Related Links:
4x5" LF Cameras and Lenses Review/Tests
(Ken Rockwell) [9/2002]
Budget/Low Weight LF Kits (Chris Perez) [8/2002]
Build LF Links
Film Holders for LF (4x5" etc.)
Gravity Slit Front of the Barrel Lens Ultra Low Cost Shutter
How to Operate LF
Intro to LF
Large Format Lenses Notes
Lens Hacking a Speed Graphic by Denis Pleic (1/2004)
Medium Format on a Budget
Packard Shutters
Shutter Pages

Few people realize that many of Edward Weston's most celebrated large format photographs were made on a micro-budget setup. You probably remember seeing his sensual black and white photographs of green peppers or California landscapes. He often used a $5 budget no-name lens of uncertain origin and so-so performance. He didn't have access to an enlarger, so he made contact 8x10" prints using the dim light bulb in his room. But who wouldn't be delighted to get the stunning results that Edward Weston achieved with such limited means?

At the other end of the scale, professional members of the Advertising Photographers of America reported average sales of $378,223 annually, using a total average investment of around $50,000, of which $16,150 was for large format equipment (see semipro pages). So you can understand why many of today's large format photographers regard an under $1,000 lens with leaf shutter as a "budget" lens!

My goal in this article is to share with you some often overlooked ways in which you can do large format work on a micro-budget.

Ideal Newbie Large Format Camera

The lens should be really sharp and able to deliver 60+ lpmm on film. We want a simple to use rangefinder that is directly coupled to focus the lens. Why not add a built-in light meter, sensitive enough to work with up to 3200 ISO/ASA film? Now add an electronically controlled shutter in the lens coupled to the light meter so you get perfect exposures. Oh, good idea, we should add a control to let you adjust for odd subjects and backlighting conditions, say +/- 2 or 3 stops marked in 1/3rd stop increments. Battery life should average 2 or 3 years, maybe more.

Let's also build in a polaroid back capability, so you can get instant test prints in both color and black and white. The ability to use pack film will provide more shots before we have to reload film. Think of the weight we will save by getting rid of all those sheet film holders!

Accessories should include a flash handle, hard carrying case with strap, and closeup lenses with framer kit. The camera is light and small enough to be used handheld in good lighting. Thrown in a tripod mount and self-timer so you can get into your own large format pictures.

Dream on, you say? What if I said that you could buy such an electronically enhanced large format rangefinder camera today? Would you be willing to pay $1,000 for it? $2,000? More?

Actually, I bought one used last month at a garage sale for one dollar ($1 US$)! The camera is a Polaroid model 420 with hard case and flash accessory. But any of the similar Polaroid models taking type 665 film should work as well (e.g., Polaroid 250..). These Polaroid cameras are rangefinders with built-in light meters and electronically controlled shutters, weighing under two pounds and fitting in a compact folding clamshell case.

The only "catch" is that if I want a black and white negative for darkroom use, I have to use type 665 p/n or positive/negative Polaroid film. Naturally, I can also get instant black and white or color prints by using the right Polaroid films. While Polaroid and Fuji instant film materials may seem a bit pricey per shot, you are getting an instant Polaroid test contact print and developing thrown in with the price of the film.

P/N 665 film provides a polaroid print plus a black and white negative. After fixing and drying the negative, I can use it to make as many prints in the darkroom as I want. Many amateur photographers don't know about p/n 665 film, so they don't realize many low cost Polaroid cameras can be used to make large format negatives for darkroom use.

The type 655 p/n film is a fine grained ISO 75 black and white film yielding 3 1/4" by 4 1/4" negatives. The resolution of the negative film is 150-160 lines per mm, making it the equal of many fine grain black and white films. By contrast, the instant print is limited to about 22 to 26 lpmm. So don't be fooled by the instant print into thinking the negative is not sharp!

One obvious benefit of using Polaroid materials is that you get "instant feedback" from the instant print. You can see exactly what you captured on the negative. You can evaluate lighting, composition, and exposure with complete confidence. Some users suggest adjusting the print a bit darker (1/3rd stop or so) than usual so as to get an ideal density negative for easy printing. One of the unsung virtues of using Polaroid pack film is the complete elimination of dust and debris from your film and film holder. [Source: Michael Freeman, Instant Film Photography, Salem House, 1985, p.44]

The downside of p/n 665 film is that you have to fix the negatives in an 18% sulfite solution to make them really permanent. You can buy a watertight fixing tank or small Tupperware (TM) watertight sealed lid container for this task. You should also use the supplied coating stick to preserve the contact instant prints. One benefit of the Polaroid p/n 665 in studio work is that you have a print in 30 seconds to evaluate. Now you can fix and wash the negative in a few minutes, then dry it quickly. None of this processing has to be done in the darkroom or changing bag either. Now take the resulting permanent black and white negative into the darkroom and make as many prints as you want, now or in the future. Simple!

My main point here has been to highten your willingness to consider other solutions to the budget large format problem. We will look at other solutions to creating large format images using micro-budget solutions below.

Pinholes - Large Format Without A Lens

Our pinhole pages also have the secret trick for zapping your own pinholes (down to 20 microns in size!).

One extra advantage of pinhole cameras is that you don't need a shutter, neither focal plane nor leaf shutter. The reason is the long exposure times of most pinhole setups. You can get a "faster" pinhole by using a zone plate setup. But you can use a hat or a piece of black tape over the pinhole in place of a shutter.

If you are interested in using ultraviolet light for photography, pinholes can be used with a UV-only pass filters (e.g., Kodak #18A) to do photographs which would be impossible without specialty quartz optics (not an off-the-shelf item for view cameras).

If you mount a pinhole close to the film, you have a wide angle effect. If you use a long distance to the pinhole from the film, you get a telephoto effect. You can also create oddball cylindrical and fisheye effect pinhole cameras and use large format film to create images impossible to get with conventional cameras.

Still, if you get a large format camera and want to try it out, but don't have a lens, keep the pinhole option in mind. You may even find that you like the soft images which pinholes provide you at next to no cost!

Large Format Cameras

However, there are a lot of older low cost large format cameras on the marketplace. In the monorail camera designs, you will find a number of budget used 4x5" style cameras such as the Calumet C-400 series (and related Cambo and Kodak models). Typical prices on Ebay can be as low as $125-150 for a camera without lens, and perhaps $200 and up for the camera plus budget lens. Similarly, there are a number of 4x5" press cameras such as the Speed Graphics and Graflex models which can be purchased for modest cost as well. One of the nice features of the Speed Graphic/Graflex cameras is the presence of a focal plane shutter (see below).

Consider that for $150-250, you are getting a used camera capable of doing pro quality work in the studio or field. To my mind, these budget 4x5" cameras are considerable bargains.

Focal Plane Shutters

Barrel lenses are lenses without leaf shutters, typically mounted in a brass barrel. Many barrel lenses are older, uncoated optics with modest optical performance, often available at surprisingly low cost. Using barrel lenses on a conventional monorail camera generally requires that you custom mount them in a leaf shutter of the right diameter. However, with a focal plane shutter in your field or press camera body, you can use the camera's shutter, simplifying the mounting of the lens and greatly reducing the cost.

Using Smaller Format Optics (35mm, 8/16mm..) on Large Format

Suppose you have a large format camera and film holder, but no large format lenses yet (still searching on Ebay). But say you do have an old Pentax M42 screw thread mount 50mm lens. You can mount the light-weight lens in a temporary lens holder (of formica, plastic, or cardboard, even). You can use a drilled out rear lens cap epoxied in the center of a drilled out lens board for a nicer and more permanent setup.

Now use that 35mm SLR lens to project an image of a closeup subject (e.g., stamp). The body of the large format camera acts as a large extension tube. You end up with a hugely enlarged image on your ground glass and film.

You will have a dim image, so plan on using lots of light! But this low light situation in macro has a useful side benefit. You can use the room lighting and extra light to make focusing easy, then cover up the lens (see "hat trick"). Load the film, and now turn off the lights. Uncover the lens, stop down, and use electronic strobes or room lighting to make the exposure.

The trick here is that with macro subjects at large format camera sized extensions, you are often shooting at effective apertures that are very small (like f/64). Your exposure times will often be long enough to time (using your pulse or a lighted LCD watch). If not, you can use a dark room and strobe lighting, possibly using several shots of the strobe, to build up your macro image on film. Close or cover the lens (with a lens cap) and put in the dark slide, then turn on the room lights.

I have recycled glass 8mm and 16mm film movie camera lenses for use as bellows style macro lenses for years (see my Astronomy May 1987 article). You can recycle any such lenses in your collection, now that 8mm and 16mm are so hard to find in this era of digital video recorders. The cost for such lenses can be astonishingly low, often a dollar or two (sometimes with camera attached!). Again, the equivalent f/stop is really slow in macro applications with a large format camera, so use a lot of light, and your "hat trick" in place of a leaf shutter mounting.

Hat Trick - Or Shutterless Operation

In many cases, you can set your large format lens to use slow f/stops like f/45 or even f/64. If the light is too bright, you can also use those neutral density filters collecting dust in your closet to extend exposure times even longer (e.g., 2X, 4X, 8X and so on). So while f/64 may suggest a half second exposure on 100 ISO film in bright daylight, using a 2 stop neutral density filter extends that to 2 seconds. Using a 4 stop ND filter works out to 8 seconds, which is easily and relatively accurately timed with a lens cap (i.e., "hat trick").

Ultra-Low Cost Folder Lenses

Lyndon Fletcher's posting noted:

Most of them are Cellor type 4 element airspaced lenses of around 130-170mm and f7.7, very nice LF lenses if a little slow. They are the best LF lenses you can get for under $50. FYI the Kodak 203mm Anastigmat used on the Speed Graphic is one of these types of lenses. With coatings it became the famous 203mm Ektar. Nothing wrong with a lot of the lenses. The later cameras with the faster f6.3 lenses are mainly triplets except the "Specials" which are B&L; made Tessars.

One of the nicest things about these ultra-budget folder lenses is they have built-in shutters. The range of speeds is a bit limited, sometimes just Bulb or Time and a few shutter speeds (e.g., B, 1/30th, 1/60th, 1/125th, and sometimes 1/250th second). The T or Time setting is very handy when focusing, as you can open up the lens and use T to keep it open. The lens stays open until you hit the shutter lever again to close it. The B or bulb setting is similar, except that you have to hold the lever down to keep the lens open. Or you can use a locking cable clamp (if you want your hands free to focus, and you will). Some of the shutters may be synch'd for flashbulb use, and more rarely for electronic strobe on some of the more recent designs or modified lenses.

Don't expect these older obsolete folder lenses to outperform today's latest kilobuck large format lenses. These older lenses are uncoated. So they have lower contrast and higher flare levels. The lenses were designed to produce postcard sized negatives that could be conveniently contact printed (i.e., without an enlarger). Enlargements beyond 2X to 4X (say, 16x20") will probably be a bit soft, especially in the corners. You won't have a lot of movements and excess coverage. On the other hand, for $10 to $20 and up, you may be surprised by how nice the resulting photos look, especially if you also contact print them!

Older View Camera Lenses

The key to using an uncoated lens is to avoid situations likely to produce bright backlighting or flare inducing lighting and reflections. You should also use a lens hood to reduce flare and improve contrast. Fortunately, we have instructions on homebrewing lens hoods that make it cheap and easy to protect your lenses. The slightly lower contrast can also be offset during development (see Ansel Adams series on The Negative).

Single coated lenses are also often found at a large discount compared to similar later designs which are multicoated. A single coating on a lens element will reduce reflections from circa 30-35% or so for uncoated glass to perhaps 3-5%. Multi-coating further reduces the reflections down to 1% or so (varying with manufacturers and processes). My point here is that a single coated lens is very much improved over an uncoated lens in reducing reflections, but not so much worse than a multicoated lens.

My first "official" view camera lens was a well regarded design (Xenar) and manufacturer (Schneider..). But the lens in shutter was offered at a tremendous discount, for little more than the cost of the drilled lens board it was mounted on. Why? The lens had a minor but noticeable scratch about 3/8ths of an inch long on the edge of the lens. I simply filled the lens scratch with some India ink. Some lens faults may have minor or negligible impact (pun intended) on your photographs, but a major impact on your wallet. Here again, if you are on a micro-budget you can do surprisingly well with a still serviceable lens if you can see the lens' potential under its warts.

Contact Printing

Fortunately, large format images are readily contact printed, using just a dim lightbulb and contact printing frame (or sandwich of wood, paper, negative, and glass clamped together).

Lots of people prefer contact prints to enlargements. After you compare the two, you may see why and agree with us. Contact prints have a quality of image which simply beats any enlarged image (other than a laser scanned or drum scanned one).

Misc. Q&A;

Q. What about those low cost surplus 75mm f/1.9 lenses and shutters used in Oscilloscope cameras?

At first glance, these fast 75mm lenses and shutters look like great candidates for a homebrew very wide angle 6x12cm rollfilm panoramic camera or a 4x5" ultrawide camera design. Sorry to say, but these 75mm (3") lenses are optimized to image a 5" diameter CRT screen onto polaroid film. The coverage at infinity is barely sufficient for a medium format (6x4.5cm) image. This lens only covers the #665 polaroid size (about 3x4") as the lens is extended for closeups, doubling its effective coverage at infinity. The Ilex #3 shutter usually used has neither flash contacts nor is it usually threaded for mounting on a lens board. The 75mm f/1.9 lens looks attractive as a speed lens in medium format. But it is optimized for closeup work at macro distances and performs poorly at other distances due to aberrations of the lens (see related postings below).

Q. What about those low cost WWII surplus 75mm biogon lenses available cheaply at surplus shops?

Why haven't ultrawide camera fans snatched up these 75mm biogon design lenses in the 50+ years since World War II, given the dirt cheap prices ($100-ish+)? The answer is they are hard to put to use. Many of these surplus lenses are reportedly of mediocre optical quality. The story goes that these lenses cost the U.S. Government thousands of dollars to produce for WWII use. But many of the lenses were assembled from excess parts after the end of the war, when quality control was rather lax. So quality and performance can be variable, and often mediocre or just plain bad.

The even bigger problem is getting a shutter fit to these lenses, which have huge elements and too small dimensions for mounting a shutter internally. Few focal plane 4x5" or even 6x9cm press cameras seem to work well with the limited lens to film distance (~2+") and large lens size, making mounting and use problematic. The usual solution of a packard shutter in front of the lens runs into problems with the ultrawide angle coverage of the lens.

Do you already have one of these lenses? Do you want to try it out with minimal effort and expense for landscape projects? Use the old photographer's "hat trick" in place of a shutter (see above). Consider mounting a 4x5" film holder at the back of a pinhole style box camera. Mount the big lens at the front in place of the pinhole. Put a sheet of neutral density gel filter at the rear of the lens (using silicon putty, see tips). Stop down for maximum DOF (use drilled waterhouse stops if needed). Using a loupe and a piece of ground glass, adjust the lens position to bring subjects at infinity into focus at the film holder position. Use a hat or other covering to cover the lens. Remove the dark slide on the film holder, remove the hat, count off the exposure time (in seconds), and replace the hat and dark slide and develop your film.

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001
From: "Mr. Wratten" mr_wratten@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: POLAROID Camera

"felix jimenez" flashbracket@aol.com wrote

> So, does anyone else still play with these things?

Yup.

> Well, I thought I'd share this with y'all.
> I don't know what format Polaroid is, if any.

Robert Monaghan calls the medium format:

http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/polaroid.html

> I'm sure there are lots of us in this group who deal with the Polaroid stuff
> in some manner or other.

I have a couple of Polaroid 100's a couple of 250's, and a Colorpack (non-folding). Lots of fun. They all had the same problem when I got them: the dreaded "dark exposure" issue. The exposure adjustment on these seems to drift over time, tending towards the dark. One of mine is so dark that it is unusable. On one of the cameras, I opened up the front and turned the pot adjustment screws until I got a good exposure. Ended up wrinkling the top trim plate, but it works. I've found it's just as effective to tape something dark over the electric eye, and much easier.

Try the 665 positive/negative film. The metal-bodied cameras heve decent triplet lenses in them, and the 73x95mm negative images are nice, too. I also want to try some of the new-ish sepia pack film (606 Sepia). At 200 speed, you may have to fiddle with the exposure settings. The better pack-film cameras have settings for 150 and 300 speed, both within the exposure adjustment range of 200 (-1 and +2 stops).

For B&W;, you may want the #516 cloud filter, an orange filter that clips over both the lens and the electric eye. Works well.

BTW, I just pulled my Polaroid 35mm instant slide system out of the closet and shot a roll. I don't know why more people don't use that system. It's a lot of fun.

Jim

Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001
From: torx@nwrain.com (R. Peters)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: "Baby" Graphics sale flat?

Over the years I have bought into cameras that I thought were undervalued. I think the 2x3 Graphics are one of those cameras. They are not a perfect camera for every application, but will do most of what a Linhof will do and for a fraction of the price. Put a modern lens on one, and for anyone who wants into medium format on a budget, this is one of the best deals going.

Ordinarily, I'd say look for the prices to go up when they are discovered.... But the unknown in the formula is digital.

bob

Date: Sun, 27 May 2001
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Which used budget lens for b&w; macro?

spamfree@nospam.com (Pete Musaracchia) wrote:

>I have the opportunity to get a Calumet CC401 in very good condition,
>with hood and case, from a friend for only $200.
>
>I have only a little experience with lf in the past, having used a baby
>crown graphic (with a 127mm lens, if I remember correctly) for several
>months in the eighties.
>
>I am satisfied going on location with my current 35mm slr and mf tlr
>equipment. So, I am only thinking about getting the Calumet for
>experimenting with indoor b&w tabletop work, and flower photography up
>to 1:2 (or even 1:1 if there's enough bellows draw). I was especially
>intrigued by being able to take photos similar to those by Ron Van
>Dongen in the latest issue of VIEW CAMERA.
>
>For b&w only, what are good budget macro lenses I should consider, and
>what price ranges are we talking about?

Enlarging lenses work very well for macro work and can be turned around backward for micro work. You will have to arrange for a shutter but ofthe the whole lens can be mounted on the front of a shutter, even makshift temporary mounting works. Since the lens remains in its original barrel there is no concern with element spacing or with the iris, the iris in the shutter is simply not used. The focal length of the lens depends on the size of the object. Remember than when you work close to the object the coverage of the lens is larger than at infinity focus. At 1:1 the image circle has twice the diameter as at infinity.

Enarger lenses are optimised for flat field and for magnifications on the order of 10x (for 35mm lenses) to maybe 2 to 4X for LF enlarging lenses. For modern lenses the manufacturer publishes the optimum range. The correction doesn't fall apart suddenly so a lens can be used quite far from its optimum with, usualy, little difference in performance, especially of stopped down a little.

It would be tempting to recommend some of the very fine process lenses on the market used but they mostly have focal lengths much too long for your application.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

Date: Sun, 27 May 2001
From: "Brian Downey" brian.downey@stratcomm.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Which used budget lens for b&w; macro?

Bausch and Lomb made a set of four macro lenses (16mm-72mm) that appear on eBay for less than $100 each. They are barrel lenses, but very small ones. I've used them with a simple step down ring (under $20) - screw them into any shutter you currently have in place of its lens elements. Use the macro lenses own aperture and the shutter for exposure time. Not as good as a luminar but a lot faster than a 203 Ektar (f/4.5 vs. f/7.7) and sharper than most enlarging lenses.

If you can't find any on eBay or need them right away, contact me off-line and I can suggest some sources for them.

"Pete Musaracchia" spamfree@nospam.com wrote

> For b&w only, what are good budget macro lenses I should consider, and
> what price ranges are we talking about?

Date: 27 May 2001
From: 76266.333@compuserve.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Which used budget lens for b&w; macro?

spamfree@nospam.com (Pete Musaracchia) wrote

> I have the opportunity to get a Calumet CC401 in very good condition,
> with hood and case, from a friend for only $200.
>
> I have only a little experience with lf in the past, having used a baby
> crown graphic (with a 127mm lens, if I remember correctly) for several
> months in the eighties.
>
> I am satisfied going on location with my current 35mm slr and mf tlr
> equipment. So, I am only thinking about getting the Calumet for
> experimenting with indoor b&w tabletop work, and flower photography up
> to 1:2 (or even 1:1 if there's enough bellows draw). I was especially
> intrigued by being able to take photos similar to those by Ron Van
> Dongen in the latest issue of VIEW CAMERA.
>
> For b&w only, what are good budget macro lenses I should consider, and
> what price ranges are we talking about?

For the range of magnifications you're talking about with your camera, you might consider using the 135/4.5 Tominon sold for use on Polaroid MP-4 (and -4 Plus and -5) copy cameras. These are barrel lenses, with diaphragm, and are threaded to screw into Copal #1 shutters. By an odd coincidence, there is a version of the Copal #1 press shutter for the MP-4 that has no diaphragm but does have an 'open shutter' lever, also a socket for a cable release that will open the shutter.

The things show up from time to time on eBay. If you don't want to hazard eBay or wait, KEH (www.keh.com, look under polaroid, other mfrs lenses) usually has a couple on MP-4 shutter.

Failing that, look for a nice 150/9 wide field copy lens, e.g., the Konica Hexanon GRII, in barrel. I once got one of them for $20 at a camera flea market. If you do that, you'll have to get a shutter, and possibly have the lens machined to screw in. Think Ilex or Alphax #3, and don't forget flash sync if you have close up flash, as opposed to close up available darkness, in mind.

If you don't want to screw around and have the money, look for the 120/5.6 Micro Nikkor or the Schneider equivalent. They cost, depending on shopping luck on cheap and expensive, from 6 to >20 (I got a 135 Tominon on shutter for DM72, including postage, a while ago) times as much as the cheap lens. The cheap lens works, but not as well, as the expensive ones.

Cheers,

Dan

From Camera Fixing Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
To: camera-fix@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Lens boards

You can buy metal Graphic lens boards from Bromwell Marketing in Pittsburgh.

You can find his price list online at:

http://members.aol.com/bmopl/

His web site is www.bromwell.com but seems to be down this morning since I couldn't access it.

Ted Bromwell is a very nice guy and an honest businessman.

Bob

Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001
From: Wayne wsteffen@skypoint.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What is the cheapest way to get a lens?

David wrote:

> There are a lot of larger format sellers in the US but here in Australia
> it is mainly professional sales an thus high prices. (our dollar is also
> only worth 50c US) What is the cheapest way to get a lens and shutter
> for a 4x5 camera.
>
> David Bowral
> AUSTRALIA

Check around for photo labs, print shops and newspapers that have process lenses laying around that they arent using anymore. Be nice and give them 20-30 dollars each. They'll be glad to get rid of them and you'll be glad to oblige (I had someone insist that I take a Goerz Trigor for free, but I insisted on giving him a few dollars). They will be in barrel so you will have to get a shutter some other way. Old but functional Ilex's, Betax's and Alpax's can be bought on ebay for not too much.

Wayne

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001
From: "Don Wallace" don.wallace@nlc-bnc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What is the cheapest way to get a lens?

David:

I don't think that there are any cheap ways to get a decent lens in a working shutter. You get what you pay for. As for garage sales, that may be possible if you live around Los Angeles or New York City but most of us don't. I live in Ottawa, Canada, and have not seen even one large format camera in 30 years of garage sales.

The cheapest way to get into large format is with a 4x5 press camera and these often come with decent lenses. Since they are usually press lenses, they won't have a lot of coverage but you can at least get started. I got into LF with a Crown Graphic that had a 162mm Wollensak. Not a great lens and the camera had very limited movements but it worked just fine and at least it got me shooting. I still use it for some things because it is SO portable.

Don Wallace

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001
From: Collin Brendemuehl dpcwilbur@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Wollensak Raptar opinions

For a first lens, they're adequate.

You'll see a good amount of fall-off in the corners, and with many wide-angles. Also, becuase of their vintage, while resolution is good, contrast is not what one will get with a newer multi-coated lens. I likee 60s Schneider Symmars. Good resolution and single-coated for decent contrast. Prices are reasonable as well.

jmho,

Collin

no@spam.com wrote:

> Folks,
> I'm on a budget and looking for a 90mm lens. I noticed a couple of
> Wollensak 90mm lenses selling for very attractive prices. Are these  worth
> considering?
>
> Thanks,
> -G

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001
From: trent lane trent_lane@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Wollensak Raptar opinions

I used one for a few years (in my mis-spent youth,lol) and it was okay for b&w; work, with no movements.......low contrast, bad color bias (very green) and not that sharp.........OTOH, $100 is a lot less money than $500.......the diaphram gave out on mine after 40 years or so on mine.........

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001
From: "GK" eok.3@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Speed Graphic entry into LF?

Hi,

Are you intending on shooting predominately outside? If you are going to do inside stuff, I'd say start with a monorail system. The older Calumets are bulletproof, and can be had for a meager price, usually with a decent lens. If you are just moving into LF, it's good to get a camera that has all of the movements inherent to the medium.

I'd venture a guess that many try and give up quickly with LF, since it is a whole lot more work than just pointing at a subject and clicking away.

If I had a dollar for every sheet of film I've wasted learning!!!!

The Graphics' are nice (I just got an older Busch Pressman D), but they don't really give you the full "view camera" experience, unless you are already versed in potential movements and can modify the outfit to incorporate swings. They are great for getting used to working in the darkroom with 4X5 film, and generally don't lose much value

Look at the Pressman. It has a drop bed function, rotating back (so does the Super Speed), and is built like a Sherman tank. It is rather light too. That's why I got it. I can't lug my monorail out in the field, but the Busch packs small and light. I'm not rich enough for the newer field cameras, but if you are, you might look at them as well.

Good luck. It's an awesome experience when you turn on the lights and see that first "massive" negative.

"Eam 77 ck" eam77ck@aol.com wrote

> Hello,
> I want to move up to LF from MF and am considering buying a Speed  Graphic or
> Super Speed Graphic.  I called the camera repair shop I use for my hasselbalds
> and mamiyas and was told that they could do work on the shutter but  could not
> get parts for any other part of the camera. That is, they are just not
> available.
> Considering this point is Graflex Speed graphics or Super Speed graphics  a safe
> entry point into LF or should I try to get an outfit that has parts that are
> more widely available?  One more question if you's wouldn'r mind please. Can
> one mount filters on these lenses?
> Thanks
> Ed M

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001
From: "Don Wallace" don.wallace@nlc-bnc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Speed Graphic entry into LF?

The main reason for getting a Speed Graphic as an entry point to LF is that they are not very expensive. If expense is the main factor in your case, that is a good route to go but the Crown is a better choice (same camera, no focal plane shutter, lighter, less to fix). However, as another poster said, it is not the full view camera experience.

The Super Speed is quite a different camera. While the Speed and Crown have almost no movements, the Super Speed has front tilt (forward and backward) front rise, drop bed, front shift and a lot of front swing. It has no back movements but the back is fully rotatable. However, they usually are not very cheap and you may be able to get a decent used Calumet for the same price, with full movements. I use a Super Speed when I want portability because I can't afford one of those really spiffy field cameras. The Super Speed is built like a tank and is still fairly light and compact.

If you can afford a decent second-hand view camera (and you don't need the portability of a field camera), then skip the Graphics altogether. BTW, this is not a criticism of the Graphics. I have both a Crown and a Super Speed and love 'em.

Don Wallace

Date: 27 Jul 2001
From: slberfuchs@aol.com (Ted Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Speed Graphic entry into LF?

Christine,

You said you watned to hike so that more or less rules out the heavier, bulkier monorails. Keeping in mind that $$ are a severely limiting factor you should consider the following:

1) Gowland Pocket View. Fully functional with most movements and very light weight although fussy to setup and not as rigid as some. None the less the price is absolutely right! They are generally in the 300-500 range uesd and there is one on eBay right now for $395.

2) Tachihara/Osaka/etc......these cameras have had lots of brand names and will generally turn up used in good condition in the 350-450 range. A field camera that has more limited movements than the Gowland but may be easier to use.

3) you might also consider a new Toyo CX and/or a used Omega D. Full movements, reasonably lightweight monorails that are still bulky but won't break yoru back. The CX can be had for around 550 new and the D will run from 200 up used.

Good luck
Ted Harris

Date: 27 Jul 2001
From: Ilja Friedel ilja@sue.caltech.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Speed Graphic entry into LF?

christine christine@napc.com wrote:

> Perhaps someone could recommend to me a 4x5 that would be a step up
> from the Speed Graphic?

Maybe you want to consider a Shen Hao HZX45-IIA? I received mine two days ago. It has a lot of movements. The plain camera delivered to your door will probably cost around USD 650. (Including shipping and duty.)

You will find more information on:

http://www.shen-hao.com/
http://www.ai.sri.com/~luong/photography/lf/cameras/shenhao/shenhao.html
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Large%20format%20photography

I can't review the camera yet. But it is very beautiful. :) If you need technical information or information on the ordering process (this can be a bit stressful), contact me.

Ilja.

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001
From: "Don Wallace" don.wallace@nlc-bnc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Speed Graphic entry into LF?

Christine:

Take another look at my previous post. The Super Graphic has:

- front rise
- drop bed
- front tilt, forward and backward
- front shift
- LOADS of front swing
- fully rotatable back

I have heard that the Toyo field camera was actually based on the Super Graphic. The main difference is that the Super has no back movements. It is a great camera and very portable - it folds up like a Hello Kitty lunchpail. I have 6x9 and 6x7 roll film backs (making it a MF camera with movements). If you have the right cam, you can also use it as a snapshot camera. Some of the dealers are asking pretty outrageous prices but they can be had for a lot less if you take a look around.

Don

Date: 1 Aug 2001
From: mlanger@ccs.carleton.ca (Mark Langer)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What is the cheapest way to get a lens?

David (davo@mitmania.net.au) wrote:

> There are a lot of larger format sellers in the US but here in Australia
> it is mainly professional sales an thus high prices. (our dollar is also
> only worth 50c US) What is the cheapest way to get a lens and shutter
> for a 4x5 camera.

> David Bowral
> AUSTRALIA

Try using a lens cannibalized from a discarded xerox machine. Very fast, and high quality optics. There would be no shutter, of course, but you could mount it in one without too much trouble, and shutters can be cheap on eBay.

Mark

Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001
From: "Collin B." dpcwilbur@excite.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: need LF lens recommendations please!

I know how you feel.

I have 2 lenses -- both purchased with the same theme as you.

Schneider Symmar 135/5.6 < $150

Ilex Caltar 210/4.8 < $150

On a Busch, the Ilex was fun to build a lens board for. :) Got the Ilex 2 days ago and am now rinsing my first neg from it. Looks good.

In general, I'd recommend any of the single-coated lenses from the 60s. They're optically very nice and relatively inexpensive.

Collin

...

Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001
From: "william mitchell" bmitch10@home.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: need LF lens recommendations please!

No question about it. For a single lens used to do all that stuff, get a used Kodak Ektar 203mm f:7.7 in Supermatic shutter. Be sure to get a coated one. One of the sharpest lenses ever made, fully as good on 4x5 as the latest Schneider or Rodenstock (except for the multicoating). Lots of 'em on eBay. or Midwest Photo, or KEH, etc. Eventually, you will want a shorter lens to go with it, but for a first lens it's near perfect.

Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001
From: "william mitchell" bmitch10@home.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format

I was tempted to make a smart ass answer to the question, ("steal it"). The best way to get an inexpensive lens/shutter is to settle for an older but still servicable outfit. Uncoated but clear pre war lenses are often capable of giving fine performance. Ilex shutters were built like cheap alarm clocks, and have limited range of shutter speeds, but last forever with a little cleaning. Many of Edward Weston's greatest pictures were made with a $5 lens of a type which was long "out of date," bought in a pawn shop, while his expensive lenses caused problems.

Date: 26 Jul 2001
From: antonelron@hotmail.com (Anton Elron)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Building a rollfilm Frankenstein

The old Polaroids focused by a handwheel on the side panel.Either this whole assembly could be put on the new camera or the front standard drilled and tapped for two folding members. I don't care whether it folds or not actually.

The Graphic-or any other press camera-is just a really awkward handheld camera with a roll back attached.Sheet film can be used but the Polaroid lens will not cover 4 x 5.

Removing the shutter and mounting on a MF SLR is possible with some sort of focussing mount, or a little homemade copy stand affair. Hmmm.

[Ed. note: see diopter pages for formula on changing lens focal lengths using diopter lenses...]

Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001
From: rankbeginner@pppweb-solutions.net (Ryan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: need LF lens recommendations please!

The purists here are probably going to crucify me for even mentioning this but here goes.

As you are on a tight budget and want to do landscapes look for something in the 210mm range. The Kodak 203mm or similar. That will give you a good lens for portrait and soem landscape work.

Now here is the budget saver. Screw in one of those close up lens available for closeup work. The +1 works well and vioilla but adjusting the focus backward, you now have a wide angle lens. Now the image quality is certainly not going to be stellar, but it does work. I have tried this trick a few times and it works OK on my 150mm Sironar and 210mm fujinon.

Some closeup lenses are better than others and my Hoya +1 isthe best, I also have a Kenro +1 bit that gives me barrel distortion.

OK, I guess I went for it so bring it on.

R.

....

[Ed. note: see fisheye and ultrawide adapters pages...]
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001
From: "william mitchell" bmitch10@home.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: need LF lens recommendations please!

Better yet, duct tape on one of the wide angle attachments for camcorders.

Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001
From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What is the cheapest way to get a lens?

David wrote:

> There are a lot of larger format sellers in the US but here in Australia
> it is mainly professional sales an thus high prices. (our dollar is also
> only worth 50c US) What is the cheapest way to get a lens and shutter
> for a 4x5 camera.

Look at older (c. 1920-1930) folding roll film cameras. The largest roll film was close to 4x5 in size. Take the lens and chuck the camera (sell it on ebay, same thing). The lens usually comes in a ball bearing shutter with 25/100/200 speeds. Some lenses came in compurs, though.

There is a Russian plate camera available for $20-50 with a 13.5 cm, f 4.5 tessar formula lens.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001
From: wings@dakotacom.net (Gene A. Townsend)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Modifying a 35mm lens

David davo@mitmania.net.au wrote:

>I have some old lenses around - I there any way they can be modified for
>large fomat work-  I dont mind if they are ruined for 35mm ork if they
>can be used.

It should be possible to find a color corrrected negative acromat that could be used as a "barlow lens", sometimes called a tele-extender that could convert 35 mm lenses to cover 4 by 5 using a 4x magnifier design. Many years ago there was a gadget called the "speed magney" that let you shoot 4 by 5 with Nikon 35 mm lenses similarly.

Naturally, this would involve some image quality sacrifice, but it would be a fun and useful project. Offhand, I don't know the specs for such a lens design, but I know that the tele-extender for 35 mm work will also vignette the image, so will not work for this. However, optically it is possible to do this sort of thing.

With the lens stopped down to F8 or F11, I'll bet that usable images could result, and this would be fun to have a 100 to 400 mm zoom effective on a 4 by 5 no?

Regards,

Gene A. Townsend

From: Donn Cave <donn@drizzle.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Is there a "best" crown graphic for starting LF
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 

Quoth "Don Wallace" <don.wallace@nlc-bnc.ca>:

| The Super is indeed a great camera but these days, as the expresssion goes,
| they are not "priced to move". If you look around, you can sometimes find one
| for under $300 without lens.

Would take some looking, too. I have one, paid more than that with
the usual worthless lens. I think you're being kind to call it a
great camera. It's good for what it's good for, very sturdy case
and a little more versatile than the other Graphics. But it doesn't have complete movements (no front fall or rear rise, and drop bed
really isn't an adequate substitute), and it isn't always the biggest
thrill to use (front standard partially interferes with focus knobs
when it gets right next to them, for example.) I'm not trying to
rain on anyone's parade, if you have one and love it, then that's
excellent, but today they cost enough to be good values only when
really suited to what you personally want to do.

Donn 

From: antonelron@hotmail.com (Anton Elron)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: First LF for my son
Date: 18 Aug 2001 

The lens off a Polaroid will _almost_ cover 4x5 and the old rollfilm
Polaroids are $5 items at a garage sale. If you are electronically
adept you could tear up a pack film electronic Polaroid pack camera
and convert the electronic shutter mechanism to work by a fixed RC
time constant or build a digital timer to "cut off the pee-pee" (I
mean, current, sorry,watched Pryor last night)so many mS after the
shutter trips.

The pack Polaroids are still usable as Polaroids as they still make
film, in fact, the peelapart kind is the only kind I ever was able to
make work properly.(The Kodak self contained print worked a bunch
better. I hope Polaroid suffers for cutting it off...)but often the solenoid opens and the camera shutter does not open at all. They throw
the whole camera out then.Or the bellows breaks...but Anton no talk
about that.

The 110, 120, 180, 190 and 195 are not subject to the above.They have good lenses
with shutters and diaphragms (diaphragms also break...Norman Reedus,
your ass is grass)and New York pros buy them and use them hard and go
through them so keeping the market up. My advice if you have a clean
one, hide it because they will bring stupid money the _next_
viagra-fueled stock boom.

So forget that pinhole poo-poo and get him a good lens. Edwin Land in
heaven will thank you.

From: "Keith Olivier" <keith.olivier@t-online.de>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What is the cheapest way to get a lens?
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001

Hi David

I guess the question you need to answer is how much you would expect to use
the actual camera ? If you are likely to use it often, the cost of film &
other materials will add up rapidly (I guess your selection of 4x5 film will
be very restricted & expensive ?). So a cheap lens is a NoNo from that
point of view.

