18,95 for twenty sheets Instax Wide, that's the normal over the counter price in shops. Instax Mini is €15,95 for twenty and Instax Square is €16,90.

[@davidwoods80]

"Don't Go Breaking My Heart"? As frustrated as you are, I'd have expected you to plug in the Telecaster, crank the amp to 11, and play "Bat Out Of Hell'.

[@ShootOnFilm]

Im reasonably mild tempered 😊

[@chriscard6544]

subjective review is more objective than objective reviews. Did you get a feedback from Lomography ?

[@ShootOnFilm]

No, they never commented or replied. I bet they don't see this stuff :-)

[@chriscard6544]

@@ShootOnFilm to be honest Instant films are a waste of money for me, I dont really care.

[@stuartbaines2843]

Don’t think I will try this device👎 Surprised they did not want it back? Obviously they knew what was wrong .

[@ShootOnFilm]

Ha haa!! 🙂