On the other hand, what is driving you to 4x5 if you can't pay for the
optics ? You may be better off with Medium format, try getting a Fuji
GSW690 and the GW670 as used cameras. They are complete, use roll film
which I am sure you can get (& much cheaper at that) & still offer a big
image. A good quality scan from a 6x7 or 6x9 neg/slide is still worlds
apart from the little 35mm frame. You should be able to find either of the
2 Fuji cameras used for around $600-900 and you won't be left with a heap of
additional gear which you need to buy. Besides which either camera can be
used hand held for fast shooting with flash synch at all speeds due to leaf
shutters. 

If you can't afford that either, then there are the used Roliflex TLR's, or
Mamiya C33, C220 and others, which have interchangeable lenses. I have a
C33 with 105 & 180mm lenses that I no longer use since I have the Linhof
"Baby" Technika 6x7. From a weight perspective, the Roliflex TLR's are
amazing, but limited due to the fixed lenses. As always, using a TLR at
close range is problematic, and you have no movements.

For buying used LF lenses, I don't think I can help, but for New lenses,
either Robert White www.robertwhite.co.uk or Linhof in Germany are the best
Linhof-System@t-online.de . For a change, these 2 sources offer products
somewhat cheaper than the US cost, wish it was the case more often...
Unfortunately, Linhof have the daft notion not to publish their excelent
catalog online on their web page, so if you want to look at the now 1 year
out of date copy that I published on my SA hompage, look here:
http://home.yebo.co.za/~10137917/Linhof%20Pricelist.htm . I recieved a new
pricelist a few weeks ago, but alas, it is only valid until next month, so I
will wait with updating the pricelist until I visit the Linhof factory in Mnnchen in November. As a rough guideline, here are some sample prices
valid until End August 2001:

Please note that these are Linhof factory prices, excluding lens boards.
Super Angulon XL 47 5.6 Copal 0 2309 DM
Super Angulon XL 58 5.6 Copal 0 1906 DM
Super Symmar XL 80 5.6 Copal 0 2554 DM
Super Symmar XL 110 5.6 Copal 1 2521 DM
Apo Symmar 180 5.6 Copal 1 1468 DM
Apo Symmar 210 5.6 Copal 1 1677 DM
Once you go over 210mm most lenses have #3 shutters which substantially
increase sise, cost & weight. (there are some exceptions, Nikon M etc)

I personally have a preference to shooting close up, macro range subjects,
for which none of my present equipment is really suited. Due to depth of
field issues, short lenses & movements are really neccersary, which is why I
am presently considering the M679, since I think it fits the bill better than other 4x5 monorails. I don't think I will be moving up to larger
formats anytime soon, although if money was no object I could have a lot of
fun with an 8x10 monorail & make contact prints.... Unfortunately as you
may know, the lenses for 8x10 don't really have much application to smaller
formats (practically I mean) due to the huge shutters & weight.

Good luck !

Keith Olivier
St Martin, Germany

From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: First view camera Suggestions
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 

Ian Dodd wrote:
> 
> Kerry,
> 
> Shame on you for not more explicitly promoting your own informational website.  I
> think it is one of the best resources around and refer to it often!  As you so
> eloquently pointed out, no one camera is best for everybody.  But I think all LF
> photographers would agree the key to image quality is in the glass.  To get educated
> about LF optics I would point the original poster (Jesse Kramer) to your site.

Ian,

Thanks for the kind words.  I'm glad you have found my site useful (link
in .sig below).  As with everything else on my site, my lens
recommendations are specific to my personal wants and needs.  With that
in mind, Jesse might want to take a look at my Future Classics section
at:

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm

for my general purpose "best" lenses list.

He might also want to check out my lighweight lens recommendation
section at:

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/lightwei.htm

Although he says weight is not a big concern, all else being equal, why
carry bigger, heavier, more expensive lenses than necessary?

There, that's my self-promotion for the day.

Kerry
-- 
Kerry L. Thalmann - Large Format Images of Nature
http://www.thalmann.com/

Kerry's Large Format Homepage
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/


From: "Earl Fieldman" ef@ucf.not.no>
Subject: Why not the best of lenses?
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format

The other day I left my reading glasses on my
chair, and damned if I didn't sit on them.  One
of the lenses fell out.  It laid around a while, but one
day I picked it up and lazily subjected it to my "port
wine test", that being, hold it up and see how high
it is to focus the ceiling light on my pantleg.

Damned if it didn't focus.  Sort of high up, but
I confirmed it, focusing the ceiling light onto the floor.

I taped the fallen reading glass lens onto a lens board,
Copal 0 size was the max.  Stuck it onto an 8x10, and
checked out the ground glass.  Damn.  There's an image,
lookin pretty good all the way to the corners.

Some quick tests with paper yielded the conclusion that
I had about a 400mm f20 lens, with good 8x10 coverage.
(two for $14.99, without shutter).  Now for a piece
of TMX.

Now I had hopes that what I would see from the results
was a pleasant softness.  At least an interesting distortion.
After all, a single piece lens has been inferior since before
1850.  No correction of any kind, you know.

The really disappointing part is that a contact 8x10 print
is sharp as can be imagined.  I don't have any doubts
that when enlarged the difference between a 2-fer-$15
lens and a $1000 multi-coated modern lens would be
readily observable.  Probably if I just photographed
something which would demonstrate conciseness it
would be readily observable.  What I'm saying is that
a portrait style contact print shows no degradation at
all.  Truly disappointing.  Might as well have used
my 14in Commercial Ektar, not at all what I had hoped
for.

Earl F.
Silicon Valley



From: rankbeginner@pppweb-solutions.net (Ryan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Why not the best of lenses?
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 

Last Night I was browsing through an old book called the Dictionary of
Photography, published by The Fountain Press sometime between 1939 and
1945 (little sign stating printed to War Economy Standard).

Found an reference to Spectacle Lens: and here is an extract

Such a lens can be used for landscape and portrait work on fairly
large plates and gives a certain amount of diffusion that is often
pleasant.

To obtain even definition over the field the focal length must be long
in relation to the negative. A spectacle lens that is double the
diagonal of the negative is desired.

In the case of a plano-convex or meniscus lens the image will have
good central sharpness if the convex side faces the subject. Less
central sharpness but eveness of definition will result if the convex
side faces the plate.

Think I will shoot a few spectacle shots this coming weekend.

Now does anyone know how to convert a simple lens prescription like
+1.5 to focal length?


R.

"Earl Fieldman" ef@ucf.not.no> wrote:

>The other day I left my reading glasses on my
>chair, and damned if I didn't sit on them.  One
>of the lenses fell out.  It laid around a while, but one
>day I picked it up and lazily subjected it to my "port
>wine test", that being, hold it up and see how high
>it is to focus the ceiling light on my pantleg.
>
>Damned if it didn't focus.  Sort of high up, but
>I confirmed it, focusing the ceiling light onto the floor.
>
>I taped the fallen reading glass lens onto a lens board,
>Copal 0 size was the max.  Stuck it onto an 8x10, and
>checked out the ground glass.  Damn.  There's an image,
>lookin pretty good all the way to the corners.
>
>Some quick tests with paper yielded the conclusion that
>I had about a 400mm f20 lens, with good 8x10 coverage.
>(two for $14.99, without shutter).  Now for a piece
>of TMX.
>
>Now I had hopes that what I would see from the results
>was a pleasant softness.  At least an interesting distortion.
>After all, a single piece lens has been inferior since before
>1850.  No correction of any kind, you know.
>
>The really disappointing part is that a contact 8x10 print
>is sharp as can be imagined.  I don't have any doubts
>that when enlarged the difference between a 2-fer-$15
>lens and a $1000 multi-coated modern lens would be
>readily observable.  Probably if I just photographed
>something which would demonstrate conciseness it
>would be readily observable.  What I'm saying is that
>a portrait style contact print shows no degradation at
>all.  Truly disappointing.  Might as well have used
>my 14in Commercial Ektar, not at all what I had hoped
>for.
>
>Earl F.
>Silicon Valley


From: koolish koolish@bbn.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Why not the best of lenses?
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 

You can get simple lenses from Edmund Scientific, either plano convex or
meniscus.

After that, you can try pinhole photography and fresnel zone plates for
interesting
effects.


Earl Fieldman wrote:

> The other day I left my reading glasses on my
> chair, and damned if I didn't sit on them.  One
> of the lenses fell out.  It laid around a while, but one
> day I picked it up and lazily subjected it to my "port
> wine test", that being, hold it up and see how high
> it is to focus the ceiling light on my pantleg.
>
> Damned if it didn't focus.  Sort of high up, but
> I confirmed it, focusing the ceiling light onto the floor.
>
> I taped the fallen reading glass lens onto a lens board,
> Copal 0 size was the max.  Stuck it onto an 8x10, and
> checked out the ground glass.  Damn.  There's an image,
> lookin pretty good all the way to the corners.
>
> Some quick tests with paper yielded the conclusion that
> I had about a 400mm f20 lens, with good 8x10 coverage.
> (two for $14.99, without shutter).  Now for a piece
> of TMX.
>
> Now I had hopes that what I would see from the results
> was a pleasant softness.  At least an interesting distortion.
> After all, a single piece lens has been inferior since before
> 1850.  No correction of any kind, you know.
>
> The really disappointing part is that a contact 8x10 print
> is sharp as can be imagined.  I don't have any doubts
> that when enlarged the difference between a 2-fer-$15
> lens and a $1000 multi-coated modern lens would be
> readily observable.  Probably if I just photographed
> something which would demonstrate conciseness it
> would be readily observable.  What I'm saying is that
> a portrait style contact print shows no degradation at
> all.  Truly disappointing.  Might as well have used
> my 14in Commercial Ektar, not at all what I had hoped
> for.
>
> Earl F.
> Silicon Valley



From: slberfuchs@aol.com (Ted Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 09 Jan 2002 
Subject: Re: Polaroid backs, which ones and why?

There are two current pack backs that fit 4x5 cameras.  They are:

T550 which takes the same size film as the the T545 but the film is in a 10
sheet pack.  The back is rather thick and will not work with all cameras.  BTW
these packs are more expensive than single sheets in the same size.

T405 which take all the 66x film packs adn the Fuji Instant packs.  3.25 c 4.25
if memory serves.  This back is a bit shallower than the T550.  The film is
also less expensive (about half the cost of the larger).
Ted Harris
Resource Strategy
Henniker, New Hampshire


From: b.w.nilsson@telia.com (Bj"rn Nilsson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Polaroid backs, which ones and why?
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 

Hi!

The 405 back takes films in the 660 and 670 series.
An interesting film is the black and white 665, which gives you both a
negative and a positive. Just be aware that the negative is
underexposed by about 1 stop if the positive is correct. But if you go
for the negative, exposing the film at about ISO 30, you will find
that the negative is extremly sharp and almost lacks grain. (A
ten-pack costs $11 at Calumet, which is roughly the same cost-range as
the other films. Positive only B&W; costs slightly less.)

Bj"rn

"Joe Lacy" jmlacy1@attbi.com> wrote:

>Thanks for everyone who posted. Yet another one of my LF mysteries solved. I
>think I'll try the 405 first as there is little risk of damaging the back,
>film seems less costly and it should slide under my GG and my reflex viewer
>like the c2. It also seems to do the job and not as expensive as some of the
>others. Seems like the best bet for me right now as I am so new to all of
>this.
>
>Now I need to find out what film this back takes.
>
>Thanks, Again,
>Joe
>
>"Stephe" ms_stephe@excite.com> wrote...
>> Ralph Barker wrote:
>>
>> > Ted,
>> > The one I did see, however,
>> > suggests that this back would be used on a back that replaces the ground
>> > glass, rather than being inserted under it like the Polaroid 545i
>> > holder.
>>
>>
>> Thanx for posting this! I too have never gotten very sharp results with my
>> polaroid pack back (an old odd brand one) but assumed this was just how
>> they are. The person who sold me the camera (super graphic) and this back
>> told me it was made for a graflok back and showed me how to remove the GG
>> and install it. He sugested just using it for exposure testing.
>>
>> After reading this I took a look and yes it will fit under the GG just
>like
>> a film holder, took a test shot with it under the GG and with it installed
>> in place of the GG and low and behold, I've been using it wrong for years!
>> DOH! All I ever used it for was exposure testing but now I can actually
>use
>> it to check critical focus as well!
>>
>> Again thanx for posting this, I would have never thought to try this or
>> believed that the person who showed me how to use this was wrong...
>>
>> --
>>
>>   Stephe


From: Whalen whalen1@mindspring.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: LF Group Websites 
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 

Gary Whalen at         http://www.garydwhalen.com
Eric P. Volpe        at  http://www.limpoc.com/gallery
Roy Harrington at         http://www.harrington.com/
Kerry Thalmann at         http://www.thalmann.com
Lloyd Erlick at          http://www.heylloyd.com/
Lee Carmichael at
http://www.f32.net/Services/Photographers/LeeCarmichael.html
Dale Strouse at         http://www.dalestrousephoto.com/

Chuck Pezeshki at         http://users.moscow.com/pezeshki
Paul Butzi  at            http://www.butzi.net
Phil Bard --           http://www.philbard.com/home.html
Rob Gray --               http://www.robgray.com/
Lynn Radeka --         http://www.radekaphotography.com/index.htm
Craig Pindell --         http://www.wyomingphotographers.com
David Meiland at         http://www.davidmeiland.com/
Danny Burk at          http://www.dannyburk.com

Tom Mickllin at         http://www.tmicklin.com
Kerick Kouklis at         http://www.kerik.com
Clyde Butcher  at        http://clydebutcher.com/
Butch Welch  at         http://www.mindspring.com/~butchwelch/home.html
Carl Weese  at        http://home.earthlink.net/~cweese/index.html
Keith Schreiber  at       http://ww.jkschreiber.com/
Mark Citret   at          http://www.mcitret.com/
Ralph Barker   at       http://www.rbarkerphoto.com
Chris Cline  at    http://people.westminstercollege.edu/faculty/ccline/

Eric Boutilier-Brown   at   http://www.evolvingbeauty.com
Bruce Wilson   http://chemweb.dynu.com/photo
Carey Bird   http://homepages.tig.com.au/~cbird
Roger Clark   http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark
J. M. Ferreria     at    http://www.jmf-photo.ch
Mike McDonald at   http://www.mikemac.com/mikemac/photos/

John Douglas - http://www.darkroom-pro.com
Joe Neil   at   http://www.multiboard.com/~joneil
Robert D Feinman    at   http://robertdfeinman.com
Bruce MacNeil    at http://www.brucemacneil.com



From: John john@darkroom-pro.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Inexp. lens w/ large image circle?
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 

sgsg@iname.com
(S. Gordon) wrote:

>Stephe Thayer ms_stephe@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> Image circle grows with magnification. i.e. some lenses that don't cover
>> 4X5 at infinity will cover it at 1:1. I've used the older rodenstock ysaron
>> series of lenses for closeup work and they seem to do the job nicely as
>> that is what they were designed to do! 
>
>Is "ysaron" a typo?

	No it is not a typo. I believe (and have been wrong
before) the Ysaron lenses were originally made for Polaroid.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

>> Also the process type lenses would be a good choice and I've also seen the
>> schnieder clarion G series on sale for very resonable prices new. 
>
>What falls under "reasonable" nowadays?
>
>Also, as I initially asked, what are the caveats of these lens
>recommendations?

>Are they particularly old? 

	"Particularly" ? Compared to what ? many 50 year-old
lenses perform fine and a few are truly stellar. The Ektars
are a good example of how good many lenses were between 1930
and 1960.

>Uncoated or otherwise flare-prone?

	I don't know when most Ektars and such began to be
coated other than it was right after WWII. They would have a
slight flare under high-contrast conditions but my 127 Ektar
works fine and is as sharp as my 240/9 G-Claron.

>Subject to low-contrast? Please tell!

	I suggest that you consider reviewing much of the
material Mr.Thalmann has posted on his site at 

	http://www.thalmann.com

	Also consider a search through Google Groups at 


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&group;=rec.photo.equipment.large-format

	and consider reading the numerous posts on Ektars and
such. 

	another excellent repository of info is Q.T.luong's
pages at ;

 http://www.ai.sri.com/~luong/photography/lf/

Regards,

 John S. Douglas               Photographer & Webmaster
 Website ------------------- http://www.darkroom-pro.com


From: John john@darkroom-pro.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Inexp. lens w/ large image circle?
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 

sgsg@iname.com
(S. Gordon) wrote:

>What specifically are the downsides to the
>lenses that he is recommending to me?

	The only "downside" is that the G-Claron is somewhat
slow at f/9.

>I am looking there into the one Kodak lens you recommended (without
>mentioning any downside to it)

	There is a downside to the Ektar ? Oh yes ! I almost
forgot. They don't make them anymore and the shutters might
need a CLA to get them working properly. But consider that I
paid $125 for a 203/7.7 which is coated and in good shutter
and that's probably only about $75 less than usual. A
bargain to be sure but so are the 127's which can be had for
as little as $50.

> in an earlier post, although these sites
>tend not to have archived full information on the pluses AND minuses of
>these lenses. Hence my query for clarification.

	Well personally I wouldn't recommend a lens that had a
serious detraction. There are simply too many good lenses to
bother with any junkers.

Regards,

 John S. Douglas               Photographer & Webmaster
 Website ------------------- http://www.darkroom-pro.com
 Formulas,Facts and Info on the Photographic Process
 =======================================


From: "Andrew Eads" aceads@owt.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Inexp. lens w/ large image circle?
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 

Another possibility is to look for a lens from a Polaroid MP3 or MP4 copy
camera. I have used a 75mm and 135mm Tominon that came in a Copal press
shutter. As I recall, I paid about $150 for the two. I had to test to find
optimum apertures at various magnifications. For the price, these lenses
perform very well and are readily available on Ebay and other sources.

Andy


From: "william mitchell" bmitch10@home.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Graphlex Cameras
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 

Super Graphic has revolving back, complete movements of lens board: forward
and backward tilt, swing, rise, shift.  They are accessed in a slightly
clumsey manner, but work quite adequately.  Recently, the Supers are selling
on eBay for not much more than the Crown.  They are all metal, and weigh
about 3-4 oz more then the Crown.  Lensboards are interchangable.  Cams are
easy to make for any lens.


From: RichS rich@bearlycomputing.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Polaroid Type 55P/N in the field?
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 

I've been doing great here so far, so I'll try again...

I finally tried Polaroid Type 55 P/N and really like it. The positive
is as good as the other B&W; Polaroids and the negative is just
wonderful. But that was at home and everything easily in control.

What I'd like opinions on are for out in the field. I know there used
to be a special tank made to hold the sulfite solution and negatives
but these apparently are a bit hard to come by now. I started thinking
of just a piece of tupper ware or any of those plastic containers. But
then I thought of negatives hitting each other and scratching. I know
there are 4x5 tanks available with sealed llids that will hold the
negative hangers, but the combination of tank and a half dozen hangers
is a bit expensive. So I'm hoping somone here has an idea somewhere in
the middle. I suppose at some point I'll be picking up used hangers
and that may solve the problem, but until then what are other people
using?

And does anyone keep them in plain water until they get home? Supposed
to work and probaly safer than carrying a container of the sulfite
mix, but how about the negatives?

One more thing. What about the life of the sulfite mix. I couldn't
find any info on that at all? It must be used up at some point?

Thanks for suggestions and opinions...

Rich...


From: "william mitchell" bmitch10@home.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Polaroid Type 55P/N in the field?
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 

Use "Baggies" which can be sealed and unsealed.  Put just enough water in
them to keep them moist.  Drop the negatives into the bags until you get
home to soal them in the SS solution.  Polaroid recommends that they be kept
out of bright sunlight while being carried this way.  With the thick
developer goo on them, you don't have to worry about them getting scratched.
Wilhelm

"RichS" rich@bearlycomputing.com> wrote.
> I've been doing great here so far, so I'll try again...
>
> I finally tried Polaroid Type 55 P/N and really like it. The positive
> is as good as the other B&W; Polaroids and the negative is just
> wonderful. But that was at home and everything easily in control.
>
> What I'd like opinions on are for out in the field. I know there used
> to be a special tank made to hold the sulfite solution and negatives
> but these apparently are a bit hard to come by now. I started thinking
> of just a piece of tupper ware or any of those plastic containers. But
> then I thought of negatives hitting each other and scratching. I know
> there are 4x5 tanks available with sealed llids that will hold the
> negative hangers, but the combination of tank and a half dozen hangers
> is a bit expensive. So I'm hoping somone here has an idea somewhere in
> the middle. I suppose at some point I'll be picking up used hangers
> and that may solve the problem, but until then what are other people
> using?
>
> And does anyone keep them in plain water until they get home? Supposed
> to work and probaly safer than carrying a container of the sulfite
> mix, but how about the negatives?
>
> One more thing. What about the life of the sulfite mix. I couldn't
> find any info on that at all? It must be used up at some point?
>
> Thanks for suggestions and opinions...
>
> Rich...



From: "william mitchell" bmitch10@home.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Polaroid Type 55P/N in the field?
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 

I've done it for years.  Not my original idea, Polaroid suggested it.  Be
sure there's enough water in the baggie that they don't stick together.
(Better too much than too little.)  I always carry the bags in three layers,
just in case one leaks.



From: RichS rich@bearlycomputing.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Polaroid Type 55P/N in the field?
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 

"Brian Ellis"
bellis60@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Can't you just remove the film from the holder without developing it, then
>do the processing when you get home, thus eliminating the need to carry the
>bucket and clearing stuff in the field?
>


Sure the developement could wait. And it's even a good idea with the
Winter coming. But it does interfere with the "instant" idea of the
print and what I'm looking for. Not a way around the problem, but a
solution to the problem. There will  be an occasion when I want the
negative in the field, even just to check the exposure. So I'm looking
for the most practical way of getting that negative out in the
field...

Thanks...

Rich... 


From: "Louie Powell" ljpowel@banet.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Polaroid Type 55P/N in the field?
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 

I recall reading that Greg Heisler uses a tupperware container, and his
trick is to put a sheet of paper towel between negatives to keep them from
rubbing together and scratching.  Since the container is filled with liquid,
the paper towel becomes very soft and acts only as a buffer.

I have also read that rather than try to clear the negs in the field, you
can just load them into a water bath (tupperware to the rescue), and then
clear them when you get back to the studio.


"RichS" rich@bearlycomputing.com> wrote..
> I've been doing great here so far, so I'll try again...
>
> I finally tried Polaroid Type 55 P/N and really like it. The positive
> is as good as the other B&W; Polaroids and the negative is just
> wonderful. But that was at home and everything easily in control.
>
> What I'd like opinions on are for out in the field. I know there used
> to be a special tank made to hold the sulfite solution and negatives
> but these apparently are a bit hard to come by now. I started thinking
> of just a piece of tupper ware or any of those plastic containers. But
> then I thought of negatives hitting each other and scratching. I know
> there are 4x5 tanks available with sealed llids that will hold the
> negative hangers, but the combination of tank and a half dozen hangers
> is a bit expensive. So I'm hoping somone here has an idea somewhere in
> the middle. I suppose at some point I'll be picking up used hangers
> and that may solve the problem, but until then what are other people
> using?
>
> And does anyone keep them in plain water until they get home? Supposed
> to work and probaly safer than carrying a container of the sulfite
> mix, but how about the negatives?
>
> One more thing. What about the life of the sulfite mix. I couldn't
> find any info on that at all? It must be used up at some point?
>
> Thanks for suggestions and opinions...
>
> Rich...


From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: simple LF homebrew lens?
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 

Murray wrote:
> 
> Hello:
> 
> I am building a pinhole camera with an 18" x 24" bellows.
> 
> I would also like to experiment with a lens.
>
> I would like to find either a simple 2-3 element lens design that
> would produce a large enough image circle, OR

Try using a close-up lens.  f.l. = 1/diopter:  A #3 lens has
a focal length of 1/3 of a meter.

The Nikon and Canon lenses are 2 element achromats.  The 'house
brand' ones are single element.

For better correction use the lenses in symmetric pairs: a #1 and
another #1 makes a #2....

Place the aperture in the middle, if you are using them
in pairs.

You can get stunning results if you are willing to go to f128
and above.

And don't forget to give zone plates a try.

-- 
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Consulting Engineer:  Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.


From: Marv Soloff msoloff@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Is there a "best" crown graphic for starting LF
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 

Thom Mitchell wrote:
> 
> I was wondering what a good Crown graphic with Grafloc back should cost and
> which of the variety of models is "better"? I have an opportunity to
> purchase a pacemaker with 127 lense, graflock and rangefinder for about
> $250? I want to have the flexibility to cheat and use 120, as I am learning
> 4x5. Eventually of course I would like to buy a true LF camera capable of
> all movements but you've got to learn to crawl before you sprint.  I've
> lurked on the list for a while and just want to say thanks for the mostly
> collegial atmosphere by everyone. Keep up the great dialogue.

The "best" Crown Graphic is the one for the least money - that is -
clean, complete, no holes in the bellows, smooth focus action,
rangefinder on track, clean lens and properly timed shutter. I would
suggest you can find such a Crown in the $150 to $250 range if you look
hard.  An alternate is the Busch Model "D" which can often be found, in
excellent condition, for $100 - $200.  Unless these workhorse cameras
have been severely abused they will do what you want.

Any camera capable of taking a 4 x 5 negative is a "true" LF camera. The
movement question is a function of the needs of the photographer, not
the equipment. Many very fine photos have been taken with a Graphic or
Busch type camera - and limited movements.

Regards,

Marv


From: "Don Wallace" don.wallace@nlc-bnc.ca>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Is there a "best" crown graphic for starting LF
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 


"Erik Ryberg" ryberg@seanet.com> wrote 
> Don Wallace wrote:
> >
> > I started in LF with a Crown Graphic and although I love the camera and
> > still
> > use it for some things, I would recommend that you go straight to an entry
> > level view camera.  You may not use many of the movements right away but
> > you will probably want them fairly soon and a Crown is very limited in
> > this regard. A view camera with lens may cost another another $200
> > up front but will be worth it in the long run.
>
> Well, my vote is to go with the Crown.  For 250 with a lens you are
> getting a good deal even if the rangefinder is off a little (unless you
> intend to use this camera hand-held).  The Crown will give you a fair
> amount of rise and if you reverse the standard (may have already been
> done) all the downward tilt you will ever require.  Basically you are
> getting a rock-solid camera for a fair price if the lens and shutter
> work well; if you start fishing around for view cameras you could find
> yourself with a real dog for twice the money.  If you aren't happy with
> the movements on the Crown you can always sell it on ebay and get back
> much or all of your money.
>

Erik, most of what you say is right. He probably won't lose any money
on the Crown if he decides to sell it. However, my experience was
that the Crown really does not have sufficient movements and I got
frustrated with it pretty quickly. Yes, you can get forward tilt by
reversing the standard and you can simulate some other movements with a bit of tripod gymnastics but - and not to pull any verbal punches - it is a real pain in the arse.

Been there, done that. If you want even a respectable amount of movement,
the Crown is not the way to go. Having said that, getting a Crown
with lens at a modest price as a starter in LF is definitely not a mistake
and you are certainly right in saying that he could do a lot worse for more
money.

Don



From: pstimac@hotmail.com (Paul Stimac)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What's is a good 1st LF camera @ low price.
Date: 24 Aug 2001 

You can get a grey calumet 400 4x5 for $100 to $400+ on ebay. they're
always seems to be a few listed. They are rock solid, much stronger
than newer more expensive 4x5's and way sturdier that the B&J; press
metioned below , they are not flashy but are very functional.  You can
still get parts for them from calumet. Here are a couple of links to
ongoing auctions on ebay.
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item;=1267381603
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item;=1266711788

Good luck.

Paul Stimac

____________________
www.users.qwest.net/~pstimac



"william mitchell" bmitch10@home.com> wrote ...
> I don't believe that you're going to be able to "get into" Large Format
> photography that cheaply.  A Speed Graphic or Crown Graphic is an excellent
> way to start, but they usually go for around $300.  However, you might start
> by looking at a B&J; (Burke and James) 4x5 press camera, if you can find one
> with lens, working shutter, light-tight bellows, and a few film holders.
> They come up on eBay now and again.  Be sure you get a trial period (usually
> 3 days) just to make sure you haven't gotten a basket case.  Good luck.


From: slberfuchs@aol.com (Ted Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.large-format
Date: 04 Sep 2001 
Subject: Re: 4x5 camera cheap.(newbie)

Eric,

I hate to throw water on all this and you may indeed find what you are looking
for but think it through>  let's assume you find a camera for $100 that is in
good working order (that is both standards are completely parallel and the back
is parallel to the rear standard, the bellows are light tight and it coems with
a tripod block to all ow you to mount it .... a lot of if's there and if any
oen of them is off then you will be laying out dollars to fix it.  IF, at that
price it does come with a lens it is highly unlikely that the lens will be even
close to a decent performer or in an accurately working shutter (figure another
$60-80 to vhae the shutter CLA'd).  You can expect to pay AT LEAST another $150
for a decent lnes (may only $100) in a working shutter (that means a lens that
is at least single coated, with no or only minimal defects such as scratches,
fungus and separation and set in a reasonably accurate shutter.  If you are
getting the lens separately you may also need to get a lensboard for another
$15-25 and be sure you have a mounting flange or it will be yet another $15. 
Now other necessities:

Cable release for a minimum of $10
Film holders ... lets say 5 @ 10-15 ea for good light tight used ones.

Dark cloth which you cna make but still plan on spending a few bucks on the
material or $25 if you buy one.

A sturdy tripod and head.  Make sure that you have one that will hold the
weight of yoru camera and lens with some room to spare.  This item, even used
is likely to set you back another $100.

And then the nice to have but not absoltuely essential items:

A light meter, prefereably a spot meter, will add another $30 for bare bones
working meter up to $150 minimum for a working spot meter.

A ground glass loupe to facilitate focusing on the glass (some would even say
this is a necessity) adds another $40 at least.

Counting the nice to have items we are a hair under $500 and let's make a wild
leap of faith that you will find a "kit" which contains it all and you will get
it well discounted (and tehy do show up on eBay) ... you aer still likely to
pay $300.  

Maybe you even have some of the stuff but don't count on your lightweight 35 mm
tripod to work.  

Can you get started for $100 ... maybe but it is highly unlikely.

Good luck


Ted Harris
Resource Strategy
Henniker, New Hampshire



From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.large-format
Subject: Re: 4x5 camera cheap.(newbie)
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 

Lens: you can find a Rapid Rectilinear or Kodak Anastigmat in a 
ball bearing shutter in an old Kodak folder.  $5 at a garage sale.

Dark cloth: black T-Shirt.

Cable release: With a ball bearing shutter you can use a piece of
string.

Light Meter: use the black-cat guide (available on the web).

-- 
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Consulting Engineer:  Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.


From: "Christopher M Perez" christopher.m.perez@tek.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Equipment for a newbie
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 

Graham,

You can find from places like www.eBay.com or www.mpex.com or
www.badgergraphic.com used equipment in fine condition.  One way to look at
it, you could spend...

- $350 to $450 for a Tachahara wood field or Linhof TechIII metal field 4x5
camera
- $400 for a 200mm Nikkor-M f/9 (nice, sharp, v.small, light)
- $125 for a Pentax spotmeter
- $40 for short stack of film holders (~$5 to ~$10 each)
- $10 for a focusing loupe
- $0 to make your own darkcloth

... and come in under $1k with 200 clams to spare... which could then be
spent on a 135mm Schneider Symmar-S (single coated lens) to help extend the
lens ranges a bit...

I hope this helps.

Good luck - Chris

PS: for more on lenses and what I think is fun and widely available, see:
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/kit.html

BTW, your return address bounces...

"Graham Stewart" graha.ms@graha.ms.com> wrote...
> I'm sure this has been asked before - i even asked it a year or two back
> myself but...
>
> I'm looking to get started in LF and wondered what would be the best kit i
> could get for around $1k.
>
> I want something reasonably compact since i'd like to go hiking with it. I
> realise that it'll still be heavy and bulky, but so long as i can fit it in
> my Minitrekker with a little room to spare then i'll be happy. I guess this
> means I want a field camera - i'm sure that i dont want a press camera since
> i want a reasonable selection of movement to give me something that 35mm
> won't give me.
>
> As well as the camera i'd need a lens, board, and some film holders.
>
> I already have a Bogen/Manfrotto 390 which is a reasonably chunky tripod and
> should support a light LF camera. The web says it'll support up to 5kg
> (about 10lb) would that do me to start with?
>
> I'm guessing i'd also need a light meter unless i could use the meter in my
> Eos 300 (Rebel 2k).
>
> I'm pretty sure this is reasonable on my budget but given the number of
> choices and my limited experience in this field i'd like some input.
>
> Graham

From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Modern usage of old barrel lens
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 

Bogdan Karasek bkarasek@videotron.ca> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I'd like to try out some of the old brass lenses from the early
>20th and late 19th century.  These came in a barrel and there was
>no shutter.  What was used as a shutter given the fact that the
>films were very slow.
>
>How could one use these lens today with filM OF 100 OR 400 ASA. 
>I'd be interested in mounting one on my 4x5 or 8x10 but what do I
>do for a shutter.  Can I use some of the ilex #5, 4, 3  or the
>Rapax shutters and screw the barrels into the front.  Is
>compatibility possible or do adapters need to be machined. 
>
>I ask because I would be were curious to see what kind of images
>I could with those lenses.
>
>Regards,
>Bogdan
>
>PS.: I seem to remember seeing an adaptor that went on the front
>of the shutter and had an adjustable diaphram to hold a barrel
>lens, of whatever diameter, in place in front of the lens.  
>
>  Bogdan Karasek


  There are lots of barrel lenses around, some not so old. They can be
mounted with a rear shutter. The type commonly used in the past was
the Packard shutter, a simple shutter operated by air. They are still
made and are rather cheaper than a new standard shutter. They were
quite abundant on the used market up to a couple of years ago but the
supply seems to have dried up. The packard has one speed (around
1/15th to 1/25th, depending on the size of the shutter and how hard
you squeeze the bulb) and Time.

  A more flexible shutter arrangement is to use a conventional shutter
of sufficient size with some arrangement for mounting the barrel lens
on its front. Actually, this can also be done with a Packard shutter.
I have an Ilex #5 Universal shutter equipped with a flat plate which
takes lens boards. I can use any number of barrel lenses on this
single shutter. One can also use an iris diaphragm clamp mounted to
the shutter, another way of using many lenses. Clamps appear
occasionally on eBay, but I don't think anyone has made new ones for
years. 

  There are some very fine lenses available in barrel mounts and a
rear shutter makes them entirely practical. 

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: "Kayaker" jay@bossig.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: View Camera Kit
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 

Ian Dodd wrote:
> I started in 4X5 by building the Bender kit.  I believe the 4X5 kit is
running
> around $299 these days.  Full info at  http://benderphoto.com/   It is a
> monorail sytem camera (vs. field camera) which offers plenty of movement
and
> enough bellows draw to use lenses up to 450mm or, possibly, 500mm.

Thanks, Ian, for mentioning the Bender.  Just one minor point to add to your
description:

(For those who've followed this NG for years, you've heard me say this
before, but here it is again.)

   It is not a requirement for a view camera to be a flatbed design to
qualify as a "field" camera, although it is true that many are flatbeds.
What makes a camera a field camera is that it folds up small, and is light
weight.  It need not be a flatbed or "become it's own case" as the camera is
going to be put into a bag, case, or backpack anyway, along with the lens,
film holders, light meter, etc.  The only thing that really needs
protecting, the ground glass, is on the _outside_ of the flatbed's own
"case", so that is going to need to be covered and protected just as it will
need to be on the Bender.  I don't think you ever leave the house carrying
the flatbed by that little leather handle in one hand, tripod in the other.
If you do you will be forgetting all those other things I mentioned (film
holders, light meter, lenses).  Why not put it all in your camera bag or
pack?

    I have a piece of Plexiglas that I put over the ground glass on mine.
Then I lay the folded camera in my focusing cloth and fold the edges up
around the camera and stuff it in my pack.  Folded it is a hair bigger than
some of the smaller flatbeds like the Nagaoka or Ikeda.  But, at 3 lbs, it
is definitely lighter than many of the flatbeds out there.

   Please understand, I am not making comments to disparage flatbed designs.
There are many very fine flatbed cameras.  My point here is only to say that
one need not confine his choices to the flatbed design when considering a
camera for field use.  I believe Toyo also makes a monorail design field
camera.

    Also, you can get Steve Simmons very fine book on view camera technique
by going to http://www.viewcamera.com      FYI

Jay Bender
Bender Photographic, Inc.  http://www.benderphoto.com



From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: View Camera Kit
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 

Kayaker wrote:

> Thanks, Ian, for mentioning the Bender.  Just one minor point to add to your
> description:
> (For those who've followed this NG for years, you've heard me say this
> before, but here it is again.)
>    It is not a requirement for a view camera to be a flatbed design to
> qualify as a "field" camera,

... much deleted, because I agree with what Jay wrote (I know, this is
usenet, nobody's supposed to agree)

>  My point here is only to say that
> one need not confine his choices to the flatbed design when considering a
> camera for field use.  I believe Toyo also makes a monorail design field
> camera.

Toyo does make a monorail "field" camera - the VX125 that weighs about
5.5 lbs.  Or you might have been thinking of the Toho FC45-X.  Like the
Bender, the Toho weighs just a hair over 3 lbs. (with minor
modifications, mine tips the scales at 2 lb. 12.5 oz.).  The Toho is a
telescoping monorail designed for field use that is both ultralight and
separates into two compact sections for transport.  I've been using it
for backpacking for nearly two years now and love it.  It replaced a
folding Ikeda.  Nothing wrong with the Ikeda per se, but the Toho is
just as light, has better movements, a longer bellows and is more
rigid.  My review of the Toho can be viewed at:

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/toho.htm

The other 4x5 camera I am using in the field these days is also a
monorail - the Linhof Technikardan TK45S.  But it's a LOT heavier than
the Toho (or the Bender), so it doesn't go backpacking with me.  I
haven't used a Bender, but I agree 100% with Jay's point that there's no
reason that just because a camera sits on a rail that it can't be a
field camera.  In fact, if you're really interested in light weight, but
still want good movements and decent bellows extension, an ultralight
monorail may be the way to go.  In addition to the Toho and the Bender,
Peter Gowland also makes some ultralight monorails.  Of these, the
Bender is the only one available in kit form (and therefore, the least
expensive).  As Jay said, there are some great folding field cameras,
but there are also some equally great field cameras that happen to be
monorails.  They are all compromises (weight vs. bellows length, vs.
rigity vs. features, vs. cost, etc.).  The key is choosing the one that
best fits your personal needs, budget and shooting style - regardless of
whether it's a rail or flatbed design.

Kerry
-- 
Kerry L. Thalmann
Large Format Images of Nature
http://www.thalmann.com/


From: Rolfe Tessem rolfe@ldp.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Is there a "best" crown graphic for starting LF
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 

Thom Mitchell wrote:
> 
> I was wondering what a good Crown graphic with Grafloc back should cost and
> which of the variety of models is "better"? I have an opportunity to
> purchase a pacemaker with 127 lense, graflock and rangefinder for about
> $250? I want to have the flexibility to cheat and use 120, as I am learning
> 4x5. Eventually of course I would like to buy a true LF camera capable of
> all movements but you've got to learn to crawl before you sprint.  I've
> lurked on the list for a while and just want to say thanks for the mostly
> collegial atmosphere by everyone. Keep up the great dialogue.

$250 for a user quality or better Crown is a good price assuming that
the lens and shutter are in good shape. Since you say 127, I assume it
is a 127mm Ektar. This is a  great lens, with good color correction and
contrast even by today's standards if it doesn't have separation, mold,
haze or any other problems. Likewise the shutter, which could be one of
several used over the course of production. You should be aware that the
127mm Ektar has little or no movements when used on the 4x5 format, but
if you are using the camera for field photography that is probably not a
limitation. 

--
Rolfe Tessem        |    Lucky Duck Productions, Inc.
rolfe@ldp.com       |    96 Morton Street
(212) 463-0029      |    New York, NY 10014


From: "william mitchell" bmitch10@home.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Is there a "best" crown graphic for starting LF
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 

It's a great way to start, and the price is about right.  Be sure the
rangefinder is bright, and agrees with the image on the ground glass, and
the distance scale.  Go into a dark room, extend the lensboard all the way
forward, take off the Graflock back and shine a flashlight inside the
bellows, looking for pinholes.  Run the shutter through its settings several
times; it should run smoothly or you are in for cleaning expense.  Shine a
light through the lens; it should be clear, don't worry about a few dust
specks or bubbles in the glass, they won't hurt anything.  Check the ground
glass to make sure it has the concentric rings of the Fresnel screen
(occassionally cameras are sold with plain ground glass substituted).  The
optical viewfinder should be clear and click into all four distance
positions, and should have a #4 mask.  Enjoy.  You may never need another LF
camera.

William Mitchell


From: "william mitchell" bmitch10@home.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: P.S.
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 

For about $50 more you can get a "top RF" Crown, which will allow you to add
rangefinder coupled lenses in the future.



From: Marv Soloff msoloff@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: "Baby" Graphics sale flat?
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 

R. Peters wrote:
> 
> Over the years I have bought into cameras that I thought were
> undervalued.   I think the 2x3 Graphics are one of those cameras.
> They are not a perfect camera for every application, but will do most
> of what a Linhof will do and for a fraction of the price.  Put a
> modern lens on one, and for anyone who wants into medium format on a
> budget, this is one of the best deals going.
> 
> Ordinarily, I'd say look for the prices to go up when they are
> discovered....  But the unknown in the formula is digital.
> 
>                 bob

And... don't forget the severely undervalued Busch 23s. Lovely cameras,
built better than the Grafics, but no FP shutter.

Regards,

Marv


From: torx@nwrain.com (R. Peters)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: "Baby" Graphics sale flat?
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 

And no Graflok back.  Although I have seen them "Grafted"  (no pun
intended) onto a Busch Press 23.  
		bob


Marv Soloff
msoloff@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>R. Peters wrote:
>> 
>> Over the years I have bought into cameras that I thought were
>> undervalued.   I think the 2x3 Graphics are one of those cameras.
>> They are not a perfect camera for every application, but will do most
>> of what a Linhof will do and for a fraction of the price.  Put a
>> modern lens on one, and for anyone who wants into medium format on a
>> budget, this is one of the best deals going.
>> 
>> Ordinarily, I'd say look for the prices to go up when they are
>> discovered....  But the unknown in the formula is digital.
>> 
>>                 bob
>
>And... don't forget the severely undervalued Busch 23s. Lovely cameras,
>built better than the Grafics, but no FP shutter.
>
>Regards,
>
>Marv

From: Marv Soloff msoloff@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: "Baby" Graphics sale flat?
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 

R. Peters wrote:
> 
> And no Graflok back.  Although I have seen them "Grafted"  (no pun
> intended) onto a Busch Press 23.
>                 bob
> 
> Marv Soloff
> msoloff@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> 
> >R. Peters wrote:
> >>
> >> Over the years I have bought into cameras that I thought were
> >> undervalued.   I think the 2x3 Graphics are one of those cameras.
> >> They are not a perfect camera for every application, but will do most
> >> of what a Linhof will do and for a fraction of the price.  Put a
> >> modern lens on one, and for anyone who wants into medium format on a
> >> budget, this is one of the best deals going.
> >>
> >> Ordinarily, I'd say look for the prices to go up when they are
> >> discovered....  But the unknown in the formula is digital.
> >>
> >>                 bob
> >
> >And... don't forget the severely undervalued Busch 23s. Lovely cameras,
> >built better than the Grafics, but no FP shutter.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Marv

Indeed no Graflok back.  But the 2 x 3 filmholders are cheap and so is
the 2 x 3 film. Saw a couple of Busch 23s (in excellent condition) for
$60.00USD recently, and if you want roll film, get a Graflex RH-10
rollback and epoxy it to the Busch. Instant 2 x 3 camera with some
interesting swings and roll film capability for about $125.00USD.

Regards,

Marv


Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 
From: Gene Johnson genej2@home.com>
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] LF Film cassettes (was: light leaks, black chord

Patric,

May I suggest a super cheap lens?  The Kodak 616 cameras sometimes came
with Kodak Special Anastigmat 127mm coated lenses in Supermatic #2
shutters.  These are nice Tessar design lenses.  They are also front
cell focus lenses which is a plus if you ask me.  If you leave it in
it's infinity focused position it is at optimum correction and you focus
it with the rack.  For macro, extend the rack as far as you can, then
you can get closer by using the front cell.  It's like an extra inch of
bellows for nothing.  These cameras can be bought on eBay for less than
$50 US all the time. Did you get your film yet?  I've been playing with
the Windisch.  Interesting stuff!

Gene

J Patric Dahlaen wrote:
>
> >From: Ilja Friedel ilja@its.caltech.edu>
> >I'll send you some of the pictures next week (remind me). You need an
> >adapter, because the lens is fixed via bayonet mount. You could get one
> >machined, because if I remember properly, it is only a metal ring with
> >some funky holes.
>
> Oh, ok. Maybe my father can help me. He is a fine mechanic and makes parts
> for satellites. My Bergheil would then be a vintage camera with space
> technology. ;-)
>
> >I guess you could use all 6x9 lenses as long as they are small enough and
> >are in the extention range of the camera. Just why would you want to get
> >something different then the Heliar? ;-) Otherwise I would try a 135mm
> >lens from another Avus/Bergheil and a 65mm Angulon with adapter.
>
> A 135mm Heliar would be great for portraits! And maybe a 210mm lens could
> work too. An Apo-Lanthar would be nice, but expensive. :-/
>
> Isn't the Apo-Lanthar just a Heliar with special glass?
>
> /Patric





From: "Edward  Shelton" eshelton@mon-cre.net
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002
Subject: [Cameramakers] Re: dead photocopiers fof process lenses

I too have been kicking this around. Purchased several large lens in 
barrel mounts at a local junk yard. Want to use waterhouse stops in 
front of the lens. Will probably build a shutter - something like a 
packard. For use in a view camera currently under construction. 
Lindsaybks.com has a book "Photographic Cameras and Accessories" that 
details several behind the lens shutters. Stops will be square cardboard 
and fit in front of the lens in a filter type of mount. I think i paid 
1-2$ apiece for the lens many years ago. 

Thanks Ed Shelton



Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 
From: john frost johnfrost@sprintmail.com
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: [Cameramakers] Re: dead photocopiers fof process lenses (Edward Shelton]

I got a plastic lens, 300mm f4 for $12 about 8 years ago. Then I found
an old shutter for $15. I mounted the shutter in front of the lens,
built an 8x10 box camera to fit, and get quite good images. I had to
recalibrate the shutter, of course, but that was easy enough. have not
tried color film, though -- not at $7 a sheet! That would cost more than
the whole camera (not including the film holders - woulda skipped the
project if I priced the film holders first!!

It's a Good Thing!
john (:>)


From: Chase Williams cwilliams@spring.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Entry level 4x5
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002


I built my first 4x5 camera from scratch and learned a great deal
about LF in the process.  Now that I UNDERSTAND, I know I want a
better, more dependable camera.  85% of what I do is
landscape/streetscape and 15% still life/portait (in and out of the
studio.)  I am looking an easier way to focus than what I have now
(friction knobs) and a better ground glass/film holder system than I
have now (hard to see/focus.)  Most of my exposures are in portrait
format but I'd like to rotate to landscape, too.  I have a 135mm and
203mm lenses.  I want to purchase NEW, so here are what I found in my
price range ($650 and down):

Toyo 45CX
Calumet 45N
Calumet Cadet 4x5 (why is this so inexpensive?)
Tachihara 45GF
Shen-Hao HZX4x5-IIA (I heard that this camera needs to be "broken in"?)

My current 4x5 is a wooden monorail design.  I LOVE the look of fine
wood and a folding field design would be nice for backpacking.  But,
I'll take brawn over beauty if it does the trick.  I know the virtues
of monorail movements, although I don't use too many movements outdoor
for landscapes.   Would a folding field design give me enough
movements?

I don't want start a war, but I would really value your advice and
experience in my situation.  Also, is there THAT huge a difference
between a $600 camera and a $2000 camera?

Thanks for your kindness!
Chase W.



From: "Mark Boon" boonmark@sbcglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Entry level 4x5
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002


If you want to purchase NEW, and you prefered wood, I think
you only have two choices:
  Tachihara 45GF
  Shen-Hao HZX4x5-IIA

I have the Shen-Hao, and it is a bit on a heavy side.

I think that there are differences between $600, and $2000.
But it is the thing that matter to you that make the real
different to you.  Here's some of the things that I wrote
down when I try to narrow down my choice (not in
any particular order):

a) weight - for backpacking
b) compactness - for backpacking
c) accessories:availability - stuffs that I can get with it
      shades, bellow bags, differnt groundglass, etc.
d) accessories:price - $$$
e) movement
f)  precision of movement control
g) rigidity
h) durability
i)  Max extension - for using with longer lens
j) Min extension - for using with shorter lens
k) good looking

I select Shen-Hao based on b), c), d), e), h), i=12", j), k.
I actually like wood, and only compare between the Shen-Hao,
and Tachihara.



From: "Larry Kruzan" larry@kruzan.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Entry level 4x5
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002


Hi Chase,

I use a Calumet 45NX and enjoy it very much.  There is a certain
satisfaction that comes from shooting with a very high priced camera body
but frankly most of us have difficulty translating that to film or
ultimately to paper.  Until it was destroyed last year in a fire, I used a
old Graphic View Camera and before that a old Bush Pressman that had the
sharpest Ektar 127mm on it.

Boiled down to it's purist essence a camera is little more than a box with a
lens at one end and film at the other.  A common shoebox can be made to work
but may not be as pretty as the newest European glory box.  You know the sky
is the limit on how much you want to spend but most of the pros I know (and
more than a few of us hacker types) get by with the Cambo.

That said, I would caution against buying the cheapest thing out there.  The
Cadet package is price attractive but I wonder how stable a platform it
provides.  Horseman has proven the "L" frame concept but since I have never
used the Calumet version so I am cautious about it.


I bought the 45NX for the longer rail and bellows extension but if you are
working with shorter lenses that would be less of an issue.  Geared movments
would be nice but I can't say that they are really needed.  You say that you
like the look and feel of wood - so do I (I teach woodworking, have written
books about the hobby and lecture often), I can recommned a Wisner
Traditional, or a Zone VI feild camera without reservations.  You might even
build another one yourself applying what you have learned.

For my money the place I put my bucks is in the lenses and tripod.  A box is
a box but the lense is your eye to the world.  The tripod just has to be the
beefyest and strongest one you can manage to keep that lense stable.  (Yes,
I know about Gitzo - but he's not going to spend as much for a tripod as the
camera).

Just some random thoughts
Larry



From: Ralph Barker rbarker@pacbell.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Large format tools
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002


There was a discussion about this several weeks ago. Although a couple
of people (including yours truly ;-)  ) preferred using a framing aid
similar to http://www.rbarkerphoto.com/misc/FramingAid1-500bw.jpg,
others were finding digital handy.

The big problem, of course, is that you need to calculate conversions
for the focal lengths available on the digital (taking the size of the
chip into consideration) to corresponding focal lengths for your LF
camera. Similar conversions need to be done for exposure
approximation/testing, of course.

For me, the advantage still seems unclear, except with respect to using
the digital to document scouting trips where you plan to return later
with LF gear.

Mikey wrote:

>I was wondering if anyone is using a digital camera as a tool for composing
>pictures for large format.  I thought it would be a good idea to use a
>digital camera to preview an image for composition and perhaps exposure as
>well before setting up the large and bulky camera for the final picture.
>
>-Mikey


Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Large format tools
From: "Tom Thackrey" (no email listed)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002

...

I thought digital might replace Polaroid for verifying composition, lighting
and exposure. IMHO, unless you have a digital back, it doesn't work out very
well. The lack of shifts and tilts as well as the inability to duplicate the
DOF or bellows extension factor make it a very poor substitute for a
Polaroid. I suppose if you shoot landscapes with few movements it might
work.



From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Flim Holder Differences
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002


dpcwilbur@excite.com (Collin Brendemuehl) wrote:

>Among the common film holders for 4x5,
>is there any real difference in
>(a) registration (flim position relative
>to the ground glass plane) or
>(b) flatness (is the film held in a flat plane)
>(c) dust resistance and tolerance (is even a little
>dust be a problem in all holders)?
>
>TIA,
>
>Collin

Among new holders I think there is little or no difference. For used
holders there can be a big difference in film position. For 4x5 old
Riteway (made by Graflex) are easily the best. Old wooden holders need
to be checked individually with a depth micrometer and also checked
visually for warpage. Some time ago I was given a bunch of old
Fidelity-Deluxe holders from perhaps the 1950s. They are nearly all
out of spec for film plane. Nearly all Riteway holders are right on
the button.

  For 8x10 Kodak or Graflex holders are the best of the old timers,
but again, wooden ones need to be individually checked.

  Dust is a problem with all holders and with sheet film in general.
There is no certain cure. Everything the film is exposed to must be as
clean as possible. When a darkslide is removed in the camera it tends
to generate a little static electricity which can attract dust from
the inside of the camera. There have been some long threads in this
group and in the darkroom group about how to avoid dust. A google
search will find them.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com



Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002
From: Tony Galt galta@uwgb.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Flim Holder Differences


I have a bunch of old Riteways (early 70s) and some new Fidelity
Elites. The big difference is weight. The newer ones use more plastic
parts and are lighter. I do find that the darkslides on the Fidelities
are more prone to pull out accidentally if the little retaining clips
aren't turned over their edges to keep them in. It is a little easier
to feel the ends of the film retaining channels in the dark on the
older holders. I think they load a bit more easily.

Tony Galt



Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 
From: Frank Earl fbearl@yahoo.com
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: [Cameramakers] 11x14 film holders

I have been told that film holders for x-rays will
work as 11x14 film holders in standard cameras of that
format (if there is such a thing).  I thought I would
let members of this list know.  I would assume that
many hospitals are going to digital and surplus sales
of these could get someone started on a nice project.

If anybody knows for sure, would you please post a response.



From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Newbie to LF
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002

>I was recently sold a Pacemaker Speed Graphic (from what I learned on
>graflex.org, made between '47 and '55) with a pair of lenses and the film
>holders for 4x5 film. The lens currently mounted on it is a 135mm Wollensak
>f4.7-f32. The other lens hasn't been delivered to me, yet. He states that
>its a "Dagor lens" with a "Compur shutter," but provided me nothing else
....

  The best source of info on Graphics is the Graflex Org web site at
http://www.graflex.org

  Check your library for a book, or rather series of books, called
_Graphic Graflex Photography_ These were published from 1939 until the
mid 1960s. The later ones will cover the Pacemaker series of cameras
(which is what you have) with complete instructions on how to use it
plus a section on handling sheet film. These used to be common in used
book stores but I think now the best source will be your library. If
the local library doesn't have any editions tell them to check the
system and see what they can get through interlibrary loan.

  You can also get copies of the original instruction manuals from
John S. Craig at http://www.craigcamera.com

  The 135mm Optar was one of the standard lenses offered on these
cameras. Its a good but not outstanding lens. Very sharp in the center
of the field but needs to be stopped down a lot to get the corners
sharp. The rangfinder should be set up for this lens, its easy to
check against the ground glass.

  The Goerz Dagor is a famous lens. They are slightly soft wide open,
making them good for flattering portraits, but become very sharp at
around f/16 to f/22. The Dagor has a rather large image circle so can
be used as a wide angle lens as small stops. Its hard to believe the
seller was puzzled by the focal length being in inches:-) The Dagor
will have to be used with the ground glass for focusing but the wire
frame finder will still be accurate for checking composition once the
film is in.

  Sheet film holders are easy to load. Practice with scrap film in the
light until you get the feel of it and be very systematic in the dark.

  Sheet film, at least B&W; is easy to process at home. You need a dark
place and some trays. Avoid the Yankee tank, it can't be agitated
properly and results in uneven development (yes, I know some people
use them successfully).

  The Speed Graphic is not a heavy camera, being designed for hand
held use. The Pacemaker series is lighter than the preceding
Anniversary model. The weight will help hold down a light tripod.

  4x5 is large enough to allow composing on the ground glass plus the
negatives can be individually processed. The quality will astonish you
if you are used to 35mm. NO grain and very good sharpness. There is
also a difference in tonal rendition, its smoother.

  Actually, you will see the difference in going to any size larger
than 35mm frames, a 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 negative will be significantly
better. The improvement is slower from there as you increase size, but
4x5 you can make huge prints which look sharp and have no grain. On an
8x10 print its much harder to tell.

  The 35mm camera has the advantage of being light and quick and
having fast lenses. Very fast lenses are not practical for larger
formats because of the severe restriction of depth of field.

  You will also become aware of this with the 4x5, you must use
smaller stops than on a 35mm camera to get adequate depth. The ground
glass image will show all.

  You can also get reprinted repair manuals from John Craig or Petra
Keller. Petra is at http://www.camerabooks.com

  I have four 4x5 Speed Graphics of various ages and a 2x3 Miniature
SG that I am in the midst of restoring.

  They were very ruggedly built and were the standard news camera for
decades. They have limited movements but are light and compact and
quite usable cameras.

  You will have to get a fedora hat and cigar.:-)

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: david@meiland.com (David Meiland)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: First results
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002

...

>Just one more thing - does anyone have any good systems for keeping track of
>which frame is which once you've placed it into a developing tank?
>
>Graham
>
>

Graham,

There are a couple of things you can do. I used a Dremel tool to cut a
series of notches into the interior edges of the slide flap of some of
my film holders, arranged so they are numbered 1-10. The notches are
visible on the negative. The numbers are on the outside of the holder
as well. That way I know which holder a sheet came from, which would
be handy in the event of a leak.

When I need to keep track of stuff, I shoot a polaroid first and then
number it and keep notes on the back, i.e. "polaroid #1, sheet 1,
sheet 2 +1/2, sheet 3 -1/2" or something like that. Later on, the
holder, the film, and the polaroid can all be correlated to one
another.

An easy thing to do is to keep a roll of blue painter's tape with you,
and put pieces on the holders after you shoot. You can write on it,
and the tape comes off easily. In my kit, I know to NEVER put a holder
with blue tape on it in the camera--blue tape always means exposed.
This method is helpful, because there are three states a holder can be
in, and only two colors available on the dark slide. With mine, blue
tape means exposed film inside, white on the slide means loaded but
not exposed, and black on the slide means empty.

You can also buy holders that have a device on them for numbering the
film. They aren't cheap...
---
David Meiland
Oakland, California
http://davidmeiland.com/



Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002
From: "Sherman Dunnam" sherman@dunnam.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Type 55 PN film


"Colin Monteith" monteith1@sympatico.ca wrote 
> How long can I wait before clearing the negatives or should they be done
> in the field?  Can you wait hours or even days?
>

Colin,
That depends on what you mean.  If you have processed the film the negative
should be cleared immediately.  However if you just put it in water you can
wait a long time (overnight or even a day or two is possible).

If you haven't processed the film then you can wait until it is processed.
I generally don't process my Type 55 negatives in the field.  I remove them
from the holder unprocessed and then process them in a batch at home where I
can control temperature and have a clearing tank with film holder at room
temperature.

Sherman


Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002
From: "Sherman Dunnam" sherman@dunnam.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Type 55 PN film

...

Colin,

No I don't use a hardener.  The Polaroid instructions recommend against any
further fixing so it would have to be only a hardner, not a hardening fixer.
I have found that with reasonable handling the negatives are not as fragile
as some people seem to indicate and I haven't had any problem with
scratching.

I actually like the film quite a lot.  It is very slow (I rate the negatives
at about ISO 32 and the prints at about ISO 50), but has very nice shadow
detail with good highlights.  I have made some very nice images with it.

Sherman


From: dpcwilbur@excite.com (Collin Brendemuehl)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lens or camera? Help a newbie plan his course...
Date: 27 Mar 2002 


My first Crown Graphic had a lens similar to the one on your speed.
I think any modern 6x7 medium format would have taken a photo
with more detail in it.  (I could be wrong, but it's going to be
a close call.)

When I saw what the relatively inexpensive Busch 'D' had to offer,
that's when I parted with the Crown.  Some lateral shift, some rise
and tilt, rotating back, a little fall, but no swivel.

Shortly after that, I looked at how it was being used, esp. since
I'm a hobbyist.  I evaluated trading up to a used 45D or perhaps a
Toyo field camera.  They've a lot to offer @ modest prices.  But I
didn't change.  The reason was simple -- the cost to a hobbyist.

The movements I have are limited but real and useful.  For a landscape
just a little rise or fall is all that I need.  Nothing extreme.
Since I'm doing to serious product shots there's no need for the
wide lens movements available on a monorail.  Portraits can use a
little tilt for eye emphasis/isolation.  And what I've got is
adequate for those tasks.

Let your subject matter determine whether you need more.  If it does, then
get more.

Even if you stay with the current body, a newer lens is a real necessity,
imnsho.  For between $200 and $300 you can get a 150mm lens that will be
most suitable on the Graphic.  There are some very nice Fujinon and
Schneider Xenar units that will fit perfectly.  One of these will make you
very happy for a long time to come.

I got a used #1 shutter on eBay for $130.  Works great, but imperfect cosmetics.
Then, KEH sold some 70s-vintage Xenar cells that I got for about $60.
The results are excellent.  (All I had to do was take my caliper and compute
f-stop and create my own 150mm scale for the shutter.)

For about $150 you can get a Schneider Symmar 135/235 convertible.  If you use
it just in 135 mode, it will give you some excellent results, esp. for the
price.

Enjoy yourself.

Collin, KC8TKA


From: John john@darkroompro.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lens or camera? Help a newbie plan his course...
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002

"G. Fenstermacher" gfen@DELETE.rcn.com wrote:
>Does anyone know a good online resource of lenses?

  http://www.graflex.org/lenses/lens-spec.html

Regards
   John S. Douglas, Photographer
     http://www.darkroompro.net




Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Graphic recommendation

 you wrote:
>I have a 4x5 Super D and a 4x5 Speed Graphic. The Super D is amazingly useful
>and fun. Just don't buy a Crown Graphic, which lacks the rear curtin shutter.
>Half the fun of  these cameras is being able to use old barrel lenses that do
>not have their own shutters. I have an old soft-focus  Graf Variable on the
>Super D at the moment. Makes beautiful old fashioned pictures.  I'm also
>fitting a Wolensak "Verito" soft focus lens to the Speed Graphic. Arthur

  Boy, I'm glad someone else appreciates the back shutter. The Crown
Graphic, which was the cheap model, often sells for more than contemporary
Speed Graphic because people think its a lot lighter. Its not and you loose
the utility of the focal plane shutter. I've even heard of people removing
the back shutter. A travesty and mutilation. Ugh.

  BTW, Busch made a 4x5 press camera with focal plane shutter, probably to
meet the government spec for the Speed Graphic. The Busch shutter is self
capping, a much more elaborate peice of machinery. Not many were built and
I think I may have seen one in the flesh.

  Whatever faults the Graflex has there is something magic about it.

  Its too bad the Super-D was never made in 2x3 size. Probably the
automatic diaphragm was too large to fit. The same mechanism is used for
both 4x5 and 2x4 sizes (that's why the 4x5 lens is only f/5.6. A roll
adaptor in a 3x4 would make a nice camera, the slightly long focal length
(150mm) is about right for portrait work on 120 film. 3x4 Graflex's go for
a song because they are orphans.

  Graflex cameras, unless modified with a Graflok or with a Graphic back
are hard to find holders for. The Graflex back is reversed from the Graphic
and Graflok back in that the locking ridge is on the camera side rather
than on the holder. Virtually and Graflex can be refitted with a Graflok
back and Graphic backs were offered as an alternative when the cameras were
new.

  I understand that the reversed locator ridge was a Folmer and Sching
standard for other early cameras too. Their older banquet cameras take
holders like this and are not compatible with Korona holders.

  Boy, is this stuff off topic. At least its photography. :-)
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 4x5 film holder repairs
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 


"Namexa" namexa2plug@home.net wrote:
>I have a holder with a light leak at the tape hinge. I remember a thread
>about getting repair tape but did not keep any of the messages. I have some
>very good (and expensive) black gaffer tape. One potential problem I see is
>that the glue side is cream colored. Has anyone had any experience using
>this tape. I have already replaced the tape and I will test the holder
>tomorrow in the daylight. If the tape is lightproof I am mostly concerned
>with  the longevity of my repair.
>
>Thanks to all!
...
>Mike Darr
>Namexa Images

 Calumet sells rolls of the original hinge tape. Its a sort of cloth
tape. I've used Gaffer tape, it works but is not entirely
satisfactory.

  The tape does not have to be opaque. The loading flap has a light
trap which does not depend on the tape. The only function of the tape
is to provide a hinge. If the tape is worn the flap may not be held in
place and some light may leak. When the dark slide is in place it
locks the loading flap at the film end. When in the camera the
pressure of the spring back holds the flap closed.

  If you are getting light leaks its probably not the tape unless its
so worn that the loading flap can move and open up the light trap.
  Have a look at the way the loading flap fits the body of the holder
to see what I am talking about.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com



From: sanking@clemson.edu (Sandy King)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 4x5 film holder repairs
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 

 dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>   Calumet sells rolls of the original hinge tape. Its a sort of cloth
> tape. I've used Gaffer tape, it works but is not entirely
> satisfactory.

Just one further comment on hinge tape for film holders. It is very
important that the tape be very flexible because when you fold back the
hinges you want them to stay down while you load the film. If the tape is
stiff the flaps will come up a bit making it much more difficult to load
the film. This may or may not make much difference with small sheet film
but with the larger sizes failure of the hinge to stay down can be a major
irritant. The various gaffer tapes that I have tried have all been very
stiff and make it difficult to load the film.


If you need hinge tape in widths and lengths different from that offered
by Calumet, say for older or very large holders, bookbinding cloth tape is
an excellent substitute. A good source for this is Gaylord Brothers
(www.gaylord.com). I have used both their "Bookcraft" Cloth Tape and their
Filmoplast T Cotton Fabric Book Cloth, both with release backing, as hinge
holder tape and find these materials to be excellent for this use.

Sandy King


[Ed. note: a chinese new LF offering...]
From: bubalusbubalus@hotmail.com (D. Willis)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: new Shen-Hao  4X5 camera?
Date: 28 Feb 2002 


The Shen-Hao brouchures are scanned and available at

http://www.ai.sri.com/~luong/photography/lf/cameras/shenhao/shenhao.html

scroll down to the bottom of the page and you'll see the links.

One of the pages (2) has a chart describing the movements.

The bottom line is that the HZX-45IIA has

40mm rear rise
40mm rear shift (compared to 29mm)
10 degrees center tilt each way

I have the HZX45-IIa.  I had a coworker bring it back from China, and
I'm ver;y pleased with it.  For me the movements would be worth $100.

There have been past discussions on usenet and on the LF forum at
www.greenspun.com/bboard.

If you want to know more about my experiences, email me at
wilREMOVETHISlisd at medicine dot wustl dot edu

DW


From: "Brian Ellis" bellis60@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: field camera recomendations
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002



Lots of movements aren't necessarily an advantage, especially for landscape
work where you don't need most of them. Lots of movements tends to lead to
complexity in operation and sometimes less stability, especially with back
movements. Having to turn six knobs and adjust four levers every time you
open and close a camera can get pretty old pretty quickly. Movements are
fine if you do the type of photography where they're necessary such as
product photography or architectural interiors but for landscape work I
think most people find that extensive movements aren't necessary. Especially
for a first large format camera, I'd opt for simplicity of operation and
stability over extensive movements unless I was pretty confident I'd
actually have a need for extensive movements. This isn't intended as a knock
on the Shen Hao camera. I've never used it but by all accounts it's an
excellent camera.   I just think that people getting into large format
photography sometimes assume that the more movements the better, without
realizing that extensive movements aren't necessary for many kinds of
photography and that the presence of movements has downsides as well as
advantages.
....


From: "Roger N. Clark" rnclark@qwest.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: field camera recomendations
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002


John Gunn wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>                     I've decided to move up to LF and have opted to go for a
> field camera. I've looked through various manufacturers web sites/
> discussion groups etc and I think my head is about to explode. Has anyone
> any recomendations/ comments on various field cameras that are good/
> useable. It will mostly be used for landscape work, so needs to be
> reasonably portable, weather resistant etc, thanks in advance

I suggest the Toho FC-45x.  There is an excellent review at:

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/toho.htm

I agree completely with Kerry L. Thalmann's excellent review.
It has a couple of quirks that make it different than other
field cameras, but those quirks also allow for more movements.
Kerry documents them.  I find switching from horizontal to vertical
very easy even though I was skeptical when I read Kerry's review.
I like the way the lenses attach--better than most 4x5's in
my opinion, and the round lens boards mean no corners, so
packing is nicer.

After lugging 60-pound photo day packs (35mm + 4x5) I got the Toho
last summer ($1200). It weighs only 3 pounds and is sturdier
than every wood field camera I've tested, and many metal
cameras.  It has more movements than most field cameras,
and for me the dis-assembly makes it easier to fit in my
backpack.  I now carry about 37 pounds of stuff, including
tripod, food and emergency gear.
It was a delight hiking at 12,000 feet with it last summer.

Roger Clark
photos:
http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark



From camera makers mailing list:
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 
From: William Nettles nettles@wgn.net
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: [Cameramakers] Lens Alternatives & Avarice

Its all in the coverage. 35mm lens focused at infinity make an image circle
about 2" in diameter. Unless you want to make a two inch circle in the
middle of a sheet of 4x5 film they are only of value as close-up lenses. If
you turn a Nikon 55mm or now 60mm Micro lens around you can use your 4x5 as
a bellows for copyting slides, but its not efficient.

Enlarger lenses can be used in 4x5s. You can even use a magnifying glass
with a paper iris to stop it down. Doesn't take much to form an
image-especailly a low quality image.

With photography especially the fringes of the Pictorialist movement, really
sharp images can be much a hinderance as a desired goal. Many commercial
photogs spend thousands on Swedish Aerial Cameras (aka Hasselblad) to shoot
pictures of people. We don't need to count pores and hairs to capture a
humanbeing. So those commercial guys then spend hundreds buying low contrast
and soft filters to make the Hassleblads more like cheap cameras.

Edward Weston replaced his $1500 portrait lens with a $5 Kodak to make sharp
photos.(And his most famous $50,000+ photos of the peppers is not at all
sharp.
BTW great Weston exhibit on right now at the Downtown Los Angeles Public
Library. Worth driving 1000 miles for.
In fact looking at real prints by "famous photographers who intimidate us"
takes a lot of the gloss off the pedestal. They just did the best they
could. It was their art and not their technology they developed.

My recommendation is that if you put a magnifying lens on the front of your
view camera spend at least one day making photos. Use B&W; or polaroid so you
can quickly pursue it. (easy f-stop calc. Lens to film distance divided by
the diameter of your aperature hole. (a 1' hole on an 8" focus is f8.)

Quickly pull the darkslide and try for one or two seconds based on your light
meter. A 100 sheet film box bottom is opaque and can cap off a magnifying
lens held on with tape. I last tried a 3" diameter magnifying glass with a
one inch hold inblack mat board at the back. You can start there or go down
to 1/2" (1/2" for 8" is f 16) The magnifying glass will definitely focus so
you need to look at the gournd glass.

Question for all of us. Are we tinkering or just being cheap? If just cheap,
then at what point would we be better off working evenings at MacDonalds to
buy a $1000 view camera lens?

Really! You made this photo with a magnifying glass on a shoebox? It's
beautiful. Fries with your order?

Will

---William Nettles
nettles@wgn.net
Nettles Photo / Imaging Site  http://www.wgn.net/~nettles


from camera makers mailing list:
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 
From: "Fox, Bruce" bruce.fox@lmco.com
Subject: [Cameramakers] alternative lenses

Good discussion on lenses and what do we need with
the really expensive ones.  Only one thing to add.
If you take apart that 35mm lens, you may find some
elements that will give you more coverage in your
homemade barrel lens.  Then you can really experiment.
And various sizes of cardboard tube and plastic water
pipe and their fittings can allow you to put the
various elements back together in other combinations.
 Regards,

Fox sends.

Question for all of us. Are we tinkering or just being cheap? If just cheap,
then at what point would we be better off working evenings at MacDonalds to
buy a $1000 view camera lens?

Really! You made this photo with a magnifying glass on a shoebox? It's
beautiful. Fries with your order?

Will

---William Nettles



From: "Mike King" mikeking@cableone.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.darkroom
Subject: Re: 5X7 films ! They're back !
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 


Call around to studios, I've acquired three 5x7 Elwoods for free over the
last twenty years, they're happy to have you haul them away.  And there's a
guy that's been hauling the same Kodak 5x7 to the Omaha Camera Show for
years.  I don't have his name right now but will try to find it if you're
interested.

darkoommike


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 
From: xkaes@aol.com
Subject: Re: Minolta lenses on Leica bodies

bowman@iespana.es writes:
xkaes wrote {sniped}:
 > But I love my Minolta to Leica adapter.  It lets me use my Minolta macro
 > lenses on my large format cameras with the addition of a Leica to Copal
 > (shutter) adapter (also rare).

 Interesting. Do you have any picture of that configuration, so we can see
 how it looks like?

I'll try to put something together.  I assume that this type of setup could
be used on other cameras as well -- if adapters are available -- such as
Minolta macro lenses on a Mamiya RB67.  The results I've gotten on my 4x5 are
amazing.  You might be asking, "How can a 35mm lens be used on a 4x5 camera?"
"Won't you end up with a 35mm image, instead of a 4x5 inch image?"
Since the macro lenses are only used at high magnification, the image circle
that the lens crreates is large enough to cover the entire 4x5 film sheet.
You can't use the Minolta lenses for 1:1 images (for that I have a Fujinon
180mm 4x5 macro), but the 100mm Minolta has a very large image circle (it's
designed for swings and tilts) and will cover the 4x5 image at a 4X
magnification.  Same with the shorter Minolta bellows lenses.  This is much
cheaper than buying a 4x5 macro and the results are super.



From rollei mailing list:
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Users list digest V10 #256

 you wrote:
>Hi, David:
>
>Decent view cameras are expensive.  I've been pricing them from many
>different sources and it seems $1500. barely gets you to entry level.  These
>guys (K.B. Canham, Ebony, Toho, Toyo, Horseman, Deardorff, Linhof,
>Arca-Swiss, Wista, Gandolfi) get to $10,000 - $20,000 very quickly, even for
>4x5.  Unless you want a camera made by Seagull (Shenhao) or Calumet or
>Tachihara.

  Lots of snipping.

  Good 4x5 view cameras are available for very much less on the used market.

  The best of the not to old ones are the Calumet CC-400 and the Graphic
View II (the Graphic View I is also decent but has more limited movements).

  There are also some good, but older and more limited, wood cameras
available. One of the better ones is a 5x7 Agfa/Ansco Universal camera with
the factory 4x5 back on it (I have one).

  In 8x10 there are many choices for old cameras. They differ in the amount
of movements they have. One of the more limited ones is the Kodak 2D, made
in very large quantities for the military during and following WW-2. The
Agfa/Ansco camera is somewhat more flexible. Deardorf cameras tend to go
for rather high prices but a decent one should run around $1000 give or
take some. The Kodak 8x10 Master View is an excellent foldable camera but
they are rare and tend to be expensive. Its also hard to find lens boards
for them. The older Calumet cameras are very flexible but heavy. They are
usually not too expensive on the used market.

  There are other choices. Some of these cameras can take roll film
adaptors. The Calumet C-2 will fit most spring backs and some cameras can
be fitted with Graflok type backs.

 There is no advantage to buying a brand new very expensive view camera,
nothing important has changed in a century.

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com



from rollei mailing list:
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Rollei Users list digest V10 #258

you wrote:
>Richard, I've discovered a curious phenomenon.  The final prices on eBay for
>view cameras tend to be higher than the used prices at reputable camera
>stores, like Badger and B&H.;  Even at that, you're lucky to find a current
>camera sell for less than about 70% of a new camera price.  I'm talking
>about some entry level Toyos, 45C, CX.
>
>Having said that, I picked up a Linhof Color (1950s) on eBay and a Graphic
>View II from a RUGger; I'm awaiting delivery of my check and of the items.
>I was planning to get a better field camera but now that I got the SL66 (see
>my other post), I'm as poor as Jerry Lehrer.
>
>The disadvantage of older cameras is difficulty in finding parts:
>lensboards, whatever.
>
>I think some differences between the real cheapies (Shen-Sao, from Seagull)
>and more expensive ones is grids: you can know where you are on the more
>expensive one; geared movements versus just push and hope its right.

Lensboards at least are easy to make for most view cameras. The Kodak 8x10
Master View is an exception but not by much. I've even made temporary lens
boards of corrugated cardboard, they work quite well.
 eBay is like other auctions, it may look like a good place for a bargain
but the auction fever often militates against that.
  I don't know the difference between an "entrance level" and other camera
other than price.  To me, if you can't afford the newest and greatest new
the thing is to find somethign older which was close to top of the line
when it was new.
 Condition counts, as with everything else.
  Calumet has nearly all parts for the 8x10 C-1 camera and a fair number of
parts for the CC-400. A great many of these cameras were sold to schools,
etc., so they are not rare.
  The CC-400 has considerably longer bellows draw than the Graphic View and
there is a long bellows version (CC-401 I think, also a bag bellows
version. Unfortunately, the bellows are not interchangible.)
...

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Graflex Graphic View--what's the quality like?
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002


Matt Clara wrote:
>A local camera store has one of these for sale that appears to be in decent
>condition.  It has full tilt swing, shift, etc. it has the pan tilt head and
>the bellows appear in good condition.  It comes with a film holder,
>Wollensak 135mm lens and a new bright view screen (with a small crack in one
>corner).  He wants $400 but said he'd take any reasonable offer.  I see
>these go for $200 to $300 on Ebay and was thinking of offering $250 willing
>to go up to $300.  Question is, is this camera worth it?  I shoot mostly
>landscape and some architecture and I'd like the swing tilt shift, which
>this camera seems to do well.  What about the lens, is that a decent one or
>am I going to be hating the contrast?
>Any and all opinions appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
>Matt

 Its overpriced.

  There are two Graphic View models, the older one has base tilts, the
later one center tilts. You can tell the later version from the
double-jointed supports for the front.

  The camera has limited bellows draw. This may not be a problem
depending on what kind of work you contemplate doing.

  If the lens is a Wollensak Raptar its mediocre. The Raptar/Optar
(same lens) I've examined have excessive coma and must be stopped down
to f/22 to be sharp in the corners despite being very sharp in the
center of the field wide open. Actually, its quite contrasty.

  There is a fair amount of information on both versions of the
Graphic View on the Graflex.org site at: http://www.graflex.org

  Another good camera often available at very reasonable prices is the
Calumet CC-400. Actually, there are three versions of this camera, the
original, a longer bellows version, the CC-401, and a bag-bellows
version for wide-angle lenses, the CC-402.

  They sell for similar prices to the Graphic View II.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com



From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: How to cut a 4X5 lensboard
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 

"Tim Eitniear" Tim_member@newsguy.com wrote
> I have just recently purchased a 10" Kodak
> Commercial lens with a #4 Ilex
> shutter.  I want to mount this on my Speed
> Graphic, but not sure what to use to
> cut the lens board. I have researched
> Scott [sic] Grimes webpage and it appears that I
> need a 2.604" lensboard hole.

Don't worry to much about the .604 part - you
are looking to make a 2 5/8" in proletariat
speech.

> Is there anything I can connect to a hand
> drill to do this?

A hole saw from the hardware store will get you
to 2 1/2, a bit of cussing with a file will get
you to final 1/8" (or .104" for those so
inclined).

You can also use a 'fly cutter', however this
is best used with a drill press.

> Where do people usually get this kind of
> work done?

1) Steve Grimes [see above].
2) Local machine shop.
3) Friend with a lathe or milling machine.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Consulting Engineer:  Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.


From: "fbearl" fbearl@cox.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: How to cut a 4X5 lensboard
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002

I have cut lens boards for a Calumet 4x5 and Besler 23C enlarger.  The
material I have used is 1/8th inch thick ABS plastic that I get at scrap
prices from a plastics fabricator.  I cut the lens board to size using
either a table saw or a 10" power miter saw.  I test fit the board to make
sure I am not wasting my time.  I find the center of the board (where the
lines cross from the corners), make a small pilot hole, and use an
adjustable wood bit to make the appropriate size hole.  It is best to try on
a scrap piece (or pieces) to test the hole size because the adjustable wood
bit does not have a precise adjustment.  If the hole  is very slightly too
small I will file it out with a half round file.  Depending on the lens,
there may also be positioning studs that need to have holes drilled for
them. I finish by sanding rough edges  and mounting the lens. SAFETY NOTE:
Make sure that everything is clamped down and properly backed when you drill
or you will see it all spin out of control and may sustain a serious injury.

   I like the ABS plastic because it is black, has a textured and a smooth
side, is rigid and strong enough to do the job (with the lenses I have
mounted), is waterproof and dust-free after cleaning and can be worked
easily with wood tools.  And I get a lens board for about $1 plus a half an
hour of time. If I were really desperate and had no tools, I could probably
carve the hole out with a pocket knife, but it would be ugly.

   I have read about others using 1/8th inch plywood as lens board material.
This would look more traditional and would probably be the way to go if you
need a light trap square on the back of the lens board.

   Good luck and have fun.
Frank



Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 
From: mkirwan@pacbell.net (Mike)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Focus aid (cheap) for manual focus MF SLR cameras


You can get the details for adjusting your rangefinder at
http://www.graflex.org/GHQ/V2I3/kalart-adjustment-problems.html

and here is a link for making a cam;
http://www.graflex.org/articles/cave.html

and here is one last link about the focus scope

http://www.graflex.org/speed-graphic/kalart-focuscope.html

Mike


From rollei mailing list:
Mon, 8 Apr 2002 
From: Edward Meyers aghalide@panix.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] SL66 from H.E. Chamberlain

The Graphic View II is the best buy in large format. I bought
mine for about $200 some years ago. The II version has a
graflok back --desired. It takes 4x4-inch lens boards.
It'll do as well as a Sinar (but with more attention to
use is needed). It's well made and is often offered at
photo flea markets. Ed
...


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] SL66 from H.E. Chamberlain

 you wrote:
>I too still lust after having a large format camera.
>I've seen Graflex's for very reasonable prices.  I'd
>pay a little extra and get one with a Xenar lens in
>Compur shutter.  I hear the Kodak Extar is no slouch
>either.  You could always do what Wee Gee did and go
>around with that camera and a big parabolic flash...
>;-)

  I think you mean a Speed Graphic. The Graflex was a LF SLR camera, exept
for one rather rare model they took barrel lenses. The best of these is the
last version, the Super-D, which had an arrangement to automatically stop
down the diaphragm when tripping the shutter.

 Speed Graphics are readily available, see http://www.graflex.org for much
more on models, etc.

  The best lesnes offered on either Speed Graphics or Graflex cameras were
the Kodak Ektar series. They are superior to either Zeiss Tessars or
Schneider Xenars.

  Most 4x5 Graphics were intended for press work and are equipped with
somewhat wide angle lenses. The "normal" focal length for 4x5 is 152mm but
most of them have either 135mm or 127mm lenses.

  The early Optar lenses are Wollensak Raptars. Sharp in the center but
have lots of coma, a design problem, avoid them. Later Optar lenses were
built by Rodenstock and are quite respectible.

  Weegee's use of the flash gun was standard practice. Most Graphics were
equipped with solenoids for flash synchronization. Tripping the shutter
with the solenoid even when the flash wan't being used is a convenience, so
the flash gun stayed on the camera all the time.

  Also, standard practice was to use flash fill all the time. Mostly the
lens was closed down to f/22 or smaller and the camera shot with the focus
locked at about 15 feet. How to point and shoot before auto-focus and auto
exposure cameras.

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com



From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] SL66 from H.E. Chamberlain

you wrote:
>Phil
>
>Don't try to emulate Arthur Felig.  He was just a fat slob with
>a cigar that spent all his nights wandering through mid-town Manhattan
>looking for picture opportunities.
>
>BTW, the only Graflex-made camera suitable for modern large
>format work is the Graphic View 2.
>
>PS--Arthur Felig's nickname was Weegee.
>
>Jerry Lehrer

  Oh, now...  Speed and Crown Graphics are still very useful cameras,
especially where light weight is important and movements are not required.
They were intended to be used hand held and still work very well for that.

I also occasionally use a Super-D Graflex, especially for portrait work.
Despite its size it still works well for this.

 Weegee was considered even in his time to be somewhat special. Partly this
was due to his talent for self-promotion but comparisons of his work with
the general run of press photography of the time does show some special eye
for irony. He was not above arranging pictures. The very famous one of the
street woman looking at Mrs. Vanderbilt (I think it is) and friend entering
the Metropolitan Opera (called The Critic), was staged, at least to the
extent that the lady being critical was a friend of Weegee's who he had
stand there and wait until someone suitable came along to sneer at. He
staged others. All press guys did this. So did the newsreels.

  He didn't wander the streets. He had a police radio and special
dispensation from the department to possess it. For a long time he lived
across the street from the Centre Street police headquarters, above the
famous gun shop there. He was very friendly with the cops and got tip-offs.
He got the name Weegee from the wee-gee board because of his knack of
showing up at crime scenes even before the cops got there.

 I think fame ruined him. The movie "Naked City" was styled after his book
of the same name. He was brought out to Hollywood but could never duplicate
the sort of work he did in the big apple out here.

  A curious guy.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] SL66 from H.E. Chamberlain

..
>My comments on the view camera was really intended for
>Gene Johnson who is working on architectural photography.
>A press camera, or a field camera is not the best instrument
>for that.  He needed a monorail view camera, such as a
>Sinar or Horseman.
>
>For that type of work, I used a Kodak Monorail view camera,
>but I have never seen another one available.  The Grafic View II
>was better though.
>
>Jerry Lehrer

 The Graphic View II is a great camera.

  The only Kodak monorail I've ever seen was the 4x5 Master View, later
sold by Calumet as the CC-400. If this was an 8x10 it would be very
interesting to know more about it.

  I am familar with three Kodak 8x10 field cameras , the Master View, the
2D and the All Metal View, a magnesium version of the 2D. Burke & James
made an 8x10 monorail under the name Grover.

  Its always interesting to hear about personal contact with famous of
notorious people. I know zero celebrities. As Raymond Chandler says in a
story (The Little Sister) "You can live a long time in Hollywood without
seeing the part they use in the movies".

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Dumb questions ...
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002


"Steve Baker" sbaker04@midsouth.rr.com wrote:
>For a novice who might consider getting in LF, can I find a good quality
>camera and lens for landscape shots for, say, $2000 or so?
>
>After purchasing the camera, it seems to me that it might be quite difficult
>to use(?).  I would prefer attending a class or getting some instruction on
>LF photography.  Are there LF shows or short 1- or 2-day introductory type
>classes I could travel to somewhere in the USA?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Steve
>Memphis, TN


   A partial answer, you will get much more help from others here.
   Cost depends somewhat on size. 8x10 will be substantially more
expensive than 4x5.

   A general answer to the cost question is yes, if you buy used gear
carefully.

   Check out some of the books on LF photography. Both Steve Simmons
and Leslie Stroebel's books are good. Kodak has a low-fluff book
_Kodak Book of Large-Format Photography_ Publication )-18e, cat. E152
7895, available from Silver Pixel Press. It discusses basic camera
technique and stuff like how to load film holders and developing with
simple equipment. There are others, check your library.

  Also, there are some good web sites. For starters see
http://www.Graflex.org  Which has many links to other sites.

  The main thing about LF work is that it requires more deliberation
than smaller formats. The cameras are actually rather simple and not
hard to learn to use. The best way of learning what the camera
movements do is to practice with them.

  If, in the past, you have worked only with 35mm the difference in
quality will astonish you, but, in fairness, I must say that any size
larger than 35mm will have a startling improvement in quality.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com



Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 
From: "Francis A. Miniter" miniter@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Do it Yoursefl LF ????


HI Bo,

There is a very good two-part article in View Camera magazine - Sept-Oct and
Nov-Dec 1996, by John Layton, detailing the construction of a field camera, and
a following article in the Nov-Dec issue about making your own ground glass.
(As a coincidence, I met John Layton for the first time three weeks ago.)

There are also lots of on-line resources, such as:

http://gamma.nic.fi/~mikoneka/materials.html
http://www.btinternet.com/~jrbham/4x5/index.html
http://home.online.no/~gjon/

The last of these, Jon Grepstad's site, is truly remarkable.  Besides providing
complete construction details, it also has a lengthy list of links to other
do-it-yourself-ers.

Francis A. Miniter


From: "Markus Keinath" K11005298@compuserve.de
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Do it Yoursefl LF ????
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002


Hello,

for a list with many URLYs from DIY LArgeformat camera making, vistit my
site:


http://www.keinaths-fotohomepage.gmxhome.de/LF/lf-links.htm



Hope it helps
Markus

--
Repair, Modification and DIY of photo equipment:
www.keinaths-fotohomepage.gmxhome.de


From: Gary Frost gary.frost@nospam.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 4x5 story... (slightly OT)
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002


....So the phrase goes for 35mm "f/8 and be there",
while for large format it's "f/22 and be there 20 minutes early."

By my estimation there is a good bit of myth in this.
While it is not hard to spend a good 30 minutes to take a single photo,
this is not required to operate the camera. I've had the chance to check
this a few times while chasing fading light. It took about 3 minutes from
camera and lens in backpack to first exposed sheet. Less than 1 minute when
the camera is already on the tripod.

While it is more typical to spend a half hour selecting a viewpoint
and composing, even a complex tilt/swing and shift setup is not more
than 5 minutes.  As soon as you setup a tripod, even with 35mm the pace
has changed. It is the ability to get that unique perspective, to put
the focus plane across the wing if you like, to see the details in every
rivet on a 20X24 print that makes it worth the extra time.
You tend to check every sq.cm of the ground glass hoping to avoid any
surprises on the light table as you are exposing 13 times the film area
in a single frame.

While not fast enough to chase anything that moves, (there's always the
press camera) it sounds like an ideal match for the subject.

...anyway, I didn't want anyone to get the impression that it requires
30 minutes to take a 4X5 photograph.

Maybe you provided a distraction from her work ;^)

Gary Frost
...


From Rollei mailing list:
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 
From: Michael Bischof mjb85029@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Large format.

Jose,

Not sure how frequent you're planning photos where you need "movements" and how
much you need in terms of "movements" -- and therefore are willing to spend for
such a camera -- but if you're choices end up too expensive (I would consider
the X-Act to fall into that category) and/or "overkill" in terms of
requirements, keep the old Graphics Press Cameras in mind. Many of them are
equipped to accept 120-size backs (6x6, 6x7 or 6x9), have good optics (esp. the
ones with Ektars or Tessars), and are fairly inexpensive. The down-side is that
they are limited in terms of movements (although better than an SL66).

Also, since you already have Hassy stuff, what about the Arcbody or Flexbody
styles?

Mike

----- Original Message -----
  From: JosT Juan Gonzales
  To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
  Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 
  Subject: [Rollei] Large format.

  Dear Friends:

  I have put on sale my Hasselblad equipment to switch into Rollei.
  I will eventually ask your opinions on the system to be better informed
  and buy the right parts.

   I worked with the Hasselblad and ralized some limitations as to
  applications in table top and architecture as well.  I have seen there is a chance
  (or a market) for architectural photography in my home area, even though there is
  also some competition.  I have also done product photography and felt that the system (med. format) was a
  bit limited when working with a Hasselblad.  I have wanted to feel more in control
  as far as perspective correction in architecture, and decide what keep in
focus and  what not, as to table top.  I have been told by people who own them and have
read in some books that a large format camera may be of good help towards
achieving the results I want.

  I also took a brief course involving the use of it and I think it may be good
give it a shot.

  I want to keep it as simple as possible as what camera to choose.   I have narrowed down my
  top three choices for the cameras, and top two choices for the lenses.   For the cameras, tied in first place,

  1st - Rollei X-Act 2   http://www.rollei.de/en/produkte/index.html and
  Linhof M679cc   http://www.linhof.de/english/index.html

  2nd place a 6x9 or 4x5 Arca Swiss Monolith
  to be used with a Hasselblad back

  *If you wonder why keep it in medium format.  It is because labs
  around here only develop 35 mm. and medium format for slides. Clients
  would hardly pay you for 4x5 slides.  I used to develop myself
  but for many reasons is better to send it to the lab.

  Lenses to be used:

  For the Rollei the C. Zeiss 120 mm. Makro or the Schneider
  90 mm. Makro to do table top photography; and for arquitecture the
  Schneider 50 mm., all of them used for the 600X series, that
  according to rollei can be used with the X-Act 2 also.

  For the Linhof M679cc or the arca Swiss Monolith
  I would get the following large format lenses from
  Schneider: the 120 mm. Makro, and the 47 mm. Super
  Angulon XL.

  I may kill two birds with the same stone if I go all Rollei,
  as to lenses.

  But I wonder if the Rollei X-Act2 will allow for enough
  camera movement as opposed to the other Linhof and the
  Arca Swiss camera models.

  I would appreciate your answers to the following questions:

  a) I pretend to use the Rollei X-Act 2 with a film back.
  Can 6x6 backs from Rollei be used, or it has to be a 6x4.5 back
  used.  I like much more the square for composing pictures.

  b) Does it have any metering, and is the metering as
  good as in the 600X series, this with the purpose to
  help a little when doing Arquitecture shots; and if it has
  any metering, is preflash metering perhaps included?

  c) Among the characteristics cited in the Rollei webpage,
  www.rollei.de/en/produkte/index.html
  www.rollei.de/cct/files/rollei/data/X-Act2_e.pdf
  for the X-Act2 is:
  "unrestricted perspective and focus correction",
  but I wonder if camera movements will be enough
  for the Rollei and non Rollei lenses mentioned above,
  and the work intended to do; (I also wonder if it
  is not some sort of Hass. Flexbody/Arcbody device
  where limitation in many ways is the landmark)?

  d)It is mentioned that you can use the X-Act2 with
  large format lenses also, lets say from Schneider,
  but, do you have to buy them with a rollei shutter
  (which is more expensive) instead of the regular one?

  e) If you buy any large format lens with a Rollei
  shutter, can you fit it onto any other large format
  camera from any other brand?

  Thank you very much for your time and kind attention
  to this matter.

  Very truly yours,
  Jose Juan Gonz~les.


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 
From: Douglas Cooper douglas@dysmedia.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Large Format


> keep the old Graphics Press Cameras =
> in mind. Many of them are equipped to accept 120-size backs (6x6, 6x7 or =
> 6x9), have good optics (esp. the ones with Ektars or Tessars), and are =
> fairly inexpensive.

Even better:  hunt down a Super Graphic.  Considerably more in the way of
movements.  I installed a Maxwell Hi-Lux screen in the one of these, and
with a rollfilm back (I use a Horseman 6x12), it's a portable wonder.  Put
in the Schneider 110XL, and you're nicely set up for architectural work.
(cameraquest.com has a fine article on the Super Graphic.)

Douglas Cooper
http://www.dysmedia.com


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Large format.

JosT Juan Gonzales wrote:

> [...]

Just a thought: you can use 120 roll film in a 6x9 (or 6x12) rollfilm back
(no need to stick with 6x6 backs, just because you happen to have one) and
attach that to a 4x5" camera. That way you have all the benefits and
(relative ;-)) comforts of a full blown LF camera, and none of the
limitations of those expensive MF things.

A very good, simple, and cheap one to use is the Sinar F. Get a Schneider
Super Angulon XL 47 mm and a Rodenstock Macro-Sironar to go with it and
you're set up for life.



From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 
From: Rich Lahrson tripspud@transbay.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Large Format

Hi Douglas!

     The Graphic Press cameras are great for a lot of large format and
with the moderately priced Calumet roll film back could handle some
movements generally encountered in architectual and table top work
at a lower cost than a Hasselblad Acto.  Who buys those?  Pros use
view cameras for when camera image changes are called for.  

Rich
...


From Rollei Mailing list:
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Large Format

you wrote:
>I would like to pick up a Graphics Camera.
>Could someone please explain the differences between the different models
>(Speed, Suppe Speed, Crown . . . )  Also what is the better lens and shutter
>to get with these cameras? I want to use it to shot 4x5 film so is there
>different types of backs for the camera?  Do any of the models have rotating
>backs? How good are the rangefinders that I see advertised for the cameras?
>Thanks,
>jerry

  There is a good rundown on the various models at http://www.graflex.org
Mind the .org, there is also a Graflex.com, but its something else.

These are my other favorite camera.

  The only Graphic cameras to have revolving backs are the Super Graphics.
  The difference between a Super Graphic and Super Speed Graphic is the
shutter. Super Speed Graphics were supplied with the lens in a Graphic-1000
shutter, a between the lens shutter with speeds to 1/1000 sec. The Super
Graphic has a standard shutter. The Graphic-1000 shutter has problems due
to the great stress on some parts. Recently, Fred Lustig has announced that
he can fix them, most shutter repair guys won't touch them.

  The best lenses supplied as original equipment on Graphics are the Kodak
Ektar series and the late Graphic Optar lenses made by Rodenstock. These
last are actually Ysarex lenses of excellent quality.

  Earlier Graphics had Zeiss Tessar lenses as more or less factory
standard. They are of excellent quality but not up to the Ektar or later
Optar.

  Earlier Optar lenses were made by Wollensak and are identical with the
Raptar. These are IMHO not very good lenses. Very sharp in the center of
the field but must be stopped down to f/22 or smaller to get rid of the
excessive coma. Ektars or Tessars are sharp to the corners at f/11 and
pretty sharp all over even at f/8. Wollensak was capable of making
excellent lenses but something happened with the Raptar/Optar series for
Graphic cameras and Enlarging Raptars. I think its a design rather than
manufacturing problem. All are dogs.

  Wollensak Graphex/Rapax shutters are good shutters as are the Kodak
Supermatic, and of course, the Compur found on both early and very late
Graphics. (Kodak started using Synchro- Compur around 1960, discontinuing
the Supermatic.)

 Typically, Graphic cameras are equipped with 135mm or 127mm lenes,
slightly wide angle. The "normal" focal length is 152mm. Many, if not most,
of these cameras were sold for press work where the slightly wide angle
view was an advantage.

  The Super Graphic has a considerable amount of both back and front
movement. The others don't. Pre-Anniversary Graphics (pre-1940) have only
some front rise. The Anniversary Graphic (1940 to 1947) has front rise and
front slide sideways. The Pacemaker Graphics (1947 to about 1960) have
front upward tilt in addition to the sliding motions. Downward tilt can be
gotten by using the drop bed.

  The Super Graphic has front and rear tilts plus rising and sliding front.
The top rangefinder Pacemaker and Super also has a cam operated rangefinder
which takes a variety of lenses. Side mount rangefinders are set up for one
focal length and must be re-adjusted for any other.

  The Speed Graphic has a focal plane shutter with speeds to 1/1000 second.
This can be useful for barrel lenses. The shutter is pretty crude but
reasonably reliable. The Pacemaker Speed Graphic has a re-designed back
shutter with much better uniformity and accuracy.

  Crown Graphics are Pacemaker types without the back shutter. They are
slightly lighter in weight and the box is shallower.

  The Super Graphic is the last of the line. The Super is the equivalent of
the Crown, the Super Speed is the equivalent of the Speed Graphic only with
a special between the lens shutter instead of the focal plane shutter. If
you replace the lens on a Super Speed with one from a plain Super, it
becomes a Super.

 Three kinds of backs are found on Graphics. The Graphic back is a
standard spring loaded back with a non-removable ground glass panel, which
also holds the film holder in place.

  Speed Graphics are occasionally found with Graflex backs. These were
standard on Graflex SLR cameras. They have a removable ground glass panel
and will take accessories. Holders and accessories are held in place with
sliding metal strips at top and bottom.

  Holders and accessories to fit Graflex backs will not fit Graphic or
Graflok (see below) backs.

  The last back is the Graflok back. This is the prototype for the so
called international or universal back. It has a strong spring loaded
ground glass panel which is removable. With the ground glass panel removed
accessories can be fitted and are held in place by the same sliding strip
system used on Graflex backs. However, Graphic and Graflok backs have a
locating slot on the back which fits a ridge on the holder or accessory.
Graflex backs have the ridge on teh back and the slot on the holders and
accessories, so parts are not interchangible.

 All Super Graphics have Graflok type backs.

 Except for the Super all previous Graphic and Graflex cameras can be
fitted with either a Graflex or Graphic back and most of them can be
re-fitted with Graflok backs.

  Check out the Graflex site for much more.

  Fred Lustig worked for Graflex when it was in business and can do wonders
with these old cameras.

 Fred Lustig
4790 Caughlin Pkwy
#433
Reno, NV
89509
1 775 746 0111
Graflex Parts and Service

  He has no e-mail or web site.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com



From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Large Format

you wrote:
>Wow, that was lots of information! I'm going to save your email. These
>cameras are interesting. Can they still be repaired? I mean, if I get one,
>and want it overhauled?
>
>/Patric

  For the most part nearly any Graphic or Graflex camera can be put back in
working condition if its not an absolute junker.

  Fred Lustig is the best at this. He has a stock of parts from the defunct
Graflex company and knows the cameras very well. He doesn't like to sell
parts.

There are still good Graphics available, they were built by the thousands.

 They have limitations: they are not replacements for a real view camera.
However all were made for hand held use and are remarkably easy to use once
you get used to them.

  Like Rolleis they were well designed and built to last.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com



From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Riteway 'Graphic' Film holder
Date: 22 May 2002


"Jeff Novick" jhnovick@pacbell.net wrote 
> What is the difference between the above holder and a normal Riteway film
> holder?
>
> Jeff

  "Riteway" is the brand name used by Graflex for its film holders.
Graphic means it was made to fit Speed Graphic and similar cameras.
The other type is the Graflex. Graphic and Graflex cameras have
somewhat different backs. The Graphic is the familiar spring back,
Graflex SLR cameras have a back without a spring panel where the
holders and accessories are held in place by two strips of metal which
slide diagonally. There is another difference. On Graphic type backs
there is a locating ridge on the holder which fits into a slot in the
camera back. Graflex backs are just the opposite, the ridge is on the
camera back and the slot on the holder. So, even though the two are
the same dimentions they are not interchangable.

 Graflex holders also tend to be a little thicker and have slots down
the edges for the strips to engage.

  While a Graflok back has exactly the same sort of strips to hold
accessories as the Graflex back, it has the locking slot on the camera
side as the Graphic back does so can not take Graflex holders or
accessories.

  Holders for Graflex cameras are marked "Graflex" rather than
"Graphic". Roll film adaptors are marked the same way.


From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Riteway 'Graphic' Film holder
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002

"Jeff Novick" jhnovick@pacbell.net wrote:
>So, a Riteway Graphic film holder will fit other 4x5's that are not Speed
>Graphics that have neither Graflok or Graphlex backs.  Am I correct?
>
>Jeff

  Exactly, The "Graphic" is the sort of generic spring back holder
which fits nearly all cameras including both Graphic and Graflok
backs.

  Stuff to fit Graflex type backs is marked "Graflex". The two are not
interchangible.

  There are similar markings on other sizes of holders which were used
on both Graphic and Graflex cameras.
...

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 4x5 Film Holders
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002

two23@aol.com (Two23) wrote:
>And now for another questions that's probably been beat to death here!  I use a
> Cambo 45NX, mostly as a "field" camera.  I have four film holders (2 new
>plastic, 2 older Grarmatic used ones).  I'm wanting to pick up a couple more
>for my trip down the Front Range.  What are some of the better brands?  I will
>probably pick them off eBay.
>Kent in SD

  The best of the older holders are the "Riteway" brand made by
Graflex. I have _lots_ of 4x5 holders. I've not counted them but must
have nearly one hundred. I've checked them all at one time or another
for film position and find the Riteway holders are all spot on.

  I also have older Kodak and Agfa wooden holders. They vary from on
the nose to quite far off probably from warpage.

  I also have some older Fidelity-Deluxe plastic holders. Nearly all
of them have displaced septums causing the film plane to be off on
both sides. I don't know if this was manufacturing sloppiness or just
age. New Fidelity/Lisco holders are just fine but they, and Riteway
are all made by the same company now.

  Checking a holder requires a depth micrometer and a flat plate with
some holes in it for the gage to project through. The film plane
should be checked with a sheet of film in the holder. Check in the
center and at all four corners. I noted the ISO standard somewhere but
can't find it. From memory its 3/16th (0.1875) inch from the reference
surface of the holder to the film plane with film in it. Stardard for
most sheet film is 0.007 inch thick.

  Grafmatic holders tend to be right on the nose.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Shopping List
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002

...
>I believe I need to purchase a loop or pay a visit to an optician for a
>pair of stronger reading glasses.  I have been using drug-store
>magnifying glasses (+3.25) and this power doesn't work for me. Any
>suggestions will be appreciated
...

 I'm not sure what you need the loupe for. Is this to focus on the
ground glass or to inspect prints?

  3.25 diopter reading glasses are pretty strong.

  For ground glass inspection you want about a 4 to 6 power magnifier,
maybe even ten power for very critical work, but I find that too
strong.

  A simple pocket magnifier is good enough although you can spend big
bux on really good color corrected loups.

  Most drugstore reading glasses are pretty awful optically. Some
brands are better than others. Hold the glasses up and look at distant
objects through them (reversed image). Look for lenses that have no
geometrical distortion when moving them around. I've found Dr. Dean
Edell brand (same guy that's on the radio) glasses to be pretty good
optically but pretty flimsy.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com



From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Depth Micrometer Purchase?
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 

....

  For reference the ISO-ANSI Standards for film plane placement in
sheet film cameras is:

Size                            Location        Tolerance + or-

4x5                             0.197                    0.007

5x7                             0.228                    0.010

8x10                            0.260                    0.016


Dimensions in inches.


  This is the distance from the reference surface for the film holder
to the film surface. It is the distance from the reference surface to
the ground glass.

  For checking the film in a film holder it must have film in it.

  Most sheet film is 0.007 inch thick.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com



From: dkfletcher@aol.com (DKFletcher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 25 May 2002 
Subject: Re: Super Angulon f/8 vs 5.6?

I have a wide camera made from a 65mm f/8 in a focusing mount and I love it.  I
shoot everything at f/22 and its wonderful.

If its real dark I use a laser pointer to project a pattern on something in my
scene and with a lupe I focus on the laser.

Works great!

Good luck!
Dirk


From: fotocord fotocord@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Film Fogging in Cut Film Holders
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Sun, 26 May 2002


miles120@swbell.net wrote:

> I have experienced even fogging in my cut film holders that are used
> outside.  I believe these holders to be light-tight, as they exhibit no
> ill effects when left out in normal room light.  Here's what happens:
>
> 1. The fog is even and does not go edge-to-edge, but only in the area
> covered by the dark slide.
> 2. It does not occur in the film holders that are left in my studio
> indefinitely.
> 3. I try to keep the holders in my backpack until I shoot, but am still
> experiencing problems.
> 4. The problem occurs regardless of brand (Fidelity and Lisco) or age
> (some old, some new.)
>
> Is this just a question of being more careful?  Has anyone else
> experienced this?  It seems that the sun is going straight through the
> dark slides.


Simple test and it only will take one sheet of film. Take one film holder
outside, hold it up to the sun with the darkslide in place. Proces the film
and see if there is any fogging. If not the holder isn't the problem
(unless the dark slide slot is leaking on every holder you own)

The fact it does this with all of your holders used in one camera points to
a leak somewhere in the camera system. A camera used in daylight will show
up light leaks that won't be a problem indoors. I had the felt seals on my
back leak causing this type of thing. If I didn't hold the film holder
tightly to the back when I pulled the slide, the film would be fogged. A
small hole in the bellows can fog the whole film not just a spot as the
light can reflect all around inside the camera. Same with a leak in the
lens board. Spend some time in a darkened room with a bright LED pen light
and I bet you'll find a leak somewhere.

--
Stacey



From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Graphic Press Cameras
Date: 28 May 2002 


"Eror" svizamnom@hotmail.com wrote
> Do these cameras accept 4x5 polaroid or 110/220 film backs/holders? Also
> please let me know if there are any specific problems or other issues I
> should look for when buying one.
>
> Would you recommend some other used 4x5 perhaps in $ 300-500 range that will
> accept standard polaroid film (complete with a lense, few holders etc.)?
>
> Thx
> Slavko
>
> P.S. I am intending to use this camera for shooting colour paint-by-light
> portratits, mainly indoor. I've done a few with 35mm but I'd like to see how
> they turn out in large format.


  All Speed and Crown Graphic cameras will take the Polaroid 545 type
film holder as will many other 4x5 cameras with spring backs.

  All will accept the Calumet type roll film adaptor, which will take
both 120 and 220 film.

  The Graflok back, the back used on Graphic cameras after about 1950,
is better suited to these adaptors because they can be locked in
place, but they work OK with the older spring backs with a little
care.

  Avoid the older Polaroid model 500 adaptor. Changes in the design of
the Polaroid film packages were made after the production of these
backs which make them incompatible with current Polaroid products
(actually, you can makeshift it to work but its a PITA).

  The Graflok back also takes Graflex made roll film adaptors. These
were made mainly for 120 film but 70mm adaptors were also made. I
don't think an adaptor was made for 220 film. These adaptors will not
fit the older spring backs without some makeshifting.

  See http://www.graflex.org  for much more about the cameras and
accessories.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com



From rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 
From: veggie@monmouth.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Large Format

Professor Knoppow wrote:

"For the most part nearly any Graphic or Graflex camera can be put back in
working condition if its not an absolute junker.

  Fred Lustig is the best at this. He has a stock of parts from the defunct
Graflex company and knows the cameras very well. He doesn't like to sell
parts.

 There are still good Graphics available, they were built by the
thousands.

 They have limitations: they are not replacements for a real view camera.
However all were made for hand held use and are remarkably easy to use once
you get used to them.

  Like Rolleis they were well designed and built to last."

If I may add some comments of my own:

Fred Lustig seems to have a good supply of parts but he appears to be
more interested in selling repairs than providing the parts themselves.
He quoted a price of $235 for a replacement focal plane shutter (wether
or not he did the replacing). This is unrealistic when decent Pacemaker
Speed Graphics, with working shutters, can be had for 3/4 that price.


The Speed and Crown Graphics are really in a different catergory from
Rolleis or 35 mm camera when it comes to repairs. The Graphics are far
larger and not nearly so densely packed with mechanism; there is also
less to go wrong. It is actually practical to do your own body repairs as
the mechanisms are easily understood. A decent set of jewelers
screwdrivers, tweezers, and a small pair of pliers is adequate for most
repairs.

(1) For guidance on body repairs I recommend the Air Force Technical
Manual reprints frequently offered for sale on eBay for about $10 (for
Pacemaker Graphics). Plently of exploded diagrams and instructions on how
to repair the focal plane shutter.

(2) If there is a rangefinder problem, it usually requires replacement of
the half silvered moving mirror. Ed Romney has a web page (linked from
Graphlex.org) with useful instructions on how to do this. I've done five
rangefinders using sections cut from the same Edmund Scientific
beamsplitter and I still have some pieces left. Rangefinder calibration
instructions are on the Graphlex website. This is an inexpensive repair
to carry out. Remember that the little brass lockscrew inside the
rangefinder is left handed - don't break it off trying to convince it to
be righthanded.


(3) Sticky Graphex shutters respond well to the lighter fluid
flush/lighter fluid graphite lube sequence. Every Graphex which I've done
this on (five so far, and one gummy Prontor press) have freed up easily
this way and continue to work reliably. I've had no luck at all with
Kodak shutters. Remove the glass, of course, before you go squirting
lighter fluid into things and let the shutter dry completely before you
reinstall the lenses.

(4) The leather covering cleans up nicely with black shoe polish followed
by several coates of clear buffing wax (Johnson's or Butchers's work
fine). For scalped areas of leather, redye them black with liquid shoe
polish
first.


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Large Format

...(see above post)

 I should have made this point. Graphics are easy to work on. Repair
manuals for all models are readily available. 1939 and later cameras have
synthetic bellows which seem to last forever. Shutter curtains are tedious
to replace but not really difficult.

   In judging Fred Lustig's prices remember that the cost of a repair is
not determined by the cost of the item. Its mostly hand work and must be
calculated on the basis of time. The hourly cost must include all the costs
of doing business and the fact that one person can do only so much. So, his
prices may be reasonable on that basis even though not economical in terms
of the cost of the item. He is quite reluctant to sell parts, which is a
PITA.

  There are some others who work on Graflex/Graphic cameras. I do my own so
don't really know what they charge.

  I've had better luck with Kodak shutters. Most seem to clean up well
although you might have to do more than squirt naptha into them. Once they
are working they are quite reliable.

  Rapax/Graphex shutters are very good shutters. Whatever shortcomings
Wollensak lenses may have occasionally had their shutters were always
excellent and generally even the oldest can be gotten to run pretty
accurately.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com



From: "dr bob" rsmith@dmv.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Tripod movement problem
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002


In addition to the advice from Richard, a little bees wax applied to one
film holder and inserted in the camera a couple of times will aid in
inserting all your film holders.  A little goes a long way and the modern
material is odorless, non-toxic and will not migrate to undesirable
locations.  I learned this from my great grandfather who used the stuff
copiously in his hobby (circ. 1930).  I remember the distinctive odor it
gave to his equipment - no longer.  I wonder what became of his very large
format camera?

Truly, dr bob.

"Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote 
> "Andy Phillips" andy@cycad.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >I recently bought an old Graflex Pacemaker 4x5 camera. I've taken a few
> >shots on BW film, and I'm really impressed with the 20x16" enlargements and
> >the scans I've produced from the negs, and I'm looking forward to talking
> >lots of good pictures.
> >
> >However, I've come across one problem: I use the camera mounted on a Benbo
> >II tripod fitted with a large Manfrotto ball head with quick-release plate.
> >The set-up is very steady, but however firmly I attach the QR plate to the
> >camera I find that when I insert the dark slide the camera is very prone to
> >twisting on the plate. Is there a special technique to fitting the dark
> >slides under the ground glass that doesn't involve pushing against the side
> >of the camera?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Andy
> >
> >
>   Try pulling the spring panel back with your fingers before inserting
> the film holder (darkslide). This works for most press-view cameras to
> keep from moving the back of the camera around.
> ---
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA.
> dickburk@ix.netcom.com


Date: Tue, 28 May 2002
From: "konabear" maurert@ameritech.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Graphic Press Cameras


I would always make a plug for a Graphic press camera.  That's what I use.
That said...

Without modification, the cameras have poor tilt down in horizontal
compositions, and no tilt down in vertical compositions.  As this is the
movement I use most of landscapes, I left the Speed Graphics behind for a
time.  I came back after I discovered a way to modify the front standard of
the Anniversary Speed Graphic for both movements.  If you're into heavy
glass the position of the tripod mount is poor.  Because the bellows
extention is limited, if you're into lenses over 270mm you'll need telephoto
formulas.  If you're into lenses over 400mm you're simply out of luck.

Bellow extension also limits macro work, but closeup lenses can overcome
most of that obstucle.

What to look for?  Use the flashlight test on the bellows and be sure there
are no leaks.  Make sure the bed folds down smoothly and the rails the front
standard travels on focuses smoothly.

Make sure the front standard slides smoothly on the rails.  For $300-500 the
leather on the outside of the camera should be nearly perfect to perfect.
NOTE: if you find a mechanically sound Speed or Crown, but the leather is in
poor shape, there is mahogony under the leather and glue.

Todd

"Eror" svizamnom@hotmail.com wrot...
> Do these cameras accept 4x5 polaroid or 110/220 film backs/holders? Also
> please let me know if there are any specific problems or other issues I
> should look for when buying one.
>
> Would you recommend some other used 4x5 perhaps in $ 300-500 range that will
> accept standard polaroid film (complete with a lense, few holders etc.)?
>
> Thx
> Slavko
>
> P.S. I am intending to use this camera for shooting colour paint-by-light
> portratits, mainly indoor. I've done a few with 35mm but I'd like to see how
> they turn out in large format.



From: Robert New robertsnew@attbi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Need advice on first large format camera
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002


Jack,

Much depends on what you plan to do with the camera. If you are looking
at a studio or simi-portable rig there are a number of options. The Toyo
45C is a good camera and there are many available available for $500-700
in good shape. I like the Horseman series with its "L" standards and
high quality of workmanship. A low end Horseman such as the 450 can be
had for $700-$1,000, but it offers a much wider range of features and
shares a lot of compatibility with Sinar. I opted for a Sinar P when I
made the plunge into large format, but for $1,000-1,500 in good
condition, this may be a bit beyond your budget especially when you
figure in lenses and other accessories.

If you are more into landscape work, look for a field camera. There are
a number of these such as Wista, Zone VI, Tachihara, Horseman, Toho,
etc. These cameras forego some of the features of a studio camera in
exchange for much less weight. If you are packing the camera into the
mountains, weight and rigidity will become very important to you.


Far more important than the camera itself are the lenses. Stick with
modern designed Schneider, Nikkor, Fujinon, Rodenstock, Sinaron, and
Caltar lenses in Copal shutters. Avoid the older non-coated lenses in
ancient shutter designs or shutters that are no longer being made. You
can spend a lot of money on a set of good lenses, but they are the heart
of a good LF system.

Robert New
Dallas, TX


Wanderlust wrote:

> I am a 35mm photographer and am interested in exploring large format for
> style/technical reasons.  My first draw was to medium format, but a friend
> of mine encouraged me to look into large format (perhaps using med format
> backs, etc).  I've looked at a few systems, but I'm not sure what I should
> be asking the sales folks....  Can anyone suggest a good entry level system
> that might grow with me?  Am currently considering the Toyo 45C.
>
> Jack




From: Randy modified@holgamods.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Markimage 4x5 Field Camera
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002


Actually this is what has as far as movements.

Front movements
Rise = 37mm
Fall = 32mm
Swing =17 degrees in both directions (34 degrees total)
Tilt =90 degrees and 40 degrees back

Rear movements
Swing = 20 degrees in both directions (40 degrees total)
Shift = 29mm
Tilt = 25 degrees to front and 30 degrees back

as seen here:
http://www.markimage.co.uk/site_pages/field45_detail.html


Randy
www.holgamods.com


From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Calumet C  upgrade/replacement suggestions needed
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 

"Shawn Hedvat" 1stins@gte.net wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I own one of those never to die silver Calumet Cs, the  first lager format
>camera I bought. Now,  five years later, I am ready  to upgrade to something
>better.  I mostly do architectural / cityscape photography, use a glorious
>120 mm f8 Super Angulon and a 250mm f5.6 Optar.   I need the following
>features:
>
>    Very generous  rise and fall
>    Low weight - lower than Calumet C with a 21 inch monorail
>    Revolving back
>    Priced under $400 used
>    If  I  don't have to get new lens boards at $40 a pop that would be a
>plus!
>
>Thanks for your suggestion...

   Actually, the CC-400 series is hard to beat.

   You don't have to use Calumet lens boards, the camera takes any 4x4
inch Anniversary Speed Graphic type lensboard including the metal ones
made for the Graphic View camera. Doesn't work the other way, the
Calumet boards don't fit Graphic type fronts.

  You can make these easily, there is no reason to buy new or used
ones at high prices.

  I mostly have old equipment so am not an expert on new stuff. I
suggest among other things getting a current Calumet catalogue to
survey current offerings (not just Calumet brand cameras).

  For field use a flat bed camera has some advantages in terms of
weight and size but they are usually more limited in movements than
monorail type.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


Subject: Large Format Web page
From: Nospam@optonline.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002


I'm an infrequent poster here. Most of the time I just ask silly questions.
Well to help repay all those who were kind enough to answer me I have put up
a web page of my Large Format experiences.

All of it will be pretty old news to you seasoned professionals but if
you're new to LF maybe something I've posted there can help you. I hope so
:-)

http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/dante/64/lfp1.html

H



Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002
From: Ralph Barker rbarker@pacbell.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Polaroid Type 55n Film


According to the data sheet for PN55 (available on the Polaroid web
site), dilute 16 oz (by weight) of sodium sulfite in 2 liters of warm water.

Ray Price wrote:

>Does anyone know the proper dilution for the Sodium Sulfite Solution used to
>fix the Negative portion of this film?
>
>Can the print be sepia toned? Or do i just use type 56?
>


From: largformat@aol.com (Largformat)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 22 Jun 2002 
Subject: Re: Advice about buying a 4 x 5 system?


At the risk of repeating my self I still think the following will be helpful

Getting Started In Large Format  free on our web site

www.viewcamera.com


Using the View Camera that I wrote for Amphoto or User's Guide to the View
Camera that Jim Stone wrote. Another possibility if Large Format Nature
Photography by Jack Dykinga. All should be available on Amazon.com

Your bellows should be at least 25% (50 is better) than the longest lens you
want to use.

Anything shorter than a 90mm probably will require a wide angle bellows.  There
is also a lens comparison chart on our web site

Try some other cameras.

Steve Simmons


From: "J. Boyer" boyerpond@adelphia.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Century Graphic interest
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002


I'm just curious, does anyone use the Century Graphic (or perhaps the other
Graflex cameras).  They never seem to be a topic of conversation unlike
Kievs etc.  While I own a Hasselblad, the Century was my first MF camera and
it is highly functional.  Centuries have front element swing and tilt, can
shoot 6X6, 6X7 or 6X9, have ground glass focusing and a bellows that
normally allows 1:1 magnification.  All this for typically less than $200.00
for a body, back and normal lens in good condition used.  A large variety of
used lenses are available and they can also use many, perhaps most of the
lenses made for 4X5 large format cameras. The other Graflex cameras
typically are 4X5 and are just as reasonably priced.  I picked up a 65mm
angulon lens, and especially stopped down, it takes very nice moderately
wide angle pictures (for a lot less than a Hasselblad 50mm lens).  Not
trying to sell them, but just curious whether anyone else is as impressed
with them, especially for the price.

Jim


From: kfritch@aol.com (KFritch)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 03 Jul 2002 
Subject: Re: Century Graphic interest  


KFritch wrote:

>>The other problem I found was the lenses for these aren't very good at the
>>larger stops and as such aren't the best for portrait type work.
>>--
>>
>>  Stacey
>
> This is a pretty sweeping statement considering the wide range of lenses
> that
> can be mounted on a 6 x 9 Graphic.  Lots of Schneider, Zeiss, Voigtlander,
> and
> Kodak lenses  can be mounted to this camera.  There's gotta be at least a
> few capable of a decent portrait.

What LF lens (reasonable priced) works well wide open? The "standard"
classic ones sure don't, I've tried them. A xenotar or planar would but did
they make these in longer lengths in a shutter at f3.5 or so? Trying to get
a 180mm lens to work on these isn't easy and the tele lenses they made for
these sure didn't work good wide open, if at all.

Also trying to get the rangefinder acurate enough to work with a lens wide
open is questionable and trying to focus on the GG in this type of shooting
is dificult.

No it's not imposible but if this is the type of work someone wants to do,
a 6X9 graphic is probably the hardest to acomplish this. For landscapes
these work fine but then using a 4X5 isn't any harder and produces MUCH
better results.

--

  Stacey

If you are commenting on the inconvenience of using a 6 x 9 Graphic for 
portraits, I'd be the last to disagree with you.  For that I tend to grab a
C330 and usually grab the 180 Super although I will also use the 135.  I'm sure
that those who have 'blads or Mamiya or Pentax SLRs would use them over a 6 x 9
Graphic.

My reservation, such as it was, concerned your sweeping generalization about
the quality of lenses for the Graphic.  One of the great things about the
Graphics is that one can play around with them and mount all sorts of lenses
from the Ektars, Optars, and Tessars that came with them to lenses from old
folders or plate cameras, barrel lenses (if you have a focal plane shutter)
even some tlr lenses.  There's  a wonderfully wide range of possibilities to
fiddle with on this camera but you have to have lots of patience and enjoy
doing it.

You are absolutely right about critical focus issues and when you have multiple
lenses, you can't quickly and easily adapt that Kalart range finder.  You are
stuck using GG and with less than perfect light it is difficult. 


However, for those with modest financial resources and considerable patience
and ingenuity, the 6 x 9 Graphic can be a good camera.  It's a good teacher of
both the basics and humility (written from the perspective of many frustrations
at not achieving my often unreasonable expectations and failed experiments).



From: fotocord fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Century Graphic interest
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002

KFritch wrote:

>
> However, for those with modest financial resources and considerable
> patience and ingenuity, the 6 x 9 Graphic can be a good camera.~~It's~a
> good~teacher~of
>
> both the basics and humility (written from the perspective of many
> frustrations
> at not achieving my often unreasonable expectations and failed
> experiments).
>


I was just trying to warn people that these are not a "do it all" type of
camera. For landscapes, if one does not want wider than a 65 (which still
isn't easy) or more than a 135mm l lens, these can work fine. This is
probably the worst camera I can think of for shooting portraits and instead
of investing in a "portrait" lens for one of these, their money would be 
better spent on almost any other type of med format camera.
--
  Stacey  


From: fotocord fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Century Graphic interest
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002


J. Boyer wrote:

> Thanks everyone for the responses.  It is good to know these great cameras
> are still being used.  Someone mentioned they were disappointed with the
> film flatness.  I am not sure, but I believe some of the backs were better
> than others.  Some of the newer ones had metal rollers and these were
> supposed to be better.

They are. I had one of these backs and two of the other and sometimes had
problems with the older ones and film flatness. But then these "newer" ones
aren't 6X9. I'm not sure the newer ones are really good enough as my 100mm
WF ektar performs much better on sheet film than it did with any of the
roll film backs.   

> I agree that it may not be the
> perfect camera for portraiture, but for landscapes or closeups, flowers
> etc.
> they easily hold their own.

Yes they do. But it is tough to use them hand held and you can't meter TTL
for closeup work etc.  Another problem is trying to use them with a wide
angle lens.  For use with a semi wide, normal length or slightly tele for
landscapes they work great.


>I suppose they are not more actively used
> because they are old or perhaps whoever said that if you use a MF Century,
> you may as well use a larger format.  Perhaps, but roll film is still
> easier
> to use and to get developed.  Actually, a 4X5 crown or speed Graphic is 
> probably the next logical step.  The Epson 2450 will scan 4X5 as easily as
> 6X9.
>

That's where I ended up. I bought my baby graphic first after 35mm, then
got a super graphic 4X5 and ended up with some other medformat cameras. I
found either I'd use the other medformat cameras or 4X5 as the baby graphic
isn't as easy to use as the other medformat cameras and honestly the
quality of the images wasn't as good, especially compared to my fuji
rangefinder!  8-)
--

  Stacey 


Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 
From: wcmarti@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Century Graphic interest 

I personally don't think you'll see any ( with the "naked" eyeball )
problem due to film flatness. I'd heard that old bromide before, but
negative sharpness hasn't been any problem at all for me. Keep in mind
that the largest prints I've made from it are 16x20. In my opinion, the
21/4x31/4 graphic's the best MF value around. It's shortcoming has to do
with the fact that the rangefinder is limited to lenses of about 80mm to
100 mm focal length, and can't be easily changed -- no cams, as in the
super graphic. But for a field camera, they're hard to beat. Mine have
also made some excellent portraits. Start with the 101 mm Ektar lens,
and see what you think.

J. Boyer wrote:

>Thanks everyone for the responses.  It is good to know these great cameras
>are still being used.  Someone mentioned they were disappointed with the
>film flatness.  I am not sure, but I believe some of the backs were better
>than others.  Some of the newer ones had metal rollers and these were
>supposed to be better.  My 6X7 back had metal rollers and I have not noticed
>any indication of excessive film bend.  I agree that it may not be the  
>perfect camera for portraiture, but for landscapes or closeups, flowers etc.
>they easily hold their own.  I suppose they are not more actively used
>because they are old or perhaps whoever said that if you use a MF Century,
>you may as well use a larger format.  Perhaps, but roll film is still easier
>to use and to get developed.  Actually, a 4X5 crown or speed Graphic is
>probably the next logical step.  The Epson 2450 will scan 4X5 as easily as
>6X9.
>
>Jim   


From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Problems with dust
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002

Frank Pittel fwp@warlock.deepthought.com wrote:

>Robert Feinman robertdfeinman@netscape.net wrote:
>: Is it possible that the "dust" spots are actually air bubbles on the
>: film during development? Or maybe impurities in the chemicals sticking
>: to the film at some point in the process and interfering with proper
>: processing?
>
>It very well could be. When I first noticed the clear spots in my
>negatives I was told they were caused by dust on the film at the time
>of exposure. Not knowing any better and the fact that employing as
>close to clean room conditions as I can to the film loading process,
>cleaning out the inside of the camera, "dusting" the film with
>compressed air just prior to exposure, etc, etc, have help I believed
>it.
>
>My question was/is since I can't seem to completely eliminate dust
>from my B&W; negatives (no problem with color film) what can I do to
>eliminate the annoying black spots in the prints. So far the    
>concencous  is to spot the negative and then spot the white spots
>on the print.
>

   One way to tell the effect of bubbles from dust is by appearance.
Bubbles (air bells) tend to leave soft edged clear spots with darker
circles around them (for B&W;). The lack of developer activity where
the bubble covers the emulsion results in a lack of developer reaction
products right at the border of the bubble. With many developers this
results in greater development for a very short distance around the
bubble (essentially the lateral diffusion path).

  Dust particals will leave smaller and generally sharp edged clear
spots. They also tend to be irregularly shaped where bubbled tend to
be fairly round.

  There have several good suggestions in this thread. Art Kramer's
sugestion of treating the holders and dark slides with an anti static
spray is a very good one. AFAIK most dark slides, especially older   
ones, are made of hard rubber, which is a notorious generator of
static electricity.

  Beside the spray-on's there are also anti-static laundry additives
such as "Cling Free" fabric softener. A soluton of this wiped on may
help. Any of these treatments is temporary and must be renewed
occasionally.

 Beside vacuuming the inside of the bellows it may help to wipe them
down with a treated dust cloth or just a damp rag. The same for the
insides of a changing bag if you use one for loading or unloading
film.

  You can probably get a good idea of how static prone film is by
rubbing a sample with a woolen or silk rag. That will tend to charge
the thing. See if it attracts small bits of tissue paper or will raise
the hairs on your arm after rubbing. Use unprocessed film since
processing may remove some anti-static materials included in
manufacture.

  I don't know of anything for treating unexposed film for
anti-static. Doesn't mean there is nothing but I would be reluctant to
spray it or dunk it in anything at all.

 If you want an exagerated idea of how a static charge can attract
dust try not cleaning your TV screen for a couple of weeks. The high
voltage charge on CRT's is a very effective dust attractor.  Computer
monitors seem to have an anti-static coating which makes them much
less attractive to dust.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com 



From: fotocord fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Century Graphic interest
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 

J. Boyer wrote:

> I'm just curious, does anyone use the Century Graphic (or perhaps the
> other
> Graflex cameras).

I had one of these but sold it as anytime I wanted to use this style of
camera, I'd use my 4X5 press style camera instead. They are a cheap way to
get into med format but I wasn't that impressed with the results I got.
Don't get me wrong, it wasn't bad but I think film flatness with the
graphlex roll film backs keeps these from being a great camera. That and
using them handheld isn't optimal. It's not much harder to be shooting 4X5
size film.

The other problem I found was the lenses for these aren't very good at the
larger stops and as such aren't the best for portrait type work.
--

  Stacey


Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 
From: wcmarti@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Century Graphic interest

I have two of them. Actually, one's a Crown ( 21/4 x 31/4 ). I have
several roll film backs, quite a few lenses, and use them a lot. They're
a heckofa buy. Bought one through eBay for $102, with lens, infinity
stops, and ground glass back. Very versatile, go-anywhere camera.

J. Boyer wrote:

>I'm just curious, does anyone use the Century Graphic (or perhaps the other
>Graflex cameras).  They never seem to be a topic of conversation unlike
>Kievs etc.  While I own a Hasselblad, the Century was my first MF camera and
>it is highly functional.  Centuries have front element swing and tilt, can
>shoot 6X6, 6X7 or 6X9, have ground glass focusing and a bellows that
>normally allows 1:1 magnification.  All this for typically less than $200.00
>for a body, back and normal lens in good condition used.  A large variety of
>used lenses are available and they can also use many, perhaps most of the
>lenses made for 4X5 large format cameras. The other Graflex cameras
>typically are 4X5 and are just as reasonably priced.  I picked up a 65mm
>angulon lens, and especially stopped down, it takes very nice moderately
>wide angle pictures (for a lot less than a Hasselblad 50mm lens).  Not   
>trying to sell them, but just curious whether anyone else is as impressed
>with them, especially for the price.
>
>Jim 



Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 
From: Marco Pauck marco@pauck.de
To: russiancamera-user@beststuff.com
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Large Format?

Jacques Kevers wrote:
> Practically all discussions here are related to 36mm cameras and lenses.
> Are there any Russian / Ukrainian large format lenses as well? I would
> be interested to hear how lenses similar to the 90mm f/4.5 Rodenstock
> Grandagon or Super-Angulon XL 5.6/72mm compare quality- and pricewise to
> the latter. In fact I'm looking for a wide angle  5"x7" view camera lens
> that would give enough coverage to allow for some swing, tilt and shift
> movements and would be more affordable than the big German brands...

I have a page devoted to the large format FK cameras:
http://www.pauck.de/marco/photo/stuff/fk/fk.html

As it has already been stated, the choice of lenses is quite limited.  
All the designs I know of are of the tessar type not suitable for
wide-angle imaging.

You might also want to check this overview of lenses:
http://www.baierfoto.de/russobj/objektive.html

Marco   



From: sahamley@netscape.net (Steve Hamley)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Camera Movements
Date: 17 Jun 2002 

Ray,

I shoot LF and what you want to do isn't hard, and you may be able to
do it with a perspective control lens on the Mamiya, depending on how
much you are looking up at the windows. The nice thing about LF is
that every lens is a PC lens.

The technique is to level the camera, then raise the front lens board
and/or drop the back until the top of the window is in the photo, just
like the 35mm and Mamiya perspective control lenses. This is usually
all you have to do.

If this won't quite do it, you can then tilt the camera up and use
back tilts to help control convergence. Front tilts will not control
convergence. The general rule for swings and tilts is to use back
swings and tilts to control image shape and front swings and tilts to
control DOF. Leslie Stroebel has an excellent section on movements in
the "Using the View Camera". 

You do need to be sure and have a lens with enough of an image circle
to handle the movements of the camera and stay sharp. Older lenses for
press cameras will not usually allow you to use all the range of
movements a modern camera provides. When you move the front standard
up an inch and a half, you have to have that much (sharp) extra image
circle. Older lenses are often as sharp as new ones in the center, but
generally get soft towards the edges, especially below f/22 (another
reason to use modern lenses with camera movements). You'll also need
to shoot f/11 to f/22 for even most modern LF lens designs to ensure
sharpness out to the edge of the much-larger image circle. This is why
god made Mamiya 7IIs with their sharp-wide-open lenses.

Longer lenses generally have more coverage than shorter ones. If you
have to have lenses shorter than about 100 mm on a 4X5 (50mm on a RZ),
you might want to check lens specs first to be sure the lens will
cover the film with movements, and if you need a "bag" bellows to
accomodate the movements with a short focal length lens. Some cameras 
need a bag bellows for shorties and some don't. Get a fast lens (f/5.6
is fast to LFers) if it is a wide angle. View camera images are dim on
the ground glass, and the light falloff on the gg will make it hard to
see the image edges if you have a lens smaller than f/5.6. I'm
assuming the surroundings will be fairly dark.

If you can rent a Kodak ReadyLoad holder or a Fuji Quickload holder,
you can use most of the popular packet films without having to worry
about loading and unloading film holders and the associated dust
problems. The film is about twice the price, but you can easily carry
60 or 80 sheets. Try that with film holders.

I agree with the other posters, having shot inside Notre Dame in
Paris. Meter with a reflected light meter, on the window itself and
let the shadows fall where they will. You can make an exposure for the
window and one for the surroundings, scan them both and put them
together in Photoshop without losing anything. Or you could adjust the
curves or use the burn and dodge tools to open up the shadows/work on
highlights.

Thanks!

Steve

"Ray Paseur" ray@non-aol.com wrote 
> I need to photograph several very tall stained glass windows, and I cannot
> get the images quite right with my box-camera RZ67, so I am going to have to
> rent a bellows-type camera.  Can anybody give me some guidance on how to
> meter the light and/or suggest learning tools?  I expect I can make good
> enough images on a 4x5 negative, but I have no clear idea what sort of
> camera to look for.  I would guess that this is "architectual photography"?
>
> Thanks for any suggestions,    


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 
From: Michael Bischof mjb85029@worldnet.att.net
Subject: [Rollei] OT: Ektar Lenses

Although completely off-topic, a quick follow-up on some issues that were
discussed on this list a little while ago: Ektar lenses. After reading the
very positive and insightful comments, especially from Mr. Knoppow, on this
issue, I decided to give them a try. On our (least/most) favorite shopping
website, I won the bid for an old 2x3 Crown Graphic with an f4.5/101mm Ektar
lens (from 1947, based on the serial number), and armed with an old 6x9 back
from a local camera store I drove up to the Grand Canyon to test the new
camera. My expectation was to get results comparable to my trusty
Tessar-powered Rolleiflex, but in a format that is more appropriate for big
landscapes.

The first thing I noticed was that taking photos with this camera was even
more deliberate (or slow, depending on your opinion) than with a Rolleiflex.
I took all photos on a tripod just like I often do with the Rolleiflex when
outdoors, although both cameras could obviously be used hand-held.
Especially the back-and-forth swapping of ground glass holder and film back
was an adjustment -- not to mention the dark slide (as you can tell I have
never used large-format cameras). Furthermore, I liked the fact that the
101mm lens is actually a moderate wide-angle lens with a 6x9 back.

Since the issue of comments by tourists when using old cameras was discussed
recently as well, I had one of those also: one guy made a sarcastic comment
on the lack of speed with my camera, as he happpily zipped through half a
roll of film with a brand-new Nikon autofocus SLR. My comment on the fact
that the final result is all that matters was countered with his belief that
nothing can beat the performance of his new zoom lens -- I dropped the
discussion.

Anyway, after getting the test roll (Ektachrome 100VS) developed, I was
actually stunned by the color rendition of this lens. I have spent a few
rolls of film up at the canyon (with about half a dozen cameras over the
years), but I don't think the colors have ever come out quite like that. The
E100VS film has strong ("saturated") colors by itself, and the Ektar lens
seems to complement that very well -- in direct comparison, my Tessar lenses
(on either the Rolleiflex, or on my 35mm Contaflex) seems to almost
"swallow" colors. In terms of contrast, sharpness and all the other good
stuff, I think the Ektar lens is very similar to the Tessar in my
Rolleiflex. So in summary, as the discussion on this list had suggested,
these old Ektar lenses are fine pieces of glass, and are particularly well
suited for color photography.

One question though. The camera came with both the original ground glass and
a replacement "Brightscreen" screen, which is a bit thinner than the
original ground glass (and much nicer to use -- brighter, and it has a grid
to facillitate getting the horizon straight). Just judging from how well the
focusing with the built-in Kalart rangefinder matches the focusing with
either one of the screens, the difference in thickness appears to make a
difference (although not enough of a difference to matter on shots taken at
f11). A frequently-discussed issue on this list are the adjustments that are
necessary on a Rolleiflex when exchanging the original ground glass with a
Maxwell (or other) screens. What are the members on this list using to
actually make up the difference? TIA.

None of this means, I will get rid of my Rolleiflex any time soon, but there
are cases where the 6x6 format just isn't very useful (slot canyons, for
example). For those cases, I now have a very good option -- and a cheap one
at that -- and I haven't even "played" with the (limited) movements that the
camera allows.

Regards,
Mike


Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002
From: Tony Galt galta@uwgb.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Shen Hao field Camera


I have a Shen Hao HZX 4x5IIA (bought from Badger Graphic here in the
U.S.). I have used it now since January around my home base and on a
trip to New Mexico. It is a great deal of camera for its price. You
will find that it is endowed with a full range of movements matched
only by some high end cameras such as the Ebonies. About the only
movements it lacks are rear fall and front shift. On the rear it has
both center and base tilt, swing, shift and rise; on the front it has
base tilt, rise and fall, and swing. When everything is tightened down
it is quite rigid. Construction is robust, but I am beginning to
notice some brassing of the black paint in areas where my fingers
contact metal parts. Since I did not buy it as an object of beauty,
but rather as a tool to learn large format photography, I am not
bothered by this. It is made of teak, which seems quite durable, but
is perhaps heavier than some other wood choices. In terms of
precision, the movements are smooth but "zeroing" requires the use of
a small level (none are built in). It comes with a plain ground glass
and I have found that OK with 150 and 210 mm lenses, but it is hard to
use with my 90 mm Super Angulon. Of course a fresnel screen could be
added.

Hope that is of use to you.

Tony Galt

"Pascal Guillaumet" p.guillaumet@bords-de-mer.com wrote:

>Hi !
>
>Does anyone use or have opinions about those 4x5 field cameras
>(construction, ease of use, robustness, movement precision) ?
>
>Thank a lot in advance.
>
>Pascal


From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 24 Jun 2002 
Subject: Is the best MF a 4x5?

I use Rollei and Blad. And I love them both. But I also use a Sinar with a 120
rollfilm back. You get all the conveniences of rollfilm, but you also get
swings and tilts, rises and falls and lateral shifts for total image control.
And you can get an almost unlimited variety of focal lengths optimized for
best possible working distances. Is the  most versatile and flexible  MF an 4x5
view camera? In many ways it well may be.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer




From: fotocord fotocord@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Is the best MF a 4x5?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002

ArtKramr wrote:

> I use Rollei and Blad. And I love them both. But I also use a Sinar with a
> 120 rollfilm back. You get all the conveniences of rollfilm, but you also
> get swings and tilts, rises and falls and lateral shifts for total image
> control.

If I'm going to bother setting up a 4X5, I'm going to shoot 4X5 film. I
haven't used my roll film backs in over 5 years.. As far as the lens deal,
a focal plane shutter SLR can mount almost any lens you feel like hacking a
mount up for. I've got a reverse ring and used with a filter stack cap,
it's as easy as a LF camera to mount a lens on a bellows. Plus using ultra
wide lenses on a 4X5 is nothing short of a major pain.

As someone else said, different animals.
--
Stacey



From: fotocord fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Is the best MF a 4x5?
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 

...(quoting above..)
> I find view camera operation  to be rather easy and the swings and tilts
> give me a special flexibility that I can't get with a Blad. So I use both.
>

"Rather easy" is a relative term. First you have to open the shutter and
the diaphram, get under a dark cloth with a loupe (or use a huge/heavy
reflex viewer clamped to the ground glass) then after you compose, close
the shutter, reset the diaphram, insert the film back, pull the dark slide
and =then= fire the shutter and hope nothing has changed since you
composed! Compared to focus and fire the shutter, it isn't even the same
sport!  8-)  If I really needed tilt and shift very often, I'd get the TS
hartblei 45mm lens made for my camera or go ahead and shoot 4X5 film. I
don't see a roll film back being that much more convinient than 4X5
holders, especially ready loads.
--
  Stacey


From: fotocord fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Is the best MF a 4x5?
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002

...

> Of course a few rolls of film is a lot lighter and takes up a lot less
> space than holders and even ready loads. And the TS Harbei wont give you
> back movements which at times are the most important of all. But adding a
> 120 roll
> holder to your 4x5  now gives you everything. so why not do it?
>

Wasn't the list above long enough? What LF camera will have shifts, tilts
and back movements with a 45mm lens? What 45-50mm lens in LF is even usable
at anything larger than f22 and still be sharp? The only afordable 40-50mm
lens is an old 47m SA and these don't have much coverage and are poor
performers until f22 and are a pain to even mount on most 4X5's.  My 50mm
flektogon works great at f5.6-f8 and sometimes that is needed to get a
shutter speed that will stop movement or trees etc. Adding a roll film
holder makes LF lenses longer and less useful for many landscape type
photographs. The shortest lens  that will even work on my 4X5 (a super
graphic) is a 90mm so any sort of wide angle shot on a roll film back is
out of the question. Using a 4X5 back, this becomes a wide angle and works
fine.

As I said, if I'm going to be bothered with the hassles of a 4X5 style
camera, I see no reason not to use 4X5 film. You asked "Is the best MF a
4X5?", sorry, but I don't agree at all. A roll film back and film isn't
enough of a savings over 4X5 readloads to over come the problems caused and
quality loss from doing that. A medium format camera is MUCH easier to use,
takes less time to set up, can be handheld easily if needed etc. For most
people a roll film back on a 4X5 is a poor substitute for a real MF SLR.
--
  Stacey


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 
From: Kevin Kalsbeek krkk@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Large Format?


Jacques,

The soviets did make large format cameras, but the lens choice was basically
nonexistant. Only normal lenses were offer insor as i can find, but the
quality was good.

I have an Industar-51 4.5/210 that a friend had adapted to P-6, and I have
used on my P-6 bellows on my K60. the results were very good.
Can't compare to Rodenstock, etc, as my LF lenses are all old ones- Kodak
Wollensak, Ilex, etc.

Regards,
Kevin

Jacques Kevers wrote:

> Practically all discussions here are related to 36mm cameras and lenses.
> Are there any Russian / Ukrainian large format lenses as well? I would be
> interested to hear how lenses similar to the 90mm f/4.5 Rodenstock
> Grandagon or Super-Angulon XL 5.6/72mm compare quality- and pricewise to
> the latter. In fact I'm looking for a wide angle  5"x7" view camera lens
> that would give enough coverage to allow for some swing, tilt and shift
> movements and would be more affordable than the big German brands...
>
> Thanks,
> Jacques


From russian camera mailing list:
From: "Per Backman" perbackman@swipnet.se
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Large Format?

What about Meopta Magnola? Not Soviet, but anyway. There was a studio camera
made in the GDR too, I have forgotten its name, maybe it was Mentor or Meteor.

Per


From: dpcwilbur@excite.com (Collin Brendemuehl)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 4x5 cameras under 1200.00
Date: 21 Aug 2002 


Doing it on a hobbyists budget:

For me, $1,200 would be a luxury as I'm a hobbyist.
The used Busch Pressman 'D' cost me $69.95 as the shutter was jammed
and the ground glass was cracked.  eBayed the lens for a few bucks
and purchased a replacement ground glass for $15.  Broke about even there.
Got a Xenar 150/4.5 for $68 frok KEH and a Copal #1 shutter for $125 off eBay.
Thats $261.  Now add $20 for a few film holders from Midwest Photo
and $30 for a Majestic video tripod (ala garage sale), and there's $311
in a field outfit that does me very nicely.  Check out my Lilies on
photocritique.net.  I've also a nice chrome landscape shot in western
Oklahoma that will get scanned and printed soon.

(My darkroom is the same thing -- hobbyist garage sale specials and
good discount used components from Midwest Photo.)

Being a hobbyist, I try to shoot weekly but really only get time set aside
on a monthly basis to do any volume of work.  I try to take the 35mm along
because some shots are quick shots and I don't have the correct film packs
and press experience necessary. :-)

Also, my skills are still in the development stage.  The Busch gives
me some useful movements.  The forward tilt is great for landscape
dof.  The rise and shift are practical for close-ups and portraits.
No snaking twists, but enough practicality to get the basic job done.

I am working on a "project" that will take me 6 months to accomplish. It's
a series of shots .... I think it'll be a secret until it's shown. I'm
talking to a local gallery about a show in a year.  Probably a dozen
or so 11x14s.

Now, if View Camera will give me the difference between $1,200 and
what I've already spent, it will be appropriately invested in a nice
210 Nikkor-W!. ;=)

Collin

camartsmag@aol.com (CamArtsMag) wrote
> We are working on this article for the Sept/Oct issue of View Camera. In late
> Sept, after the issue comes out, we will post this article on our web site.
>
> steve simmons


From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 4x5 cameras under 1200.00
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 


kirkfry@msn.com (Kirk Fry) wrote:

>Steve,
>
>Howabout a Calumet CC401?  :-)
>
>Don't lightly dismiss the idea, many a LF photographer
>started with these. They may not be very portable but
>they get the job done.  These are way under $1200.
>Maybe a whole story could be crafted about these.
>Great history lesson.
>
>Kirk
>
>largformat@aol.com (Largformat) wrote...
>> the 45CF will be in the article
>>
>> steve simmons


  I have a CC-400 and agree that its an excellent camera. There were
three versions made with different length bellows. The CC-401 has
longer bellows and the CC-402 has shorter, bag type, bellows. The
bellows re not interchangible.

  This camera was originally sold by Kodak as the 4x5 Masterview. Its
been sold by both Calumet and Burke & James.

  Another oldie but goodie is the Graflex Graphic View camera. There
were two models, the I and the II. The II has center tilts and some
other improvements. Some Graphic View II cameras have Graflok backs.
These are desirable if you can find one, but the standard back model
is fine if you are not interested in accessories.

  The bellows draw is more limited than the CC-400.

  The CC-400, like its 8x10 counterpart, the  C-1, has no glamour
whatsoever, but will do nearly anything you want to do with a view
camera.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From camera makers mailing list:
From: Anders Nygaard holga@holga.dk
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] A question regarding a lens

Hi Rich, I recently bought a Speed Graphic 4x5 with a Kodak Ektar 127
mm. It covers 4x5 easily, and can handle all the movements available on
the Speed Graphic.

/Anders

Rich Adams wrote:

> I currently have a Kodak anastigmat special 127mm lens
> from an old 616 camera.  Does anyone have any
> experience in using this lens in a 4x5 camera?  I have
> read a number of places where it should cover 4x5 with
> little or no movement but I have not found any first
> hand experience from someone who has actually used one
> on a 4x5 camera.  I am looking to place it on a box
> style camera using a 4x5 back and focusing on a ground
> glass with the build in front lens focus (no bellows).
>    The lack of movement will not be an issue, but I am
> unsure as to the quality and coverage in the corners.
> As I mentioned it is reported to be a good lens at
> generally used distances and f-stops in the 2.5 by
> 4.25 format.
>
> If anyone has used this lens and can fill me in, it
> would be appreciated.
>
> Thank you.
> Rich
>
> =====
> Richard E. Adams


From: "fbearl" fbearl@cox.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Kodak Anastigmat 170mm
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002


    I have been using a Kodak Anastigmat f7.7 170mm lens on my 4x5 camera.
Originally, I believe these lenses were used on Kodak #3A cameras.  I like
the lens very much. It covers adequately.  It seems to resolve nicely and
since I only do B&W;, I have not had to worry about color.

    But it is in a Kodak Ball Bearing shutter with T,B,25,50 and 100.  I
would like to move the lens cells into a better shutter and have tried them
in a Kodak Compur and a Polaroid Copal.  Of course, (since I am writing this
request) they do not fit.

    I believe that Kodak also offered this lens in an Ilex Universal
shutter.

    Has anyone had any experience moving these cells to a competent shutter
(T,B,1sec - ???)  without machining.

    I would send it to Steve Grimes and have checked his web page, but I am
on a budget with this and like most, I would prefer a quick, easy  and cheap
fix :.)..

Thanks


Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002
From: Tony Galt galta@uwgb.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What affordable field camera offers the most movements?


I think you'll find that the Shen Hao has the most movements among
lower priced field cameras. It costs $625 at Badger Graphic. That
leaves you $875 to buy a lens or lenses. The Shen Hao has front swing,
tilt (but not shift), rise and fall. It has rear base and center tilt,
shift, swing and rise. To find a field camera with that much movement
you are looking at high end brands such as Ebony. The downer is that
the Shen Hao's bellows draw is somewhat limited and it can't handle
much more than a 270 mm non-tele. There is a bag bellows and a
recessed lensboard available to handle shorter than 90 mm lenses (with
some movement). It is built solidly.

Tony

 "Matt Clara" no.email@thisguy's.expense wrote:
>Affordable being $1500 with lens.


From: "Ralph W. Lambrecht" RalphLambrecht@t-online.de
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What affordable field camera offers the most movements?
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002


You will most likely find that not the camera movements but the lens
coverage is the bottleneck. Many of the movements, advertised by camera
manufacturers, are without function, because the lenses cannot cover the
film during these extreme settings. This does more harm than good,
because it will cause vignetting at the format edges that is not always
easily visible on the view screen. Depending on your photographic needs
you might not need any of these movements anyway. However, if you do,
then you will need some very special and very expensive lenses as well.

Once you have access to camera and lenses of your choice, you can test
for vignetting. Set up the camera at the movement extremes, mount the
lens and look at the back of the lens through the edge cut-offs of the
view screen. If the lens aperture is not fully visible, the lens cannot
cover this setting.

Matt Clara wrote:

> Affordable being $1500 with lens.



From: Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What affordable field camera offers the most movements?
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002


Matt Clara wrote:
> Affordable being $1500 with lens.

I was in the market for such a camera last June.  After getting a lot of
advice in this newsgroup, I opted for the Toho FC-45X.  With one lens,
it is a bit above your limit, but not by too much, and I think it is
well worth the extra money.  It is extremely light, and because it comes
apart, it is easy to stuff in a backpack.  Because of the monorail
design, it has more extensive movements than you are likely to find in a
field camera. Despite a collection of herniated disks, I am able to
carry the camera and two lenses with a few extras on my back. I hang a
lunch bag with film holders from my belt, sling a tripod over one
shoulder, and I'm off. I never imagined that would be possible. See
www.thalmann.com/largeformat/toho.htm
for a review.
--
Leonard Evens      len@math.northwestern.edu 


From: "DGB" dgb@keswickcumbria.freeserve.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What affordable field camera offers the most movements?
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002

"Matt Clara" no.email@thisguy's.expense wrote
> Affordable being $1500 with lens.


Matt - I tried to reply direct but clearly your e-mail rejects. Have you
looked at the Gandolfi Variant, in particular the level III version? For a
field camera it has an amazing range of movements, probably more than any
other field camera available. The camera has vertical and horizontal shift,
swing, axis and base tilts on the lens standard, while on the rear standard
it has vertical and horizontal shift, swing, and axial and base tilts. It
has a rotating international back, a minimum bellows extension of 80mm and a
maximum extension of 485mm with the standard bellows. New will be over your
budget but not second hand.

You can find full details on the Gandolfi website at:
http://www.gandolficorfield.co.uk/

By coincidence I have one on coming to the end of its auction on *bay (item
number 1375928927); if you need any further information feel free to contact
me direct, I have been a user for several years.

David


From camera makers mailing list:

Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 08:52:01 -0700
From: William Nettles 
To: 
Subject: [Cameramakers] Re: filmmholder repair
Reply-To: cameramakers@rmp.opusis.com

There was an article in View Camera magazine by Gordon Hutchins (of Pyro PMK
developer fame) on restoring and repairing old, second hand and damaged
holders.

Also my trick for cleaning really dusty ones. Lint free cloth for cleaning
computer monitors and lemon pledge.  You can run the lint free cloth witha
little lemon pledge on it through the felt light trap where all the dust
hides. I also wipe down the holders, especially the plastic ones with cold
water from the tap. Its ground and reduces or elimnates the static charge
that attracts dust.

Warning: Lemon pledge is a great lubricant, but don't put it on any wood
work (like your Deardorf frame) that you want finish or oil to stick too.
Lemon Pledge contains silcone which is strictly verbotten on any fine
furniture or woodwork. oil and water will bead up on it--blcoking you from
using Danish oil on the wood.

Also once lubricated the holder slides go in and out like a new drawer so I
always wrap a rubber band around my holders.

---William Nettles

nettles@wgn.net
Nettles Photo / Imaging Site  http://www.wgn.net/~nettles


From: asfl@freemail.com.au (Thom)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Saturn camera ?
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002

"Poul B-H" pbekkerh@mail.dk wrote:

>Anyone know a russian Hassy copy "Saturn " ?
>any url ?
>Poul B-H

The Saturn was a 4x5 view camera based on and made by Calument for a
third party.

THOM


Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002
From: "Jeff Novick" jhnovick@pacbell.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Is LF cheaper than 35mm/MF for serious amateur? Re: poor pay


I'm not sure if there is an accurate answer to this question. The variables
are so great in that no 2 shooters will have the same habits or gear or will
shoot the same amount of film. I shoot all 3 formats and I find that at this
stage in LF shooting, I am shooting black and white, processing my own film
and printing it. I bought a very cheap B&J; monorail 4x5. I have 3 lenses
which I bought very cheaply, used, but, do most of my shooting with 1 lens
in particular. I find I need to take less shots of a subject to get what I'm
after than with roll film and the quality is better. But, if I wanted to
start shooting color transparency, the processing alone would cost me $2.50
per sheet plus about $2 per sheet of film. If I wanted to upgrade my camera,
it would cost me about $500-1000 to get what I'd want used. OTOH, I have a
Contax 35mm body that would cost about $500 used, and, 3 lenses that would
cost around $1000 used. The costs for the gear don't sound that far apart.
The price of materials is another matter especially if you're doing color.
The trade off is really in quality. But, if you're a street shooter, you
probably are not going to want to get into LF.

Jeff

"Robert Monaghan" rmonagha@smu.edu wrote 
> interesting, thanks for the info on 2:1 LF pros/amateurs ratio etc. I may
> well be wrong then in believing that amateur photogs represent more sales
> in LF - at least for new gear. I think on the used and budget front, the
> amateurs are probably getting the low end stuff and older optics for fun
> uses, while the pros are sticking to more modern glass and rigs, yes? On
> the other hand, as noted, lots of pros are buying the slightly used rigs
> from amateurs who decide LF is not for them. Again, this fits with most of
> the pros I see and talk to, run into at lectures and classes, and is a
> source of some amusement ;-)
>
> In general, the view of 35mm types seems to be 35mm is cheap, but medium
> format is really pricey (cf hasselblad), while large format must be even
> more costly and for pros only. My own view is moving towards the idea that
> 35mm is the most costly for a serious amateur, as you get into so many
> lens purchases where the $$ add up fast, and MF is about as bad, but here
> you have fewer lenses (1 with many RF or TLR kits, average of about 3 with
> MF SLR kits 50/80/150 trio typically). LF is actually probably the
> least expensive for a serious amateur, since there are so many good used
> LF cameras and you only need a few lenses rather than a bagful as in 35mm,
> and being able to use different mfger lenses on cameras with a lens board
> etc.
>
> in short, is LF less costly for a serious amateur, or do expenditures rise
> to fit the money available to spend? ;-) (apologies to Sir Parkinson of
> Parkinson's law ;-)...
>
> bobm


From: joneil@multiboard.com (Joseph O'Neil)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Is LF cheaper than 35mm/MF for serious amateur? Re: poor pay
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002

rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan)
wrote:

>in short, is LF less costly for a serious amateur, or do expenditures rise
>to fit the money available to spend? ;-) (apologies to Sir Parkinson of
>Parkinson's law ;-)...

-snip-

        For me personally, that was absolutely the case, the amount of
money I spent dropped when I moved up in format from 35 to 120, and less even to 4x5.
        Why?   With 35mm I would buy film in bulk, and shoot it off
like a machine gun, hoping for by chance a good shot.  With LF, I am
aware of the cost of each sheet of film, so I take my time, and the
quality of my work has increased tenfold too over 35mm.

joe

http://www.oneilphoto.on.ca


From: reynolds@panix.com (Brian Reynolds)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Is LF cheaper than 35mm/MF for serious amateur? Re: poor pay
Date: 6 Sep 2002 

Robert Monaghan  wrote:
>in short, is LF less costly for a serious amateur, or do expenditures
>rise to fit the money available to spend? ;-) (apologies to Sir
>Parkinson of Parkinson's law ;-)...

In my case I jumped from 35mm to 4x5 because I felt that 4x5 was less
expensive than MF.  I was able to find low cost used LF equipment (my
first 4x5 camera was a $200 B+J Orbit with a $35 Optar lens), but I
didn't have a source for low cost used MF, and the new MF prices were
much higher.

I've bought and sold several cameras over the years, but I've settled
into a system I like, and I don't think I've spent more than I would
have on any other equipment heavy hobby.  (e.g., I've spent almost as
much for astronomy equipment, and could easily have spent much more if
I lived under dark skies.)

I think the film costs are a wash.  Per area they are about the same
(film plus processing).  Per shot LF is obviously more expensive.
Since I make fewer exposures and get more keepers I think that in the
long run my LF film costs wind up being less either 35mm or MF.

--
Brian Reynolds 
reynolds@panix.com
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds


From: dpcwilbur@excite.com (Collin Brendemuehl)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Is LF cheaper than 35mm/MF for serious amateur? Re: poor pay
Date: 7 Sep 2002

I may be different, but for me 35mm & LF cost about the same.
There's so many lenses to get for 35mm that the pile can keep
growing.

With LF I have 1 lens, and perhaps a second soon.
My 35mm outfit has 4 lenses & 2 bodies.

It's medium format that has the potential to be the
least-expensive, high-quality solution.  Just get an
old Rolleiflex 2.8C (~$250US) and enjoy yourself.

Collin


From: "Tourtelot" tourtelot1@attbi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: 90mm on 4x5 Calumet
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002


I am new to LF; just bought an old, but hopefully serviceable, Calumet with
a 150mm lens.  My "sources" tell me that my next lens should probably be a
90mm (or so).  The bellows on the Calumet are not interchangeable.  With a
90mm with good coverage for a 4x5 film, would I need, and are they
available, a recessed lens board?  What "brands" would fit the Calumet or
would only a Calumet "brand" fit (i.e. is there a "standard" lensboard for a
certain class of 4x5 cameras?) What might be a good example of  some MC 90mm
lenses (the choice seems very large) that would be in the $400 range that I
might consider?

Thanks.
D.
--
Douglas Tourtelot, CAS
tourtelot1@attbi.com


From: Jean-David Beyer jdbeyer@exit109.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 90mm on 4x5 Calumet
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002

...(quotes above)
What Calumet 4x5? I stuck a 120mm Meyer Goerlitz Aristostigmat on mine
with a flat lensboard, and it is really tough to use movements like
rise, fall, slide. Swings and tilts are slightly possible. I would not
think that if yours is a CC-400 that a 90mm would work with a flat
lensboard. Calumet made (and probably still stocks) a recessed lensboard
that could work. They also made a CC-402 (IIRC) that would take a 90mm
lens with a flat lensboard. Its bellows were "normal" tapered ones, but
they were extra-flexible and could be used somewhat like a bag bellows.
...


Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 
From: Frank Pittel fwp@wizard.deepthought.com
Subject: Re: 90mm on 4x5 Calumet
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format

Tourtelot tourtelot1@attbi.com wrote:
: I am new to LF; just bought an old, but hopefully serviceable, Calumet with
: a 150mm lens.  My "sources" tell me that my next lens should probably be a
: 90mm (or so).  The bellows on the Calumet are not interchangeable.  With a
: 90mm with good coverage for a 4x5 film, would I need, and are they
: available, a recessed lens board?  What "brands" would fit the Calumet or
: would only a Calumet "brand" fit (i.e. is there a "standard" lensboard for a
: certain class of 4x5 cameras?) What might be a good example of  some MC 90mm
: lenses (the choice seems very large) that would be in the $400 range that I
: might consider?

Assuming that you're talking about the "classic" Calumet 400c. The
answer is, it depends on which one you got. These cameras came in two
basic types. The difference is the length of the bellows. The "long
bellows" model is about 21" long, while the "short bellows" model is
about 19" long.

If you have the "long bellows" model you can't use use a 90mm lens.
The length of the bellows gets in the way of focusing and prevents
film or lens tilts, shifts, lens rise, etc, etc. The reason I know
this is that I have a Calumet camera with the "long bellows" and after
trying a 90mm lens in the parking lot of Calumet and it wasn'ting
happening. :-)

If you have the camera with the "short bellows" or a different camera
you may want to look on ebay.

--
fwp@deepthought.com



From: Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 90mm on 4x5 Calumet
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002

...

I am just as new as you, so perhaps I shouldn't be giving advice, but
let me be the proverbial fool and rush in.

I considered getting a Cadet from Calumet, and I went there and measured
out 90 mm and tried seeing if I could get any reasonable movements.  It
was hard.  Perhaps with a recessed lens board I might have been able to
do better, but I have my doubts.  Your camera may have a more flexible
bellows, but I still suspect you will have problems.

After getting some advice in this newsgroup, I finally decided to spend
more than I had intended and I got a Toho.  I also got  150 and 90 mm
lenses.  I am very happy with this camera for a variety of reasons, but
I am having second thoughts about the 90 mm lens.  My previous
experience with wide angle is a 65 mm lens on a Horseman Technical
Camera I've had for over 30 years.  That is roughly equivalent to a 110
mm lens for 4 x 5.  Although I like the 90 mm lens, I think I may have
bit off more than I can presently chew, in that I have trouble avoiding
the wide angle distortions at the edge of the field, particularly when I
use camera movements.  I might have been better off with a more moderate
wide angle lens at this stage.  Since you are also something of a
beginner, perhaps even more so than I because of my Horseman experience,
I suggest that you consider a bit longer focal length wide angle lens
which also will give you fewer problems with the camera.  Of course with
a 90 mm lens, if you crop a bit, you can obtain the same result, but you
lose the more extensive movements.
--
Leonard Evens      len@math.northwestern.edu


From: dpcwilbur@excite.com (Collin Brendemuehl)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Getting Started with Large Format
Date: 10 Sep 2002

Geoff,

Here's some thoughts to start on the cheap side:

For a body obtain a press camera.  Crown Graphic is popular.  I use a
Busch Pressman 'D'.  Depending on condition the price can range from
$100 to $250 or so.  These are convenient to carry around and can fit
alongside 35mm equipment in a larger bag.

Periodically you can find a bargain monorail camera.  Some of the
older Calumet or Graphic View for $100 to $200.

Most of the time a press camera will come with a lens.  Common ones
are Wollensak, Schneider Xenar, and Kodak Ektar.  They'll produce a
very good image for your learning experience.

Next you'll need film holders.  They can be gotten used for about $5
each from time to time, or new in the $10-$15 range.

Whether or not you have a darkroom, a changing bag is a must.  You'll
want to load and unload film packs when you're in the field.  Along
with this, ask for some empty film boxes for storing your shot film.
It'll be more convenient that way.

A solid tripod is a must.  (I picked up Majestic video tripod @ a
garage sale for $30.  Not very tall, but extremely heavy.)  If you
have a good tripod the real consideration is the head.  It should be
rigid so that the camera doesn't wiggle when inserting film holders.
And, it should have a large enough base to be rigid against the
camera.

Shooting black and white is convenient for getting prints right away.
Contact prints are quick and inexpensive to make.

I hope I've not forgotten anything.

Have fun.  Enjoy yourself.

Collin
KC8TKA
...


From: sahamley@netscape.net (Steve Hamley)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Getting Started with Large Format
Date: 10 Sep 2002


Geoff,

Head over to

http://www.viewcamera.com/get_start_in_large_format.html

and check out this article. Explore the site, it has useful
information. Next head over to:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lf.html

and read up. Then go out and get the September/October issue of "View
Camera" magazine, it has a review of several under $1,200 cameras,
should be just what you need to get started shopping. Check out:

http://www.badgergraphic.com for prices.

My advice is to get a camera that has a wide variety of movements.
Being able to change the camera's shape is one of the most important
reasons to use large format, so you want to learn movements on both
the front and rear standards. I love my old Crown Graphic, but I'd
suggest a Shen Hao or a Toho for a good amount of movement at a
reasonable price (caveat emptor, I don't have either one) - the old
Graphics don't have much movement except for the latest ones. Calumet
makes some decent monorails at nice prices which would be good if you
don't plan on carrying it too far afield.

Suggested reading would be Steve Simmon's book, Leslie Stroebel's
book, and if you're into landscapes, maybe Jack Dykinga's large format
nature photography book.

Your 35mm lenses will not have enough coverage for 4x5 film unless you
like small round pictures, and mounting them wouldn't be exactly easy.
Stick to standard LF lenses which will interchange, and can be had
cheaply compared to high-end 35mm glass. A mint used normal lens
generally should be no more than $350.

Thanks!
Steve


Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Kodak Anastigmat 170mm
From: dfstein@earthlink.net (David Stein)
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002


Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> the 70 Series, which are f/4.5 dialytes (four
> element air spaced). The f/7.7 is also a dyalite

I have a Kodak Anastigmat 170mm f/6.3 which appears similar to what is
being described-dialyte. If you compare front and rear groups they are
not quite symmetrical but of similar powers.  The lens in question can
actually take wonderful pictures (like the 203mm 7.7 Ektar it is quite
compact for its focal length and coverage) and will fit-as far as I can
determine-in its original Ilex, an Optimo Ia, a Betax #2 and a Compund
shutter (no size marked).  Where to find them-look for a Kodak
Autographic 3A with one fitted.




From: "Alec Jones" alecj@bellsouth.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: New Super Speed Graphics User
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 

Come on over to the helpboard on graflex.org.  For the batteries, try
Midwest Photo Exchange 3313 North High Street Columbus, OH 43202 tel
614-261-1264. Regarding the shutter, you'll need to have a CLA [clean,
lubricate, adjust] done on it if it has not been used for some time.  First,
just try cycling the shutter many times.  Sometimes, the lubricant is spread
this way and the slow speeds come back. If it needs cleaning, the best is
Fred Lustig in Nevada.  Costs about $50 if nothing else is wrong, and you
can just send the lens.


From: "Ken Burns" kenburns@twave.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lens Question
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 


If you are going to be making tight headshots with the image about
life-size, you need to keep in mind that the 450mm lens will be about only 3
ft frome the subject. That won't give you a lot of working room.  And it
will also be about 3 feet from the ground glass.  With that bellows
extension, the f/9 lens is actually an f/18 lens.  The image is going to be
rather dark.  Also, DOF is going to be minimal, so you will have to stop way
down.  A lot of exposure will be needed.  Are you using flash or hot lights?
If you are using flash, you will need a lot of WS and with hot lights a lot
of raw wattage.  From a practical standpoint, 4x5 might be more practical.

KB
...
> Thanks for all the feedback/information.  I like sharp lenses and contrast.
> In terms of length, I thought I wanted a 360mm, but perhaps the 450mm would
> be a nice compliment to the 210mm I'm using in 4x5.  Should be able to get
> some killer headshots.  I'll think about this and do some more research.
> Thanks again, thanks very much!!
>
>   -Robert


From: dpcwilbur@excite.com (Collin Brendemuehl)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: is LF worth? developing & printing costs?
Date: 11 Sep 2002


Yes and no.

Up to 16x20 it can be hard to tell the quality of a b&w; image
from a 4x5 over a 6x7.  (645, yes, but 6x7 is more difficult)
Both negs are very capable of excellent images, and even 6x4.5 does a good job.
Where MF fails is in some of the versatility -- and it doesn't take much.

With LF using a simple press camera (my trusty Busch Pressman 'D') I can
raise and/or tilt the lens enough to enhance the form and dof of a
cityscape or landscape.  Just a little movement is enough for major improvement
in the character of the image, though the detail may not be notably different.
(A Busch 'D' has lateral shifts, rise, and tilts.  No swivel.  No tilting
back.  No lock on the lens when tilted, unless tape or rubber bands are employed.)
You'll get an improvement, but it may or may not be worth the expenditure.
At least with inexpensive starter equipment you can see what happens and
graduate from there if desired.

Personally, I found that going from 35mm 6x4.5 to be only a modest improvement.
6x6 is a major improvement, and 6x7 increases so much that the only reason I
have for 4x5 is the movements.  8x10 would enhance the detail enough to justify
it, but, alas, I'm just a hobbyist using ebay to pay for my toys.
Two things to consider with a 4x5.  A Graflok back is useful when you want the
convenience of roll film.  You'll gain the movement features and can enjoy the
results.  A used roll film holder or graflok roll film back will cost
$100 to $250US, depending on the unit, age, condition, etc.

Collin
KC8TKA
...

> i'm a 35mm aficionado who just began doing something in medium format (cheap
> russian equipment).
> i wasn't even aware a large format (well, several large formats) existed...
> sorry... it's a world of newbies....
>
> i'm getting really fascinated about this 'science'. and i was evaluating how
> much would it cost to put together a cheap equipment (i'd like 8*10, but
> also interested in 4*5). i'm not scared by the work and study behind every
> single large format exposure, i would rather enjoy it.
>
> Seems like it's pretty affordable to get some used equipment. what really
> scares me is the costs for developing and printing. i think i've understood
> a large format darkroom is very expensive (more than the camera).
> i was wondering about how much does it cost to get your films developed and
> printed at a lab. but i didn't find info on that. that's why i'm bothering
> you guys :)
>
> How much to develop / print 4*5 / 8*10 films at a lab?
>
> Thanks everybody,
> Andrea


Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: is LF worth? developing & printing costs?
From: Mark Cudworth markc@eskimo.com
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002


Frank Pittel fwp@wizard.deepthought.com wrote
> We were good until now. You don't need to be rich to afford color LF.
> As one of the non-rich I shoot color and make no money from it.
> Granted most of what I do is B/W but I do manage to take more then the
> occasional color shot. I aslo refuse to make any money at photography.
> I believe there are things a person needs to do because of the love of
> doing it. For me that's photography

I agree with Frank -- you definitely don't have to be weathly to do LF.  I
think your concerns about increased processing costs may be off base.  LF
doesn't cost much more for me than 35mm.  On a recent photo excursion with
some other LF photographers, I spent the day at a couple of state parks and
ended up maiking four exposures.  That's right:  all day, four C-41
negatives to show for it.  If I had been taking pictures with my 35mm
camera, I likely would have taken four *rolls* of pictures.  I took my c-41
negatives to a local lab for development (no JOBO yet) and they charge
$1.85 for each 4x5 C-41 negative.  The development cost for a 24 exposure
roll of C-41 35mm film is $3.95.  Having prints made (which I didn't have
them do) varies in price based on print size and is unrelated to negative
size.

With large format equipment, you pay more for each individual shot, but you
learn not to take many of the bland, uninteresting shots that you take in
35mm just because they are easy.  Large format presents a different way of
thinking when it comes to making exposures.  I'm not very good at it yet,
but I have alreasdy learned more about what makes a good photograph from my
cheap, used LF equipment than I ever did from years of using my 35mm
equipment.  That's what I want in the end -- to know how to make great
pictures with every shot regardless of my equipment and to know when
setting up the tripod would just be a waste of time.  Make better
exposures, not just *more* exposures.

Also in agreement with Frank, I refuse to photograph professionally.  If I
did that, photography would become "work", and I wish it to remain a source
of joy in my life and not become an obligation.


From: Ron Todd rltodd@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: New Super Speed Graphics User
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 


MRose wrote:
> Hello all !
>
> I have recently purchased Super Speed Graphics.  No manual, therefore in the
> last few week I was guessing my way around.
>
> I wonder if anyone can help with the following information.
>
> The camera came with what seems to be a battery door, but no batteries.  The seller
> claimed that the electronic shutter operates but did not supply it with the
> batteries.  My question is what kind of batteries are used in this camera and

Midwest Photo Exchange lists them @ 2 for $15:

http://www.mpex.com/current_index.htm

I think Radio Shack keeps them in their national warehouse in the
States. Local stores should be able to order a set.

I is my understanding most folks don't use the batteries. A popular
conversion being to get a couple of wood blocks the size of the battery
to hold the cover in place.  The covers are rather expensive to
replace.  YMMV

Also, it is my understanding that cutting out the solenoid to get front
fall is a popular modification.

If it is an original Super Speed it should have the Rodenstock lens with
the 1000 speed shutter.  Most were converted somewhere along the line to
something else.  AIR, many of the conversions also have replaced the
lens board  one without the actuator arm for the solenoid.

> whether they are still available ( I understand they are 22.5 volts but I am not sure if
> there are any different types).  Also, where can I purchase such batteries ?
>
> The camera is equipped with probably the original lens, Graflex Optar 135mm. It
> seems a little slow in the 1/2 speed.  Are there any sericess that clean and adjust such
>
> a lens/shutter?  What kind of $ penalty should I expect?
> Thank you,
>
> M Rose
>
> NYC

 Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.


Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002
From: "konabear" maurert@ameritech.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What affordable field camera offers the most movements?


Ralph,

What a great observation.  Most buyers of inexpensive cameras are going to
mate them with less expensive optics.  Mating a camera that can twist into a
pretzal is worthless if mated to a 127mm Ektar for 4x5.  Though many
(argueably most) 4x5 lenses allow more movement than that Ektar. ;)

To that I'll add that in landscape photography a little front swing or tilt
goes a long way.  If you really save your pennies for lenses... Buy an
Anniversary Speed Graphic and modify the front standard.  Room enough metal
and you get all the swing and tilt the bellows (and lens coverage) will
allow without the standard getting flimsy.  Lens wise, mine allows the use
of 65mm (very limited movements) to 380mm (Tele, with limited close focus)
What's also great is the same lens boards fit my Calumet 400 series for when
full movements are required.  The Speed Graphic and the Calumet together
cost less than $500.  But to be honest the Calumet hasn't seen film in a
very long time.

"Ralph W. Lambrecht" RalphLambrecht@t-online.de wrote
> You will most likely find that not the camera movements but the lens
> coverage is the bottleneck. Many of the movements, advertised by camera
> manufacturers, are without function, because the lenses cannot cover the
> film during these extreme settings. This does more harm than good,
> because it will cause vignetting at the format edges that is not always
> easily visible on the view screen. Depending on your photographic needs
> you might not need any of these movements anyway. However, if you do,
> then you will need some very special and very expensive lenses as well.
>
> Once you have access to camera and lenses of your choice, you can test
> for vignetting. Set up the camera at the movement extremes, mount the
> lens and look at the back of the lens through the edge cut-offs of the
> view screen. If the lens aperture is not fully visible, the lens cannot
> cover this setting.
>
> Matt Clara wrote:
>
> > Affordable being $1500 with lens.



From: "Sherman" sherman@dunnam.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: film costs MF v 35mm Re: Digital
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002

"Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl wrote 
> John Stafford wrote:
> > MF and LF users don't talk about "expense". It is not the deciding issue.
> Some Kiev users do... ;-)


Hey!  I resemble that remark!  ;^)

Actually the expense of the equipment *does* matter to me.  I simply can't
afford Hasselblad lenses (or backs or bodies or finders or...) as an
amateur, I have two kids that will be going to college soon.  So for the
limited MF shooting I do a Kiev is great and I have to admit that I really
like the lenses (plural, because with the Kiev P6 mount I can afford more
than one).

On the other hand, I don't worry too much about the cost of film or
developing.  I do my own b&w; and the pro lab I take my E6 to charges only
about $2.20 per roll of 120 with excellent quality.  I shoot mostly 4x5 and
the cost of processing per sheet is about the same as a MF roll.  My poor OM
system seldom even gets taken out of the bag these days.  (Though my younger
son is taking a photography course at high school and will be using his OM
10, my OM 1 and my lenses.  At least they will get some exercise!)

Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com



From: "Tourtelot" tourtelot1@attbi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Changing lensboard hole size
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002


The device that seems to work well (and that is way cheaper than a lathe)
is a General Tool "Fly Cutter."  You can get this at Home Depot (or your
local hardware store) for about $11.  It's an infinitely adjustable hole
cutter; works in metal, wood, plastic, etc, and cuts a hole that requires
little deburring to make it "nice."   You will need a drill-press (this tool
is not the kind of thing you want flaying around in a hand drill motor!!)
and good clamps (the board isn't safe flying around either) but it will save
you money if you make a few boards.  Calumet charges an extra $10 for a
drilled board and the savings on one board will pay for your handy new tool.

D.

"Francis A. Miniter" miniter@attglobal.net wrote
> I know of no product, but there are methods for doing anything.
>
> First, consider leaving that lens board as is and making a new one.  This
> is probably much easier.  If you want to stay with metal, then you will
> need a drill press with increasingly large bits to drill out the hole.
> Beyond a certain point, drill bits are just not large enough.  From there
> you will need a metal lathe to bore out the hole to the desired size.
>
> Even if you want to work with the existing lens board, holes cannot be
> reduced, so a second metal board would have to be bored out and affixed
> (by screws, most likely, thus permanently puncturing the surface) to the
> first.  That second board will be smaller, and might fit on a mini-lathe,
> but that is about all that will be saved in effort.
>
> Boards need not be of metal, but the same operations apply to wood, except
> that variable diameter hole saws exist for the drilling of wood on a drill
> press.
> Francis A. Miniter
>
>
> flotsam wrote:
>
> > Is there a product or method for reducing the hole size in a metal 4x5
> > view camera lens board?


From: Alan alanc@ihug.com.au
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Changing lensboard hole size
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002


If you want to do it in metal, the best to use is aluminium plate.
You can probably get an offcut from a fabrication shop.  Try something
of a reasonable thickness (1.5 - 2mm) as it will be fairly small and
will benefit from the strength the thickness gives.  You will need to
mount the "new" board onto the recessed lensboard.

Tools:

Dividers - for scribing two concentric circles onto aluminium plate.

Drill and bits - for drilling a series of small holes INSIDE lens
mounting hole and OUTSIDE the circle indicating the size you have
decided the board is to be.  These are not touching, but very close to
each other.

Coping saw - to cut between the small holes you drill.  You could try
to cut the circles with the saw if you want but I don't.

Flat files - to smooth outer edge.  Or you could break the metal
between the holes with a small cold chisel (be careful not to bend the
board if you do this).

Rat tail file - to smooth inside the lens mounting hole.
Vice - to hold lensboard while you file it.

Flat Black paint
Either small bolts or pop rivets to fasten your constructed board to
the recessed board.

I think you may need to mount the "new" board onto the outside of the
recessed board so the shutted sits evenly onto it.  The locking ring
should then fit inside the recessed board.  Alternatively you can
attach the "new" board on the inside and make a "washer" from
aluminium to sit between the shutter and recessed lensboard (check
that there is enough thread available for this).

 
Make sure you coat the joins well with paint to ensure there are no
light leaks when you fasten the "new" board to the existing.

You'll be surprised how well it can come up!

Good luck,
Alan

 "g tardiff" gtphoto@attbi.com wrote:

>I've had good luck using 1/8" plywood as well as another type of
>material...some kind of pressed hardboard. Simply drilled out the proper
>sized opening with a spade bit, then mounted this board to the original
>board. It's not pretty, but it does work and is inexpensive.
>GaryT
>"flotsam" flotsam@optonline.net wrote 
>> Is there a product or method for reducing the hole size in a metal 4x5
>> view camera lens board?



From: Dean Van Praotl no.spam@my.email.adr
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Changing lensboard hole size
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002

"g tardiff" gtphoto@attbi.com wrote:

>I've had good luck using 1/8" plywood as well as another type of
>material...

I'll second that -- I've used 1/8" birch aircraft-grade plywood,
readily available from stores that cater to model aircraft
builders.  A $12.00 sheet is good for at least four lensboards
with plenty left over for other stuff.


From: rabbitbert@aol.com (Rabbitbert)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 20 Sep 2002 
Subject: Re: Graphlex crown graphic for a beginner?


Andrea told us, with snippage:
>Thanks. but I was thinking more to something less than $120 :))

Hmm, less than $120?  Well, if you really must be using sheet film, you could
try one of Polaroid's old model 800 instant rollfilm cameras.  The original
Polaroid film is no longer available for them but these cameras can effectively
accept a 4x5 sheet of your choice of film, loaded in a darkroom, or dark room,
or changing bag. The image size, 3 1/16" x 4 1/16" is smaller than you would
get from a typical 4x5 camera. Their shutter is a semi-automatic kind of
animal, with exposure measured in EV numbers 10 to 17.The lens on my 800 is
quite good and the coupled rangefinder is accurate.    Take a look at

 "The Land List" http://www.rwhirled.com/landlist/landhome.htm

  This is a website dedicated to the mulititude of cameras, films, and some
other gadgets that have been produced by Polaroid Corp. over the past six
decades or so.

These cameras have little collector value so they can be found on Ebay for less
than $20, often for $10.

R.



From: "Mark" MarkWestling@cox.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: "reading glass" correction for viewing ground glass?
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002


I seem to remember that 4 diopter glasses was what Fred Picker used instead
of a loupe...


"Leonard Evens" len@math.northwestern.edu wrote 
> I tried to get my opthamologist to prescribe "reading glasses" which
> would allow me to view the ground glass of a 4 x 5 view camera at about
> 6 inches.  After some inconclusive testing by her technician, she came
> up with  4 diopters.  That doesn't seem right to me from some rough
> calculations I made.  Simple optics would suggest the focal length of
> the lens should be the same as the distance one views from, which would
> suggest about 6.5 diopters.  But that is probably wrong because of the
> separation of the lens from the eye or some other phenomenon I haven't
> thought of.  Still some rough experimentation suggests to me that 4
> diopters is much too low.
>
> Has anyone else tried anything like this?   The highest correction
> lenses I've seen in drugstores are 3.25.  Where would one find a 4
> diopter pair of reading glasses to try it out?
>
> (I would like some prescription glasses because after cataract surgery I
> was left with some residual astigmatism.  Given that I paid $50 for the
> prescription, I think she ought to get it right even if I have to tell
> her what to do.)
> --
> Leonard Evens      len@math.northwestern.edu   


From: duganfoto@aol.com (DuganFoto)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 18 Sep 2002 
Subject: Re: Graphlex crown graphic for a beginner?


I think that a Crown Graphic makes a great  field camera, primarily because of
low Hassle Factor.

I HATED having to go through all of the gyrations of unfolding my Tachihara,
removing the lensboard, yadda, yadda,yadda, whereas with a Crown Graphic, it's
retract the bellows and close the door, bodda-bing, move on to the next shot.
With all of the unnecessary rangefinders, flash brackets, etc. removed, IMHO
the weight disadvantage is more than made up for with time savings... I'd
rather spend my time composing images than futzing around with an obstinate
accordion. Movements?  I don't need much (scenics).

 I used to lug around a Calumet 400  series monorail, until I found out that I
wasn't using many movements. Since then, I've carried around a Domke bag with 2
Graphics...one with a 135mm, and the other with a 210mm Xenar...(no changing
lensboards). Infinity stops are a Wonderful Invention not found on many (if
any) field cameras.

 I used the money from the sale of my Tachihara and Calumet to buy some good
used lenses.

My two cents' worth... (don't spend it all in the same place)

Doug Allen


From: dpcwilbur@excite.com (Collin Brendemuehl)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Graphlex crown graphic for a beginner?
Date: 18 Sep 2002


Personally, I think press cameras are the best intro to LF.
They don't get in the way because they're compact.
This feature also allows them to easily coexist with your 35mm equip.
Crown Graphics have a wonderfully-long bellows extension.  You can use them
with a good selection of lenses.  There's just not much for movement.
A Super Graphic has a faster shutter and a rotating back.
Graflok adds versatility for using roll film.
I use a Busch Pressman 'D' as it gives me some tilt & shift,
as well as the rotating back, and they generally sell for much less
than a Crown or Super Graphic.
Film holders are universal and you can use any of with a Graphic.
You'll periodically find them showing wear going for $100 to $150.
If it's a beginner unit, that's perfect.  Appearance for learning isn't
so critical.
They're greatly improved (as would my Busch also be) by putting on a brighter
ground glass.  The $60 or so will make use much easier.
The standard lenses are a bit lacking in resolution compared to newer lenses.
That can be fixed for <$200 with a Schneider Symmar or other more modern
coated lens.  Not as nice as the pricier new multi-coated lenses, but still
very nice.  You'll love the results.

Get one and enjoy it.

Collin
KC8TKA

"Andrea" andrea_7500@yahoo.com wrote...
> Hi all,
> thanks for all the useful answers about building a view camera. i'll
> seriously think about this project.
>
> i was browsing ebay looking for a cheap used solution to my large format
> 'needs'. looks like there are a lot of these 4x5 Graphlex Crown graphic
> cameras which people sell for reasonable prices (even around 200$)..
>
> what do u think of these cameras for a beginner?
> what do u think of these cameras in general?
> could i have compatibility problems with standard 4x5 chassis, films?
> more advices are strongly welcome
>
> thanks a lot,
> Andrea


From: sahamley@netscape.net (Steve Hamley)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Graphlex crown graphic for a beginner?
Date: 18 Sep 2002


Andrea,

The Crown can be an excellent way to start, because it is simple and
no hassle, as others note, but if you like LF, you will quickly want
an additional camera with more movements, because movements are what
LF is about (and those big transparencies that knock your socks off on
a light table). They are well built and simple, and if not abused,
will be taking pictures long after we are gone.

I started on a Crown with a Xenar lens, still have it, wouldn't sell
it, still use it occasionally, but because of the lack of movements
and sort of short bellows draw, I usually reach for something else.

I don't understand what you mean by compatibility problems with
standard 4x5 chassis, but if you are buying, be ABSOLUTELY SURE it has
a graflok back (NOT the spring back) so you can easily use roll film
holders (you remove the back and the sliding graflok bars hold the
roll film back on the camera), etc. The graflok will cost a little
more, but not a lot. You will be able to use standard film holders,
including Kodak Readyload or Fuji Quickload holders.

See:  http://www.graflex.org

for everything about these neat cameras.

Thanks!

Steve

"Andrea" andrea_7500@yahoo.com wrote
> Hi all,
> thanks for all the useful answers about building a view camera. i'll
> seriously think about this project.
>
> i was browsing ebay looking for a cheap used solution to my large format
> 'needs'. looks like there are a lot of these 4x5 Graphlex Crown graphic
> cameras which people sell for reasonable prices (even around 200$)..
>
> what do u think of these cameras for a beginner?
> what do u think of these cameras in general?
> could i have compatibility problems with standard 4x5 chassis, films?
> more advices are strongly welcome
>
> thanks a lot,
> Andrea


From: haijack@onr.com (RD)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: are we becoming extinct?
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 

"Stefan Geysen" 
wrote:

>Agreed Q.G., but I think the LF user basis is shifting from pros to
>amateurs. Pros are selling their LF stuff "en masse" on ebay for low prices,
>making it more attactive for amateurs who've stayed away from LF because of
>equipment costs.

Many things discourage amateurs from purchasing LF equipment:

1. Used, entry-level LF equipment is still much more costly than
entry-lelel MF. I recently purchased a Ricoh TLR with Tessar-style
lens for $50.00 in near-mint condition. Koni Omega Rapids can often be
had for well under $150.00 including a superb, 6-element normal lens.

2. The prints from quality MF cameras using 120 roll film are very
sharp well beyond the size most amateurs want or consider reasonable
to print. MF users perceive the advantages of moving to LF as being
minimal at best.

3. Even if LF cameras were free, film finishing is expensive. The
possible necessity of contructing a home darkroom to alleviate this
does not widen the market, nor is it likely to be feasible for most of
those who prefer to shoot color. In addition, a large percentage of
amateur photogs simply don't have time or desire to develop their own
film. They prefer to spend what time they do have shooting.

4. Most amateurs are still using exclusively 35mm, although many are
now adding digital capability, just like the pros. I think it's
reasonable to say most of these folks have no intention of adding a
third or fourth format.

5. LF equipment is much more limiting in its range of general use than
MF and 35mm. It's not well-suited to travel, hiking, museums, air
shows, sporting events, shooting from car windows, etc.. These things
are not only possible with smaller formats, but convenient and fun.

I have a vision of a Japanese tourist, bravely roaming San Francisco
streets with a 25 lb., 4 cu. ft. box strapped to his chest. And that's
just the film packs.  :)

JL




Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 
From: ducque@mindspring.com
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Journey  to the dark slide

I measured the dark slides on one Fidelity holder and also one Lisco holder
last night.

They are both between 0.0325 and 0.330.  So one should be safe using
commercial 1/32" sheet.  The second problem, of course, will be to get it
cleanly cut to shape...

I would suggest that a "paint" or "epoxy" type coating would be a difficult
idea -- any such coating will be at least few thou thick and will make the
resulting slide far too thick to work smoothly.

Someone asked about a source for cold-anodizing chemistry: It's made by
Birchwood-Casey and is called "Aluminum Black".  It is available from Fargo at
www.micro-tools.com, and also from some of the major industrial tool
companies, such as www.reidtool.com.

Other versions of the product are also available for ferrous metals and brass.

Don Feinberg
donf@cybernex.net
ducque@mindspring.com


From: msherck@aol.comimagine (Msherck)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 25 Sep 2002 
Subject: Re: lensboard + lens are standard for all view cameras?


Lensboards are not standardized, for the most part:  each view camera
manufacturer is free to make the hole in the front of the camera whatever size
they think best.  However, in some cases common sense has prevailed and some
manufacturers use lensboards the same size as another manufacturer's.  Alas, I
don't know whether there is any comprehensive list of which cameras use what
lensboards.  On the other hand, lensboards are simple to make:  often all you
need is a square piece of wood of the appropriate thickness and size -- which
you can measure on your camera with a ruler.

Lenses are all over the place, except for the size hole that needs to be cut
into the lensboard for them to fit into.  That's determined by the size of the
shutter and there aren't that many shutter sizes -- this, thank goodness, is
standardized.  Holes are measured by the size shutter the lens requires,
typically stated as "Copal 0", "Copal 1", etc.  Newer shutters are all pretty
much size 0 or 1; older shutters may be in sizes 3, 4, or 5.  The size hole
necessary for each shutter is readily available on the net:  try
www.skgrimes.com.

Good luck!

Mike


From: Jan Brittenson bson@rockgarden.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: lensboard + lens are standard for all view cameras?
Date: 25 Sep 2002


Boards are manufacturer specific, but some manufacturers have
settled on similar designs and sizes.  The board is basically
the piece that fits a lens to a camera, so by definition it's
manufacturer specific.  To start out, I'd simply go with the
mfg's boards, and then if you feel like it read up on the details
of which makes use which boards and how they can be adapted and
cross-used.

What's adapted isn't really the lens, but the shutter which sits
between the two parts that make up the lens.  These days most
lenses ship with Copal shutters, in sizes 0, 1, or 3.  Older
lenses can have all kinds of other shutters.  To make your life
simpler (so you can focus on shooting instead of matching pegs
to holes) stick to Copal 0, 1, or 3.  Especially on ebay where
you can't inspect it for yourself (shutters tend to lose their
accuracy with age and may need recalibration).  BTW, do get a
lens wrench, a cheap gadget that will save you much hassle when
mounting lenses to boards.  Sometimes paying just a little more
will save lots of time and hassle.

Toyo is a good brand to start with, it's a pretty big system
with a variety of cameras, bellows, rails, hoods, adapter kits,
screens, holders, etc, quite readily available used or (if you
can't find it any other way), new from mail order outfits like
B&H;, Calumet, Badger Graphics, and likely also some of the
better local stores.  Some Toyo view accessories can be used
with Toyo field equipment, and the opposite, except the lens
boards which are different.  But their field boards can be
attached to their view cameras using an adapter.

Good luck!


Andrea wrote:

> Hi,
> i found a good offer for a toyo 45D 4x5 view camera. it no front lens board,
> no lens.
> so i was wondering 'how hard would it be to get a board+lens?' and 'how much
> would it cost?'.
>
> -Are the lens boards standard or i'm supposed to get a toyo-compatible
> lensboard?
> -what about lenses? are those standard?
> -what could be a fair price for both these items on the used market?
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Andrea


From: "Howard Lester" hlester@mmto.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: "reading glass" correction for viewing ground glass?
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 


"Sandorm Mathe"   wrote
> Another approach to consider.  As well a jewlers, dentists often use a
> second set of lenses that fold down on a hinge above their regular glasses.
> (I've also seen sun glasses with this sort of hinge mechanism).
> I think this way you would get the astigmatism correction from your regular
> glasses and just the extra magnification from the fold down lenses.

Edmund Industrial Optics offers something LIKE that on p. 291 of their 2002
catalog. Try www.edmundoptics.com

A stock number, for starters, is E40-510. It's called a "Single easy-on
eyeglass loupe." $30 each. It's a single fold over lens, 8 diopters.  Yikes.
They have higher power ones that would allow you to just about see the
atomic structure in your ground glass.

Howard Lester



From: "Sherman" sherman@dunnam.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: "reading glass" correction for viewing ground glass?
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002


"Sandorm Mathe" sandorm@zeratul.torolab.ibm.com wrote 
> Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu wrote:
> > I tried to get my opthamologist to prescribe "reading glasses" which
> > would allow me to view the ground glass of a 4 x 5 view camera at about
> > 6 inches.  After some inconclusive testing by her technician, she came
> > up with  4 diopters.  That doesn't seem right to me from some rough
> > calculations I made.  Simple optics would suggest the focal length of
> > the lens should be the same as the distance one views from, which would
> > suggest about 6.5 diopters.  But that is probably wrong because of the
> > separation of the lens from the eye or some other phenomenon I haven't
> > thought of.  Still some rough experimentation suggests to me that 4
> > diopters is much too low.
>
> > Has anyone else tried anything like this?   The highest correction
> > lenses I've seen in drugstores are 3.25.  Where would one find a 4
> > diopter pair of reading glasses to try it out?
>
> Another approach to consider.  As well a jewlers, dentists often use a
> second set of lenses that fold down on a hinge above their regular glasses.
> (I've also seen sun glasses with this sort of hinge mechanism).
> I think this way you would get the astigmatism correction from your regular
> glasses and just the extra magnification from the fold down lenses.
>
> A friend of mine has a pair (I don't know if his regular glasses are bifocal
> or not) and seems to like them for 4x5 work.
>
> I don't know of a source for these.
>
> Sandor Mathe
> sandorm.no.spam@ca.ibm.com

I use something like this when fly fishing and tying on a fly.  (Getting a
size 20 midge on an 8x leader isn't a job for my unaided eyes.)  However
mine attach to the brim of my hat.  There may be other models available.
Try www.cabelas.com or some other sporting goods place with fishing
supplies.

Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com



From: philtobias@aol.com (Phil Tobias)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 28 Sep 2002 
Subject: Re: "reading glass" correction for viewing ground glass?

Another approach to consider.  As well a jewlers, dentists often use a
second set of lenses that fold down on a hinge above their regular glasses.

        One source for these is Behr Optical (http://www.excel.net/~behr/).

        They make various swing-away loupes that attach to eyeglass frames.
They come in various magnifications.

        ...pt


Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002
From: "konabear" maurert@ameritech.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Graphlex crown graphic for a beginner?


Reversing the front standard is actually fairly straight forward.  BTW while
front tilt down will be generous for this configuration the 127mm Kodak
Ektar most commonly sold with Speed and Crown Graphics doesn't project a
large enough image to allow for even the most modest movements.  Also
reversing the front standard doesn't acheive front down tilt for vertical
compositions.  The Speed and Crown Graphics are what one might call
"reversable cameras" rather than reversible or rotating backs.  The camera
will have two tripod mounts so that vert. or hor. the tripod can be
underneath the camera.

Todd
"Mike" mkirwan@nospampacbell.net wrote...
> Andrea...for landscapes front downward tilt was the main movement I
> use. You can get this by reversing the front standard on a graphic.and
> in conjunction with the drop bed and tripod head you will suprised at
> the amount of movement you can get.
>
> I have made this modification on both by 4x5 and 2x3 graphics
>
> Mike
>  "Andrea" andrea_7500@yahoo.com wrote:
> >Lots of thanks everybody for your useful answers..
> >i forgot to mention that i wanna get a LF camera 95% for landscapes. so,
> >also portability is important.
> >i think i will monitor ebay for good deals. i'm pretty sure i'm gonna get a
> >press camera. i don't really care about having a lot of movements, but it's
> >probably just beacuse i don't fully understand their results on the
> >pictures..
> >
> >thanks a lot! i'll let you know about my moves
> >
> >Andrea


uk.rec.photo.misc 
From: "steve" sunbeams_are_yellow@yahoo.com
Re: Making a Large Format Camera
Date: Sun Oct 20 2002

Just try going to some professional photo retailers like KP in Cambridge- a
lot of pros have been going digital selling their film stuff off , I have
seen 5x4's sitting on shelves for months, offer them a silly price. If they
don't accept it go back the next month and so on. I did this until
eventually I got my barely used Arca Swiss && 150 lens & dark slides for
o500 - a fraction of the prices new and even second-hand a few years ago.



From: Nick Zentena zentena@hophead.dyndns.org
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 
Subject: [Cameramakers] Re: Electric shutter


$90 for that? What I've been wondering about is using a shutter system out of
those old Polaroid cameras that are being sold for the price of shipping.
They even come with lens.

Nick


From: Charles Pezeshki pezeshki@mme.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Oh Boy.  New 8x10
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002
 
Collin Brendemuehl at dpcwilbur@excite.com wrote:
> Can't afford a lens right away so the lensboard will be a pinhole
> and negatives will be paper from the darkroom.

Hi Collin,

Hard to believe you can't afford a lens.  You can pick up a 100 year-old
lens on ebay for pretty cheap.  That may/may not include shutter, but it's
not that hard to do 1/4 sec or longer exposures.

I'm not being facetious either.  Those lenses cost around $40-$50.

Erik Ryberg is a specialist in the ultra-cheap lens category.  Search his
old posts.

Chuck


From: "Steve Grimes" skgrimes@skgrimes.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: View Camera magazine web site
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002


http://www.viewcamera.com/sheetfilmholders.html  click on either small page
to view an enlarged pdf of that magazine page.

SKG

--
S.K. GRIMES
http://www.skgrimes.com/span/index.htm


From: reynolds@panix.com (Brian Reynolds)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Book
Date: 21 Oct 2002

Bean112 davico@dellepro.com wrote:
>I am trying to find Jon Greostad's book on how to build your own Large
>Format Camera. His Website isn't comming up and Amazon doesn't list the
>book. I would appreciate any help finding it.  Ian

Jon Grepstad's web page is at URL:http://home.online.no/~gjon/.  His
book is self-published and self-distributed, so you are unlikely to
find it at Amazon.  The book does have an ISBN (82-993938-1-7), but I
didn't find it using the ISBN searches at Amazon, Barnes & Noble or
.

I have an older version of this book and it's a good book.

--
Brian Reynolds


Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 
From: r.mueller@fz-juelich.de
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Photocopy lenses?
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com

These are generally quite good lenses corrected for 1:1 size ratio of
image to object sizes.  They will usually be symmetrical designs giving
little or no distortion, at least when used at 1:1, and even little
when photographing at infinity.  Often the apertures are fairly large
as well, perhaps F4.5, and the manufacturers are quality companies
which maintain a high standard.  One "minor" problem is the range of F-
stops: often this is limited to a narrow range if it is adjustable at
all.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: Kenith Ryan kryan@wireco.net
Date: Thursday, October 17, 2002 
Subject: [Cameramakers] Photocopy lenses?

> I assume that photocopy machines have lenses in them and was
> wondering if these would be any good for large format photography.
> What brought this to mind was when I found out that my brother-in-
> law had six non-working photocopy machines that he trew away when
> he recently moved. If I had know i could have gotten the lenses
> for free.
>
> Kenith Ryan


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 4 x 5 film holders
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002


"Bob Oehler" rso@likeclockwork.com wrote
> Hi everyone
>
> First thanks to answers these past few weeks
>
> now a new quesitons.
> How do you repair  the tape hindges on film holders.  I can see it is
> some sort fo tape.  Maybee the question is where do you get this tape
> form.  Thanks
> Bob Oehler

 Many kinds of cloth tape will work. Calumet Photo sells
the genuine stuff in rolls. The tape itself is not part of
the light proofing. Holders have a mechanical labrynth
arrangement to prevent the entry of light. The tape serves
only as a hinge and to hold the flap in place.

  Plastic electrical tape is too stretchy and the adhesive
tends to migrate. I have had good luck with genuine gaffer
tape (not duct tape) at least as an emergency patch.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: Tony Galt galta@uwgb.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 4 x 5 film holders
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002


I have used library book repair tape. It is opaque and designed to
flex with bookbindings. It looks pretty much like the tape on the
older style holders where the tape wraps around the hinged flaps. A
source is Demco (do a websearch and you'll find their on-line catalog.
You can buy it in rolls, or with peel-off backing, which is probably
better for cutting film holder hinges to shape. It is also available
in different colors, which would allow color coding holders.

The stuff available from Calumet is designed for the newer style hinge
which just has tape on one surface.

Tony Galt
...


From: msherck@aol.comimagine (Msherck)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 25 Oct 2002 
Subject: Re: 4 x 5 film holders

>How do you repair  the tape hindges on film holders.

I've had good luck with cloth (linen) photo mounting tape.  You can get it at
most art supply stores.  Cheap, cheap.  I use a permanent black magic marker to
make it dark.

Mike


From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What/How to Lubricate A Grafmatic Film Holder
Date: 25 Oct 2002

Chuck Cox  chuckcoxnospam@infinet.com wrote:
>Hi,
>
>What do you use and how do you lubricate a Grafmatic
>film holder.

A little bit of pencil lead, wherever metal seems to be binding on metal.

The first thing to check, however, is that all the grooves and traps are
clean and that the septae are actually flat.

--
 Thor Lancelot Simon       


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What/How to Lubricate A Grafmatic Film Holder
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002

...

I've had luck lubricating the sliding surfaces, mostly the
edges of the main case, with dry silicon lubricant. Only a
little is needed. Sometimes just cleaning will smooth them
out. You can usually see the wear on the surfaces that need
the lube.
 The septums should not need lubing.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What/How to Lubricate A Grafmatic Film Holder
From: Chuck Cox chuckcoxnospam@infinet.com
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 

...

Thanks to everyone for your advice and help.

After an exhaustive search I finally found my grafmatic service
instructions and parts catalog (March 1964).  It recommends:

Neolube                 Drawer dark slide channels
                        Counter slide
                        Drawer stop plates
                        Holes in drawer lock disc for steel ball

Dow No. 44      Hole in drawer for latch
light                   Hole in drawer for bar
silicone        Hole in lever of counter slide assembly
grease                  Brass studs of drawer
or Texaco       Shaft of magnet gear assembly
Unitemp

Paraffin        Edges of drawer
                        Edges of dark slide


Chuck




From: "dr bob" rsmith@dmv.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What/How to Lubricate A Grafmatic Film Holder
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002

...

Modern bee's wax can be used to ease the loading/unloading of film holders.
It is supplied in block form at most hardware stores or marine supply
stores.  I have used it for years in applications where you do not want
contamination or migration into delicate parts.  I just rub the block
against an empty holder and load and unload a couple of times.  This
transfers a minute amount to the camera parts.  A minute amount is
sufficient.  I only have to do this about once or twice a year, depending on
use.

I got this idea from my Great Grandfather who did his work with very large
formats.  He seemed to use bee's wax rather liberally on lots of items
around the house as well as his camera apparatii.  I remember the
distinctive odor of the homemade variety.  The modern stuff is quite pure
and has no discernable odor.  The only negative I can think of is: overuse
can result of build-up and attraction of dirt and dust.  Occasional clean up
with a good organic solvent and/or acetone (no painted parts - please)
should be sufficient to prevent problems.

Truly, dr bob.

P. S.  Don't attempt to lubricate your shutters :-)


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Speed Graphic HELP
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002

"0320231433" dam.mad@free.fr wrote ...
> I am looking for a miniature speed graphic
> Do you have one ?
> Could you help me to choose one ?
> If you would have to buy one , which equipments  would you search ?
>     which body ? which lens ? ......
>
>     where would you buy it ?
...
> thank you for helping me
>
> Marc From northern France


   See http://www.graflex.org for more information on
models. If you can get a Pacemaker version. The Miniature
Speed Graphic was made from about 1938 until 1947 when it
was replaced by the small Pacemaker. Both are good cameras
but the newer one has a body release and is more likely to
have a Graflok back on it. The Graflok back is important if
you want to use a roll film holder on the camera.

  The best lenses for either model are the 101mm, f/4.5
Kodak Ektar and the 105mm, f/3.7 Kodak Ektar. Both are
exceptional lenses quite equal to modern glass. Those built
after about 1946 are coated, older ones are not.

  I don't know a "best" source for the camera. Try
rec.photo.marketplace.large-format of, of course, eBay.

  I have about a 1946 Miniature S.G. and have been
frustrated trying to find a Graflok for it. The small ones
are quite rare and tend to be too expensive. That's why I
recommend finding a late model camera with the Graflok on
it. The regular spring back does not take accessories, at
least not without makeshifting.


---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com



From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Speed Graphic HELP
Date: 27 Oct 2002 

...


Marc:

For information on Speed Graphics in general, go to www.graflex.org.

The Miniature Speed Graphic is a model, not just a size, and was made
between 1938 or so and 1946 or so.  It was replaced in 1947 by the 2x3
Pacemaker Speed Graphic.  That's what you should want, it is a more
flexible camera that is easier to use and has a more reliable focal
plane shutter.  And you want one with a Graflok back, which makes
using roll film much easier.

There is no question of choice of body.  There was only one Mini
Speed, and only one 2x3 Pacemaker Speed.  The Pacemaker Speed was also
made in sizes 3.25 x 4.25 and 4x5.  There are two 2x3 Pacemakers
without focal plane shutter, the 2x3 Crown (same sizes as the
Pacemaker Speed) and the Century (plastic body, 2x3 only).

The mysteries of Graphic nomenclature are explained at
www.graflex.org.  Go there.

Lenses?  There are two limitations.  Graphics have limited bellows
draw, so can't use really long lenses.  Their front standards have
narrow throats, and this somewhat limits use of modern lenses with
large rear elements.  Still, I know someone who uses a 35 Apo
Grandagon on a Century and I use a 38/4.5 Biogon on my Century.

Where to buy?  eBay.  Midwest Photo Exchange; I drop by perhaps once a
year, and they always have a small heap of 2x3 Graphics.

If you want a 2.25 x 3.25 (those dimensions are in inches, and are
smaller than the nominal metric equivalents 6x9 cm) Speed Graphic,
wonderful.  They are still useful tools.

Cheers,

Dan

If I didn't mention it, go to www.graflex.org.  Go to the help board,
and talk things over with your compatriot Eric Burtscher.



From: "fbearl" fbearl@cox.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Wider lens for 4x5 [100-110mm]
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002

...

I will make this suggestion for the low budget people.  The 105mm Tominon in
Copal shutter from the industrial Polaroids will "cover" 4x5 with some small
movements.  You may find it gets a little dark in the corners.  On the other
hand, you can pick these up for $25 on EBay and try it out.  If you don't
think it works well enough you can put it on that 6x9 folder  and have a
sharp coated lens on the old folder.


From: camartsmag@aol.com (CamArtsMag)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 12 Nov 2002 
Subject: articles on view camera web page


We have posted the following articles on our web page

tray developing sheet film
focal length comparison chart between formats
quality cameras for less than $1,200.00
a review of the Cooke soft focus lens
getting started in large format
sheet film holder choices


steve simmons
www.viewcamea.com



From: "Gene Johnson" genej2@cox.net
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Method of focusing
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 

If you want to get really cheap, Harbor Freight Tools sells a aluminum bar
clamp that's 36 inches long, and wouldn't take much to make into a monorail
for a camera.  It costs about 6 bucks on sale, which I believe it is until
Dec. 2.  It has a plain spring latch lock on one end, and another with a
screw clamp on the other end.  You'd have to figure out a way to attach the
standards, and to add a tripod mount, but that really shouldnt be hard.  Use
the spring latch for coarse adjustment and the screw part for fine
adjustments. It's not as rigid as I would wish, but for that price it's
really not bad.

Gene

Postscript:

Here's the URL.
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=38184





Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 
From: ronald anger anger@sympatico.ca
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: [Cameramakers] Method of focusing (Ter McDonagh)

Hello Ter.

I would start with two cardboard boxes,one sliding into the open end of
the other.Lens mounted on one end and glass back mounted on other
end.Now slide the boxes in and out to focus,starting at 16 inches for
infinity and backing out until an object at 15  feet is in focus ,.this
should give you the
measurements for your boxes. You can slide one 5x5 diameter
(telescoping)wooden box inside a slightly larger one for focus . While
focused at 15 feet (greatest distance between lens and grnd glass)tack a
piece of cloth or leather,etc.over the joint between boxes to block
light. Allow for movement in and out of the boxes.Mount a 1/4 -20
3-prong T-Nut for tripod on front box,,balance for heavy lens.Of course
this will get more sophisticatedas it progresses.

Good luck
Ron anger



To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Cc: m.gudzinowicz@juno.com
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Method of focusing
From: m.gudzinowicz@juno.com

"Ter McDonagh" tmcdonagh2@hotmail.com wrote:

> Howdy folks, I'm new to the forum, but have "lurked" for a couple
> months.  I just obtained a 16" Cooke Process Anastigmat.
> Unfortunately, none of my cameras have that much bellows.  I'm
> thinking of building a very basic box (maybe 3/8 plywood)about 15
> 1/2" long (by 5"x5"), and already have a spare 4x5 spring-back. I
> don't plan to have any lensboard movements on the first
> prototype, and maybe a little front rise later on, and want to
> focus from infinity down to around 15-20 feet.  I will be
> mounting it to a tripod, but wood still like it to be light
> enough to hike with.  My question is, what do I do for front
> focusing, keeping in mind that the lens is about 2 1/2" in
> diameter and weighs about 4 pounds?  Do I mount a sort of
> monorail on the bottom (or top) of the box and put the lensboard
> on a standard, and fit a square bellow between the standard and
> box?  Is there a simple type of helical focus I can make that
> will be tight enough not to "unfocus" when I close down the
> aperture?  Do I just use two bolts (or four) and use shims for
> some preset focus distances, and if so, how do I do it so they're
> light-tight?  Also, is there an easy formula to figure out how
> much "throw" I need to focus from infinity down to my goal of
> 15-20'?  Thanks for any help.

Some formulas are:

1/focal_length = 1/subject_distance + 1/bellows_extension
subject_distance = (1 + 1/magnification) * focal_length
bellows_extension = (1 + magnification) * focal_length

To focus at 10 feet (120"), the extension required is
approximately 18.5 inches for a 16 inch lens. If your camera has
a 10" draw, you'd have to add 8.5 inches extension at the front
or rear - more to be safe.

To use long lenses with small view cameras, the usual approach
employed was to mount the lens on the end of a tube which was
supported on a bed (board) to which a flatbed view camera or SLR
was attached. The tube is fitted with a lensboard to provide a
light-tight connection, and is supported by V-blocks so the
lens/tube/front standard/bellows/center of the film plane are all
on the same axis. The camera bellows is used for focusing. The
disadvantages are size, and vignetting by the front standard
opening if it is smaller than the film format. Vignetting is
minimized or eliminated by using the shortest tube which permits
close focusing.

Another alternative is to make an extension back if you are using
a flatbed camera which has a removable GG back which is rotated
for horizontal or vertical frames. One simply makes a plate to
fit the camera in place of the GG back, a simple rear standard to
hold the removed GG back, a bellows from the plate to the new
rear standard, and a bed to align everything. The lens is mounted
on the front standard which provides focusing and movements.
Vignetting isn't a problem using the same format size. Since your
lens should cover 8x10, you could build an 8x10 extension back.
The camera's position on the bed can be altered if different
focal length lenses are used. For convenience, a folding bed
may be used, and tilt added to the rear extension standard.

Or you can build a box camera as you suggested. If you don't want
to use a bellows and make a focusing track, you can mount the
lens on a box which fits into another box to which the GG is
attached. The second box should have a double wall to act as a
light baffle.

              ----------------------|
           |---------------         |
           |  ----------------------|
           |                        |GG
      Lens |                        |Back
           |                        |
           |  ----------------------|
           |---------------         |
              ----------------------|



From: "Gene Johnson" genej2@cox.net
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Method of focusing
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002

I second the notion of a front mounted shutter.  I've been doing this quite
a bit.  The #3 Alphax and Ilex shutters from the Oscilloscope cameras are
relatively cheap and plentiful.  It's usually pretty easy to come up with a
way to mount it as close as possible to the front element.  With long (say
210 and up on a 4x5, do the math for larger) lenses I still have plenty of
room for movements.  They even have bi-post flash synchs which is really
useful for portraits. Things to watch out for:  Cover the bare aluminum
threads in the shutter with something to kill the glare.  I use a little
cylinder of black felt.  Lenses with huge elements will vignette.  My f2.5
Kodak Aero Ektar 178mm vignettes badly, a 150mm f9 copy lens does not. Most
of these shutters are sluggish and need to be cleaned.  It's easy .  I use
ordinary mineral spirits.  They really benefit from a microdrop of watch oil
on the low speed escapement, though, or the 1/2 and 1 sec speeds are likely
to be a stop slow.

Gene


you probably can front mount a
> shutter to the lens without vignetting even if the opening is
> smaller. than the lens diameter. I checked a 19" lens by
> projecting a backlit 4x5 ground glass back onto a distant wall.
> When stopped down, there wasn't any vignetting with a Compur 1
> shutter at the front of the lens.


From: "John Emmons" johncyn@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: - source of used lenses
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 


You might try the following:

Charles P Farmer, he's a workshop instructor and a Schneider dealer who also
sells used equipment.

www.charlespfarmer-photo.com

Badger Graphics, don't have their URL but should be easy to find via Google.

Badger also advertises in View Camera magazine, Chuck used to but doesn't
anymore. He does advertise in Lenswork and Camera Techniques magazine.

John Emmons

"IdahoSpud" spud@idaho.com wrote...
> I'm looking to purchase the following lenses:
>
> Schneider APO-Symmar 210mm in copal 1 shutter.
> Schneider Super Angulon 120mm in copal 0 shutter.
>
> I need recommendations of reliable used equipment
> dealers.  I'm a little gun-shy of spending this much
> money on e-bay and would like to look elsewhere.
>
> IdahoSpud


From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Graflex Crown Graphic Lenses
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002

 Rich Shepard rshepard@appl-ecosys.com wrote:

>  Yesterday I bought an old Graflex Crown Graphic 6x9 cm camera, primarily
>for architectural shots. It came with an excellent Schneider 105mm lens. I'd
>like to get at least one, longer focal length lens because I will almost
>certainly have to set up a distance from the building I want to photograph.
>I will not risk standing in the middle of the street to get the right
>composition. :-)
>


The bellows length is limiting and it's the reason they made a 180mm
tele lens for these. I doubt the 240 tele will fit or work. I know
I've used a 135mm WF ektar on one and it was close to the max it would
take, maybe a 150 would as well but kinda doubt it. Also a 65 is the
limit on the short end and doesn't allow for any movement.

Another option would be to make an ext tube/box type lens board to use 
a longer lens on? Then the only limit would be vignetting from the
lens board mount. You might be able to get up to a normal 210mm on
that way?


Stace


From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Best LF camera for MF
Date: 31 Dec 2002

steven.sawyer@banet.net wrote 

> I was thinking about getting a Graflex 4x5 camera with a 120 rollfilm
> back.  I like the enormous range of choices of lenses in LF but I don't
> have the $$$s or inclination to actually shoot 4x5.  Does anyone have
> any better suggestions?  If this has been beaten to death in a previous
> thread, please let me know the name of the thread so that I can look it
> up.
> Thanks

Forgive me for noticing your post and responding so late.

FWIW, I've had great fun and reasonable success shooting 2.25x3.25
with a Century Graphic and a 2x3 Pacemaker Speed Graphic.

Based on my results and on Chris Perez' test results (see
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html , for MF go up to home and
back down, he has done examples of some of the lenses I own), some of
the lenses I use are pretty good.  Namely:

38/4.5 Biogon (long story, mine is a remount, I may eventually put
some more to be remounted up on eBay), covers ~ 84 mm so I lose the
corners on 2.25 x 3.25.

80/6.3 Wide Field Ektar (if you haven't tried it, don't knock it, old
glass can be great glass)

101/4.5 Ektar (same comment, mine is an uncoated 1946 lens)

100/6.3 Neupolar (macro lens from Reichert, now part of Leica
Microsystems.  I have a 100/6.3 Luminar too, the Neupolar is better.)

160/5.6 Pro Raptar (this is Wollensak's answer to the Symmar, it is
super)

210/9 Konica Hexanon GR II (another wide angle copy lens; supposedly
best at f/22, pretty good from wide open on down).

I have a decent Nikon outfit for 35mm.  As far as I can tell, none of
my 35mm lenses past or present is much better than the lenses listed
above.  Whatever sharpness advantage my Nikkors have is usually lost
in use because I shoot them hand-held; their real advantage is that
they are most of them faster and have better image quality below f/11.
 None of my Nikkors beats the Biogon, which is amazing, just amazing.

And I have a couple of MF/LF lenses that aren't so great:

65/6.8 Raptar (works, not up to the good ones)

250/5.6 TeleOptar (works, better than the 65/6.8, not up to the good
ones)

The only movement I use is front rise, that mainly with the 65 and
100/6.3 Neupolar.  With the Neupolar, I use rise with the camera
upside down on an inverted center post to get better ground-level
macro shots, so in that application its really front fall.  To get the
most rise possible with the 65 (it covers 3.25 x 4.25) on my Century
Graphic, I've removed the front frame finder.  No big loss.

I'm not sure why, possibly different kit, but my experience isn't
consistent with most of the advice you've been given.

If you want to spend more money on a body than will get, say, a
Century, consider the 2x3 Horseman and Linhof cameras.  Lovely, a bit
more capable than Graphics.

Hope this helps.  Apologies again for the tardy response.

Happy new year,

Dan


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Speed/Crown graphic with a new lens?
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 


"Big K" nospam@spam.com wrote...
> Hi I'd like to try some streetphotography with LF, naturally the most
> affordable tool comes to mind is the speed/crown graphic, & since it is the
> lens that renders the picture, I'd rather spend the money on the lens than
> the camera, so just wondering if its feasible at all to put a modern lens on
> a rather beaten-up speed/crown graphic, would such a camera allow the lens
> to perform at its fullest potential? How about other field cameras that are
> out there, can they be used handheld? e.g. toyo 45cf, technika? Price is a
> pretty big issue, because if it wasnt and i didnt need movements i wouldve
> got a mamiya 6/7...
>
> thanks.


  Not a problem at all. The Kalart side rangefinder and the
Graflex top rangefinder can be set up for a range of focal
lengths.

  Whether you need to do this depends on what lens is
presently on the camera. The older Zeiss Tessars are very
good lenses although just a little soft when wide open, the
Kodak Ektars are dead sharp in the center when wide open and
are comparable with current glass.

  Some faster lenses are available for LF but you begin to
have a serious depth of field problem with them that makes
the speed impractical.

  Essentially, all you need to change lenses (other than the
lens) is a lens board.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com



From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Speed/Crown graphic with a new lens?
Date: 11 Jan 2003 


"Big K" nospam@spam.com wrote 
> Thanks Richard for the thorough explanation, maybe its too detailed im
> getting a little bit confused, are you talking about the front shutter on
> the camera itself? What if I use a modern lens witha modern shutter like
> copal do they have flash synch? if it is the case then theoretically I can
> use strobe on any crown graphic as long as I have a modern lens with a
> modern shutter?
>
> TIA,
>
>
{huge snip}
           
Hmm.  We have a language problem.

"Back shutter" refers to the focal plane shutter, which is built into
the Speed Graphic body.  Crown Graphics don't have a focal plane
shutter.  "Front shutter" refers to the leaf shutter in which some
lenses are mounted.  A lens that is not mounted in a shutter is said
to be "in barrel", is also referred to as a "barrel lens."  A
reminder, spend some time hunting around on www.graflex.org

A lens in shutter (has a "front shutter") is mounted on a lens board
that's usually held on the camera's front standard by one or two
sliders (depends on the camera).  Any lens whose rear cells will fit
inside the camera's bellows can be mounted on a view camera, that's
part of their charm.  Ancient camera, ultra-modern lens.  Some modern
lenses have large rear cells that won't pass through an old camera's
front standard.  These are put on old cameras by unscrewing the rear
cell from the shutter, putting the lens board (holds shutter and front
cell) on the camera's front standard, and then screwing the rear cell
into the back of the shutter (goes in through the back of the camera).

You can get sync with any lens in shutter, new or old, IF the shutter
has sync.    Many old US-made lenses are in US-made Ilex,
Rapax/Graphex, or Syncromatic shutters that have sync.  Can't speak
for old European shutters.  And yes, with a modern synced shutter,
e.g., Copal you will get sync.

I have a 2x3 Speed and a Century, use new and old lenses on them.  One
newish lens in barrel, usable only on the Speed; two, one ancient, one
newish, in unsynced shutters; the rest, mainly newish, in or in front
of synced shutters.  The ones that I use in front of shutters are in
barrel.  To learn about the joys of front-mounting, visit
www.skgrimes.com

Cheers,

Dan


From: "Alec Jones" alecjspam@bellsouth.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Speed/Crown graphic with a new lens?
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 

Don't even think about using a top-rangefinder camera if you want to
substitute lenses.  That model uses cams which are hard [read almost
impossible] to find.  For a camera with modern lenses, get a
side-rangefinder.  It has only one cam, a disk on the right side of the bed
which you can adjust yourself with a screwdrive.  Remember, for focusing a
newer lens, you'll either need the rangefinder [slow to operate, but
accurate] or a different focusing scale [REALLY hard to find].  Fortunately,
for the later, you can make your own, then use it for rough settings and
estimate from there.

Bottom line, start with the lens which comes on the camera.  Change if it
doesn't meet your standards.



From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Speed/Crown graphic with a new lens?
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 

> Bottom line, start with the lens which comes on the
> camera.  Change if it
> doesn't meet your standards.

  Its not too hard to make the cams although its more work
than adjusting a side mounted RF. I think there are
instructions somewhere on the Graflex.org site.

  Fred Lustig, who specializes in repairing Graflex
products, can make them.

 Fred Lustig
4790 Caughlin Pkwy
#433
Reno, NV
89509
1 775 746 0111
Graflex Parts and Service

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

       



From: Marv Soloff msoloff@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: What options for upgrading from Fuji GA645?
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003


Christ Bob, don't give away the secret!  Some of us have been shooting
these pack Polaroids for years with great success. Some of us have even
married Graflex roll holders to them to convert them into 6 x 9 and 6 x
7 film cameras (which work very, very well, thank you).

Regards,

Marv
(from his deep underground secret photo laboratory)

Robert Monaghan wrote:
> the cheapest light meter equipped 6x9+ format with auto exposure is
> probably any of the polaroids (e.g. #420) taking the #665 p/n
> (positive/negative) films; at least, if you only want a black and white
> negative ;-) see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/budgetlf.html ;-) grins bobm
>
> PS weight under 2 lbs; folds up compactly, cameras about $1 and up used!



From: reynolds@panix.com (Brian Reynolds)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Enlarging limitations
Date: 11 Feb 2003

J Stafford john@stafford.net wrote:
>I hope to roll out my functionong 1/8 scale 8x10 (35mm sheet film)
>view camera by this time in 2005. Precision, beautiful woods, a real
>stump-stupid idea that should sell like a refried hotcake.

If you check back issues of Model Railroader magazine (late 1980s,
early 1990s, I think) you'll find that someone has beaten you to it.

One of their photographers built a miniature view camera that used
sheets cut from 35mm film.  His purpose was to be able to get the
camera onto the model railroad layout in a position that would match a
photograph on a full size railroad.

There was only one picture of the camera (from a rear 3/4 view), and
there wasn't much detail about the camera or an example of a picture
taken with it.

--
Brian Reynolds
       



From: msherck@aol.comimagine (Msherck)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 14 Oct 2002 
Subject: Re: Burke & James lens board

>I am hoping to connect with someone who can help me find a lens board to fit
>a Burke and James 5x7

Most lens boards can be made from wood fairly easily.  I have a B&J; field
camera and have made most of my lens boards.  Since I like to keep things
simple, no power tools were involved.  If I had a table saw and a larger drill
bit, it would have taken only a few minutes for each (plus glue and paint
drying time.)

I bought thin plywood from the hobby shop, the stuff model airplane folks use.
A sheet  only costs $5 and there's enough wood there for four boards.  I bought
the 1/8" thick stuff.

I measured the one lensboard I had and cut it by hand, then used a compass to
mark the holes for the lens opening.  I used a coping saw to rough cut the
holes, then wrapped sand paper around a thick dowel rod and sanded the holes
out to exactly the right size.  That's the long part, that step took 10 minutes
per hole.  Wood glue holds the stepped board on the back (as a light trap, I
think,) and a coat of gray primer matches my camera well enough.  They work
fine and I'm much happier than paying $20-30 each for ones with uglier paint
jobs than mine.

Mike


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: questions on light leak
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 

"Bob Oehler" rso@likeclockwork.com wrote
> I developed my pics (burke & james 4x5 grover) and there is some light
> leaking onto the neg.   It's around the edge of the film.
...

  Some camera backs have felt or black yarn traps. I don't
know about the B&J; specifically.

  Try putting in a holder with white paper instead of film.
Take out the lens board and look into the camera from the
lens end while shing a strong light around the periphery of
the camera back. If there is a leak it will probably show up
this way.

  Also check the holders themselves for leakage through the
light trap for the dark slide. Take out the dark slide, open
the loading flap and shine a strong light against the side
of the holder while looking through the light trap. Old
holders sometimes get leaky.

  Light can also get in at the lens side so reverse the
above procedure, take out the ground glass panel or camera
back and shine a strong light around the front end while
looking through the camera.

  Light leaks can come from funny places and are sometimes
hard to find.

 While checking all this also check for reflections from
somthing inside the camera, for instance, any flat areas
adjacent to the film. Even when painted with black paint
some surfaces can reflect a surprizing amount of light.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com




From: Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: questions on light leak
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002

...
I echo what Richard Knoppow said.

You might also try the following.  Take off the lens board, put your
film holder in place, and in a dark room, put a small flashlight into
the bellows and turn it on.  Looking from the back, you should see light
escaping where there is a leak.

--
Leonard Evens      len@math.northwestern.edu



From: Charles Pezeshki pezeshki@moscow.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Well broke down and now have a large format
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002


Hi Mark,

I only partally agree with this.  What I have found is that good equipment
is extremely important for good success-- if your shutters don't work, or
are poorly timed, you can have the best eye in the world, but your photos
will still be poorly exposed.   If you have light leaks in your bellows,
your photos will look awful.  And if you try to take pictures into the sun
without a lens designed to minimize/eliminate flare, then they will look
awful.  I have pictures taken with my Super Symmar 110XL that would be
basically impossible to take with any other lens.

>From examining Adams' and my own work, with regards to landscapes, I find
that the number of incredible exposures that he had were directly related to
his tenure in the field.  If you want to be out there when the light is
awesome, you have to hang around.  If you want the moon to line up perfectly
over those little white gravestone crosses (probably a bad example, as Adams
did take that pix on the fly) most of us have to wait around.  It's time
spent in the field + technical mastery + quality equipment + talent that
makes an impressive body of work.

One of the interesting things about Adams that I've observed is that he
shows the same 80 pictures over and over again-- his very best.  That's
about 1-2/year.  I find that if I have a great summer, and spend lots of
time in the backcountry, I come up with about 2 shots that I'd put up
against anyone's work except the Greats.  That's because the combo of great
light as well as composition only seems to come along twice/year for me.

ChuckMark at aviatorsonestop@access995.com wrote 
> 1. Equipment is only a tool to do a job.  Most photo gear age is
> unimportant.  I have no ego need to have the newest or greatest anything.
> What I do want is the right tool for the job. (IF I can afford it.) Though
> equipment will place some limits on a photographer, its almost never the
> limiting factor.  That usually comes from behind the lens.  Give me any
> equipment I ask for and give Ansel Adams a Kodak Disc camera and he would
> likely still come back with better work.  Its the touch of a masters hand
> that makes the difference.


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Article on Graflex Cameras
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 


"Marv Soloff" msoloff@worldnet.att.net wrote
> WD Services (as in the Graflex article) has not been in business for a
> long time (years). One wonders when McBroom actually wrote the article.
>
> Regards,
> marv
>
> Carlo Coggi wrote:
> > John Stafford john@stafford.net wrote:
> >
> >>>We've posted an article on these cameras on our web site
> >>
> >>How about the complete URL so we can go directly and avoid the advertising?
> >
> > Enjoy!
> >
> >http://www.viewcamera.com/images/graflex_lives/graflex_lives1.jpg
> >http://www.viewcamera.com/images/graflex_lives/graflex_lives2.jpg
> >http://www.viewcamera.com/images/graflex_lives/graflex_lives3.jpg
> >http://www.viewcamera.com/images/graflex_lives/graflex_lives 4.jpg

  This article appears to be more than ten years old.

  Roger Adams is still around, I see him occasionally, but
WD Services sold out several years ago.

  Roger has been threatening to write a comprehensive book
on Graflex history for some time.

  There is a brief history of the company in Rudolf
Kingslake's book _The Photographic Manufacturing Companies
of Rochester, New York_ published 1997 by the George Eastman
House ISBN 0-935398-22-8.  It may still be in print.

  Folmer and Schwing, the partners who started what became
Graflex, started out in NYC making gas lighting fixtures.
The eventually began to make bicycles when they became a
craze around the late 1890's. Since bicycles touring was
popular F&S; began to sell lightweight cameras suitable for
carrying on the bicycle. Eventually, they began making
cameras.

  The Graflex SLR dates from just after 1900. The original
had an elaborate shutter but it was not reliable so a much
simpler one was designed. This focal plane shutter continued
to be used until the demise of the Graflex and Speed Graphic
cameras in the mid 1960's.

  Kodak bought F&S; around 1905 and transferred it to
Rochester. Kodak had to divest itself of F&S; due to
anti-trust action but the two companies remained close for
many decades, Kodak acting as a sales agent for F&S; and also
supplying many lenses for both Graflex and Speed Graphic
cameras.

  Roger Adams was president of the Western Division of
Graflex at the time Graflex went out of business. He bought
out the stock of the company and operated as WD Services for
several years. Some years ago he sold out. Most of the parts
stock is now in the hands of Fred Lustig, who services
Graflex made cameras.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Best LF camera for MF
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002


steven.sawyer@banet.net wrote:
> I was thinking about getting a Graflex 4x5 camera with a 120 rollfilm
> back.  I like the enormous range of choices of lenses in LF but I don't
> have the $$$s or inclination to actually shoot 4x5.  Does anyone have
> any better suggestions?  If this has been beaten to death in a previous
> thread, please let me know the name of the thread so that I can look it
> up.
> Thanks

A friend lent me a Crown Graphlex he had with a 135 mm lens.  I was
surprised at how well it did with 4 x 5.  But as a 6 x 7 camera, the
results would be pretty mediocre.   Many large format lenses are
excellent and could be used with 6 x 7 format with a roll film holder
and produce excellent results.  But such lenses are also expensive, even
used. And of course there is the narrower field of view when used with 6
x 7 format that others have mentioned. If you are going to get lenses
good enough for what you want, it doesn't make sense to scrimp on the
camera.  I suspect that is not really what you had in mind.  I doubt if
you want to end up spending as much it will really cost if you actually
add up the costs of all the components.   There have been several
discussions of alternatives for 6 x 7 and 6 x 9 format used cameras and
lenses, and I suggest you start there first.  When you end up with what
your entire system might eventually add up costing, you might find that
a medium format used system will come to less.

You might on the other hand rethink just going to 4 x 5.  The cost of
the film is higher, but if you are more deliberate in your shooting, it
might not be that different.  The major extra expense for 4 x 5 is an
enlarger, and even used that will be expensive.  But a moderate priced
flatbed scanner which can handle 4 x 5 film may be a reasonable alternative.

--
Leonard Evens      len@math.northwestern.edu 



From: Nick Zentena zentena@hophead.dyndns.org
Subject: Re: Best LF camera for MF
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002

...

  Personally I'm confused. If you're willing to buy a 4x5 camera [graflex
aren't the cheapest ] a rollfilm holder and at least some LF lens but you
say you  don't want to spend the money on large format?? Potentially all
you're saving on is film,processing and holders. 120 film on a per shot cost
isn't that much cheaper then 4x5 sheet film. If you're doing B&W; then
processing it yourself isn't a serious investment.  I think good holders are
cheaper then good rollfilm holders.

        Also you're unlikely to get a lot of lens. What's the shortest lens
that will fit a press camera? Then if you're using rollfilm that relatively
expensive wide angle lens might become a normal lens on the 120 film. No? I
guess the flip side is also true and longer lens will be longer then they
would be on 4x5 film.

      I've got a grand total of three lens for my 4x5 camera and I doubt
I'll buy more then 1 or at most 2 more. All were low cost but I wouldn't be
surprised if many LF users get by with just one lens.

          I'm guessing you're shooting colour? If that's the case just how
good are those older [in many cases] uncoated lens going to be? You might
end up wanting modern lens and they aren't that cheap.

Nick



From: "Brian Ellis" bellis60@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Best LF camera for MF
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002


O.K., I get it. Yes, in any common focal length there probably are as many
as ten or fifteen different brands of used large format lenses and often
four different brands of new large format lenses and the older used large
format lenses will often cost less than a medium format lens in the same
focal length.

However, FWIW the brands of large format lenses you specifically mentioned
(Wollensak, Taylor-Hobson, etc.) are  very old brands that haven't been made
in the last thirty or more years. So when you compare the cost of say a
Taylor Hobson 105 mm lens (if there is such a lens) with say the latest
version of a 105 mm Pentax 67 lens, you're comparing the much newer Pentax
lens with a lens (and, equally if not more important, a shutter) that's
maybe fifty or more years old. Shutters on these old large format lenses are
often not very good, the glass itself may not be very good, they may be
uncoated or single coated, in some cases the lens may be a barrel lens (i.e.
have no shutter at all), etc. etc.

I don't mean to suggest that you can't use these old lenses, plenty of
people use them and some even prefer them (though these people also usually
are using them with large format film rather than the medium format film
you're considering). My point is just that when you compare the cost of a
Taylor Hobson, Ektar, Wollensak or Zeiss large format lens with a modern
medium format lens you're comparing two very different lenses even though
the focal lengths may be the same.

I'm not trying to say you shouldn't do what you're thinking of doing, just
giving you some things to consider. Good luck with whatever you end up
doing.

675F04@banet.net...
> I'm probably out of my depth here, but it seems to me that the lens systems in
> 35mm and MF are tied heavily to the makes of the bodies.  There's little to no
> interchangeability with TLRs and the same situation (more or less) exists with
> folding cameras.  Now we're into the world of SLRs, and there your either
> spending a mint on a system or you're going Russian/Eastern European and taking
> your chances.  And even with the Eastern Bloc stuff you're "stuck" with CZJ or
> Arsat (or LOMO, but you get the point).  I search eBay on a regular basis and I
> see a lot more Ektars, Wollensacks, Taylor-Hobsons and even Zeiss (all
> varieties) in the LF sizes.  And most for "affordable" prices.  You can't blame
> me for being jealous.
>
> Brian Ellis wrote:
> > Many people use roll film backs on 4x5 cameras because they want the
> > movements available with a large format camera but don't want the hassle of
> > dealing with the film and holders or don't want to be  restricted in the
> > number of photographs they can make.  And some people use large format
> > cameras and large format film because they want to individually develop each
> > negative. But until now I've haven't heard of anyone getting into large
> > format work because of the range of choices of large format lenses.
> >
> > When you refer to "the enormous range of choices" in large format lenses, do
> > you mean that there is some focal length lens that is available in large
> > format that isn't in medium format? Or do you mean that there are a lot of
> > old, inexpensive large format lenses around?  In other words, what is it
> > that you plan to gain with this range of choices of large format lenses that
> > you can't otherwise get?
> >
> > I have 4x5 and 8x10 cameras and the whole process of making a photograph
> > with either system is much more enjoyable and rewarding to me than using my
> > medium format system. However, many people don't like the process at all.
> > The equipment tends to be bulky and heavy, carrying it around on hikes is
> > tiring, it takes a relatively long time to set up and then make only a
> > single photograph, because of that time and effort you tend to make far
> > fewer photographs than you otherwise would (which may be good but may be bad
> > too), and there are a whole lot of steps that have to be taken in order to
> > make the photograph and a whole lot of things in each step that can and will
> > go wrong to ruin those great photographs you thought you made.
> >
> > It's unusual, in my experience at least, to conclude that the range of
> > choices in large format lenses justifies these difficulties and problems..
> > This doesn't mean your reason is wrong, if it works for you it's right, just
> > that because it's an unusual reason you might want to carefully consider
> > exactly what you're getting into for what seems to me to be the fairly
> > minimal benefit of the range of large format lens choices.
...


From: "Martin Glader" martin.glader@kolumbus.fi
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Exact image size of 4x5?
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003


Different filmholders give slightly different image sizes. See
http://www.butzi.net/reviews/filmholders.htm

"Dan Beaty" nospamdbeaty@copper.net wrote 
> Could someone give me the exact dimensions of the standard image size on 4x5
> film?


From: bp171@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Mark Baylin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: RE: Starting out in large format
Date: 26 Feb 2003

Hi, just wanted to throw my two cents in concerning the
Crown Graphic and whether it's a good camera to start off in
large format.

I started using one in 1995 and continue to use the camera
every week... It's true that it doesn't have all the movements
that many other view cameras have, but it's also much
less expensive to acquire (often a plus for people who
just aren't sure if they will catch the large format bug or
not and don't want to sink all their cash in it right away).
Mine cost me only $150 US and, over the years, I spent my
money on decent nikon and Schnieder glass.

If you reverse the front standard (it takes 5 minutes to do so)
you will have a front tilt and the camera already has a
front rise. True, the camera doesn't have rear movements,
a very long extension (usable up to 210mm lens) and can't
be used for serious architecture, but it's still a very
well made and inexpensive camera and I believe it's
makes me work harder to get the images I want because of
some of the "features" it lacks...

90% of all the images on my website were taken with
a crown graphic...

www.cyberus.ca/~mbphoto/ssg

...just my two cents...

take care all!

Mark


From: "konabear" maurert@ameritech.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Starting out in large format
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 

I think the Speed and Crown Graphics are a gerat place to start. Buy one on
E-bay, sell it on Ebay, in the last few years they have held there value
well. So with little capital invested, (<$200) you get to try a lens/camera
combo and see if you like it. It's light enough and balanced enough the
original poster's tirpod (he has been into medium format) should suffice.

Then I grew out of my speed graphic, only to grow back into one! In
landscape I never got into back movements and primarly needed front tilt
down. I modified an Anniversary Speed Graphic's standard to give this
movement in both horizoal and vertical positions. The few times I need a
little rise, well I have exactly that, a little in the viertical format. A
little more in horizontal. I successfully use this camera for 65mm to 480mm
(tele). The few times I want to get close, close up lens make up for the
lack of bellows draw.

That said I this is not the solutoin for:
- macro/micro work
- archetechal work
- table top work
- serious commercial work
- impressing other large format photogs
(though striping the leather and
finishing the mahogany draws more
questions.)
- using up your bank account
- allowing you to use the extrement
movements of lens most of us can't afford.

Todd



Date: 26 Feb 2003 
From: rick5347@aol.com (RICK5347)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Starting out in large format

>My personal opinion is that you don't have that much to gain by starting
>off with a Crown Graphic. I tried a friend's and although I got some
>good shots, I was somewhat disappointed. One of the biggest advantages
>of large format is camera movements, and the Crown Graphic is quite
>limited in that respect
I would agree with this. As an instructor at the Ansel Adams workshops and
other workshops for many years I have seen many photographers start with a
Graphic only to "out grow" it in a very short period of time. Don't waste your
time down that road. Buy a good used 4x5 field camera (for landscapes) or a
monorail camera (for studio work) and jump right in. It would benefit you
greatly to attend a large format workshop or two. I can highly recommend Steve
Simmons workshop program from View Camera magazine and, for that matter, the
magazine itself is a gold mine of valuable information on large format.


Best regards,
Rick Rosen
Newport Beach, CA
www.rickrosen.com


From: M C Daily mcdaily@indy.rr.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Starting out in large format
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 
I use and have used my Busch Pressman Model D 4x5 the same way for 30
years. It makes a great small camera, can be hand-held, closes
compactly, very portable, and doesn't cost much to feed. The Polaroid
Type 55 is a great bonus. I like 5x7 and 8x10 DD, but sometimes they are
overkill. It or the old Calumet/Kodak 4x5 monorail cameras are a great,
cheap way to start (and maybe stay) and it is easy to get out and
recover the money if it does not suit.

Michael


From: "Paul" pcr@sprintmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Starting out in large format
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 

I second the recommendation for a Busch Pressman. It is in my opinion, the
perfect LF starter camera. I used one to get re started on 4x5. I bought it
on ebay, picked up a really good lens (Nikor 150) and loved it. I too shoot
B&W; 4x5.

The Busch has many of the movements you need to work in the field and in the
studio. Its more flexible than the Graphic (other than the Super) and
lighter and I believe more sturdy.

Check out ebay for a good Busch 4x5, then look for a good lens. Its likely
you will keep the lens long after you sell the Busch and move up, as I did
to a Linhof (older one).

PCR


From: Nick Zentena zentena@hophead.dyndns.org
Subject: Re: Starting out in large format
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 

matt rellimkm@yahoo.com wrote:
> Just wanted some opinions. Is is worth it to start out on the low end
> of large format (crown graphic or similar)? I shoot with a Mamiya TLR
> now. Would I see a big difference with a budget 4x5 or should I wait
> until I can buy the more expensive gear? The camera itself would fit
> into my shooting style and subjects.

If the camera can handle the lens you want and provides the movements you
need go for it. Just make sure that it fits your needs. Figure out what lenses
you're interested in. Not just for the moment but what you might want to buy
in the future. Later if you want something better the worst you'll likely
have to do is swap the camera. Your lenses and other things should work just
fine.

My 4x5 is a cheap Calumet monorail. No way a more expensive camera
would help me. More film. Maybe better lenses. A better meter. Maybe a
lighter tripod. Plenty of other things to spend money on with LF to get
better quality. The camera might be the least important-)

Nick


From: Paul Butzi butzi@nwlink.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Starting out in large format
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 

rellimkm@yahoo.com (matt) wrote:

>Just wanted some opinions. Is is worth it to start out on the low end
>of large format (crown graphic or similar)? I shoot with a Mamiya TLR
>now. Would I see a big difference with a budget 4x5 or should I wait
>until I can buy the more expensive gear? The camera itself would fit
>into my shooting style and subjects.

The good news about large format is that, barring problems like light
leaks, the quality of the image produced is really not affected by the
camera per se, but by the lens. That said, the *ease* of getting
image quality is definitely affected by the camera.

My personal observation is that it's very, very rare for a person to
successfully predict which large format camera they're going to like
without getting some large format experience first. The result is
that most people I know end up trying at least two cameras - the one
they start with, and the one they end up buying once they have figured
out what they really wanted instead.

That argues for buying your first camera used, because you can then
sell it for about what you paid for it when you buy another camera.

You might find my writeup on choosing a large format camera helpful,
too: http://www.butzi.net/articles/lfchoose.htm

-Paul
--
http://www.butzi.net


From: dpcwilbur@excite.com (Collin Brendemuehl)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Starting out in large format
Date: 24 Feb 2003 

There's 3 ways to start, and you by now know these:
1) Bare-bones starter
2) Somewhat-versatile, compromise body
3) Full-featured, almost-everything body

I've talked to several who've gone to #2 and stayed with it all the way,
with few complaints. You can get 90% of what you want and be happy.

None of my friends are wealthy enough to get the top-of-the-line body to
start, though many do.

I have what I consider the best starter body -- Busch Pressman 'D'.

Weaknesses:
1) Small rear-element opening. Fine for field lenses but not for the 3"-4"
diameter rear elements on some lenses.
2) Modest bellows extension. 210mm is your realistic maximum.

Strengths:
1) Some movements. Tilt (some have a tilt lock), Shift, Rise.
2) Metal construction.
3) Often cheaper than a Graphic. $100 to $150.
4) Rotating back!

I'll probably never go to a full-featured body because I don't have need.
I'm a hobbyist. The small tilt allowed is suitable for landscapes.
The compactness allows me to carry it in my bag along with 35mm.
(I use no medium format!)
My Fujinon-A 135/5.6 fits nicely.

I'd suggest that it really depends on how you want to use it.
Decide on the use and then pick the camera to meet the need.

To learn on: Anything will do.
To do portraits: A monorail or versatile field or flatbed camera.
To do landscapes: Anything will do.
To do macro work: A monorail with good movements.
To look pretty: "Ebony" brand. Very pretty.
To impress people: Most anything over $1500.

Don't put too much stock in the body,
at least not right away.
Get good lenses. Change body when you need to.

Most of all, have fun.
Take pretty picutres.
Post them for us to see.
Don't let the equipment ruin the hobby.

Collin
...


From: "doug duthie" dnduthie@crap.sympatico.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Mounting Acme No. 4 on 4x5?
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 

Insane? Noooo. One of the joys of large format cameras is that there is very
little that can't be modified, or built homebrew. Doing so makes the camera
so much more 'yours'. You could get someone else to do it - but that's no
fun ;-). I wouldn't hesitate to try it if I were you. The commercial ektars
are fine lenses -esp for portraiture.
I have mounted a 12" Dagor (with an Ilex Acme #4) on a 4"x4" wood lensboard
(for my zone VI) & I use it regularly. I was using it on an 8x10 and figured
I could make it do double duty. While the weight of the lens made me
skeptical at first - it works just fine. However, the shutter does protrude
over the edge of the board. This is the challenge you have.
You could build a new lenboard with a mild extension to 'clear' the edges of
your standard. The extension is probably < 1/2" since the shutter sits up
off the lens board. I recommend using 3mm x5 ply baltic birch plywood (you
can get it from woodworking suppliers such as Lee Valley
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.asp?SID=&page;=32736&category;=1%2C250%2C43
217&ccurrency;=2) and building an extension off the lensboard base.
The judgement call on practicality revolves around how rigid your front
standard is versus the weight of the lens at the end of an extension
(remember it behaves like a lever!). It's a little bit of planning, an
appropriate drill (safer to use a drill press - since you'll be boring a 2
9/16" hole approx.). Some gluing, painting, and perhaps, a few screws (if
you choose to use a metal lens boards as the base).

Let us know what you do.

Doug

remove the 'crap' to reply

"Mimi Me" spammehere@hotmail.com wrote
> Hello all,
>
> I think I've made a classic newbie mistake. I picked up a 10"
> Commercial Ektar, intending to use it as a portrait lens on my 4x5
> Gowland Pocket View. I had no idea it came in a shutter the size of
> Rhode Island (Ilex Acme No. 4).
>
> I don't see how I can mount this thing on this camera. The Gowland's
> (roughly) 4x4 lens boards are recessed, and the shutter controls bang
> up against the sides of the front standard. I intend to discuss this
> with Peter Gowland, but I think the answer will be that it's insane to
> put a lens/shutter this big on such a small/light camera (if it's even
> possible).
>
> Does anyone have experience using a lens/shutter this big on 4x5?
> Which camera? How was it mounted?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> -Paul Reese (embarrassed and amused in L.A.)


From: Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Starting out in large format
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 

matt wrote:
> Just wanted some opinions. Is is worth it to start out on the low end
> of large format (crown graphic or similar)? I shoot with a Mamiya TLR
> now. Would I see a big difference with a budget 4x5 or should I wait
> until I can buy the more expensive gear? The camera itself would fit
> into my shooting style and subjects.

My personal opinion is that you don't have that much to gain by starting
off with a Crown Graphic. I tried a friend's and although I got some
good shots, I was somewhat disappointed. One of the biggest advantages
of large format is camera movements, and the Crown Graphic is quite
limited in that respect. However, you can get a relatively inexpensive
view camera with greater flexibility on the used market if you look for
it. A new field camera need not cost that much either. View Camera
Magazine (www.viewcamera.com) has a good description of what you should
look for, and you can also find information at
www.largeformatphotography.info.

Study those sources and look at ebay and other sources for used equipment.

You should think also about what you are going to do with the images you
make. If you plan to do darkroom printing, you will need a 4 x 5
enlarger, and those tend to be expensive, even on the used market. I
have gone entirely to scanning, and a moderately priced scanner like the
Epson 2450 (or its newer replacement) can handle both medium and 4 x 5
format. I spent the extra that I would have spent on an enlarger on a
better view camera and lenses.

--
Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu 


From: John john@darkroompro.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Starting out in large format
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 

Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu wrote:
>My personal opinion is that you don't have that much to gain by starting
>off with a Crown Graphic. I tried a friend's and although I got some
>good shots, I was somewhat disappointed. One of the biggest advantages
>of large format is camera movements, and the Crown Graphic is quite
>limited in that respect.

I have to disagree. My first 4X5 was a Speed Graphic and I still use it
when movements aren't needed. In fact I rarely need the incredibly extreme
movements that I often see advertized on so many view cameras. My Zone VI has
more than I will ever need and actually I really wouldn't mind having a 5X7
equivalent of the Speed Graphic. A Toyo or a Linhof field camera would also be
perfect for my needs.

Regards

John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster
Formulas, Facts and Info on the Photographic Process
http://www.darkroompro.com


From: "Paul Matthijsse" Paul.Matthijsse@wanadoo.fr
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Starting out in large format
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003
matt heeft geschreven in bericht ...
>Just wanted some opinions. Is is worth it to start out on the low end
>of large format (crown graphic or similar)? I shoot with a Mamiya TLR
>now. Would I see a big difference with a budget 4x5 or should I wait
>until I can buy the more expensive gear? The camera itself would fit
>into my shooting style and subjects.

Hi matt,

A couple of months ago I bought a Crown Graphic with a standard 135mm
lens -- my entry in low-end LF. Working with this little beast is,
especially in the beginning, rather difficult, compared to 35mm or 120 or
digital. But in my opinion, it's really worth the effort. One has to be very
concentrated during the picture-taking process (because it's easy to forget
things or do them in the wrong order), which tends to add to the quality of
the composition. And working this way, I have the strange feeling of being
"closer to photography".

I develop the (b&w; only) sheets in open trays myself, so in complete
darkness. During that process, I have the new and exciting sensation of
being in the very center of b&w; photography -- me and my shots in total
darkness! Kind of magic. I never felt this while developing my 35/120 films
in Paterson tanks.

Because I don't have a 4x5 enlarger at the moment, I scan the negatives with
a relatively old Epson 1200 scanner (soon to be upgraded to the 3200). I
print them on the Epson StylusPhoto 1200 (yes, old as well!) with quad-inks
from MIS Associates.

Someone else in this thread said "I don't see a big difference [using
low-end 4x5]", but I do. I consider these prints (roughly 11x15 inch) among
the best I've ever made. And I have 25 years of darkroom experience printing
35mm (Nikon) and 120-film (Mamiya 645). New is the level of overall detail
that these 4x5 negatives deliver, that's absolutely amazing! As if you are
"in" that picture, instead of looking at it.

As you might understand, I am very, very happy with my new toy. The best
step in black and white photography I made in years! But remember, these
kind of cameras *do have* some learning curves.

Paul.



From: john@stafford.net (J Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: New to Large Format..
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003

"Jim Waggener" jimw@visi.net wrote:
> Suggestions on a 4x5 entry level camera with basic/normal lens.
> Application would be fine art copy work under tungsten lighting.

If your images aren't bigger than about 20" x 20", then a Polaroid MP3 or
4 might be the ticket. They are built for exactly that kind of work and
are going very cheap right now. I got two - free, lenses, lights, 4x5
backs, GG, angle viewiers, the whole works.

Others can help with specific models of 4x5. You probably don't need
movements other than front rise, so it may be an easy decision.


From: "Brian Ellis" bellis60@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Need advice: first large format camera
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003

Go to www.largeformatphotography.com (hope that's right, it's supposed to be
Tuan's large format home page), look under the camera reviews section. Read
some of them. Also look in the archives of this news group. The question you
ask has been asked here many times before.After you do those things you
should have a very good idea of which cameras land lens focal lengths look
promising. Then come back here and ask for people's experience with those
specific cameras and lenses if you like.

After that process has been completed look at the web sites of places that
sell a lot of large format equipment such as Adorama, Badger Graphics, or
Robert White (overseas dealer, big savings on some items) for new
equipment, Midwest Photo Exchange, Quality Camera, KenMar Camera, Lens and
Repro, or KEH for used equipment. Any of those dealers can easily assemble a
package of whatever you want if after learning more you still don't want to
do the assembling yourself. If you change your mind about that, check e bay
where you'll generally find better prices than dealer prices but with
greater risk.

With respect to lens focal lengths, "fairly wide" in large format would
probably be something in the 90mm range. If by "portrait" you mean head and
shoulders studio type portraits, that would probably be something in the
240-300mm range..

"pam helmke" phelmke@charter.net wrote
> Greetings all,
>
> I need some advice. I am interested in moving into large format from 35mm
> and medium 645 and 6x7. I'd like to find a 4x5 ready to go, camera, lens and
> film holders without having to look all over for components. Single lens to
> start, either a fairly wide unit or whatever passes for a 'portrait' or a
> little longer lens. Equivalent to a 28 or more than a 135 in 35mm. I don't
> much care for 'normal' lenses. Sorry for the comparison but I don't have a
> base line to work from. No one around here shoots large format. I am not
> scared of spending money but don't need to throw it away either. I am not
> interested in a Speed Graphic. Any informaton is appreciated. Thanks.
>
> Rick H.



From: "John Yeo" jonnieo@thegrid.net
To: Cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 
Subject: [Cameramakers] 4x5 view camera PDF uploaded

I have uploaded the pdf to: http://www.enteric.org/4x5_Camera.pdf

Thanks again to Jim for providing this.

John



From: "sympatic" tim@KairosPhoto.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: L/F group internet site
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003

don't know about the post, but:

http://www.f32.net/ info and mailing list and discussion group

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a?topic_id=1547 LF on photo net

THE large format site:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/

tim


From: sahamley@netscape.net (Steve Hamley)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 8x10???
Date: 31 Mar 2003 

Jesse,

Generally, the larger format will be less forgiving of less than
perfect technique.

Lenses that will produce the same "view" on an 8x10 will be twice as
long as a 4x5, with a corresponding reduction in depth of field. This
will require more careful use of movements, and/or a smaller aperture.
You will find that some pictures will be therefore be more difficult
to take with an 8x10, and occasionally you will find some (landscape
scenes) that you could use a 4x5 for but just can't make the 8x10
work, usually when there's wind or movement as with water. As Gregory
pointed out, focus, particularly where you focus at in a scene with
depth, will be more important than with smaller formats.

Thanks!

Steve

"Jesse" jesse1973@earthlink.net wrote 
> Other than the obvious size difference and apparent weight difference .What
> other differences are there between 4x5 and 8x10??Any difference in
> focusing ,composing and printing ?



From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: r.p.e.l-f web sites; sorted and reformatted.
Date: 2 Apr 2003 

Phil Bard http://www.philbard.com/home.html
Ralph Barker http://www.rbarkerphoto.com
Carey Bird http://homepages.tig.com.au/~cbird
Eric Boutilier-Brown http://www.evolvingbeauty.com
Danny Burk http://www.dannyburk.com
Clyde Butcher http://clydebutcher.com/
Paul Butzi http://www.butzi.net
Lee Carmichael http://www.f32.net/Services/Photographers/LeeCarmichael.html
Mark Citret http://www.mcitret.com/
Roger Clark http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark
Chris Cline http://people.westminstercollege.edu/faculty/ccline/
John Douglas http://www.darkroom-pro.com
Lloyd Erlick http://www.heylloyd.com/
Robert D Feinman http://robertdfeinman.com
J. M. Ferreria http://www.jmf-photo.ch
Rob Gray http://www.robgray.com/
Roy Harrington http://www.harrington.com/
Kerik Kouklis http://www.kerik.com
Bruce MacNeil http://www.brucemacneil.com
Mike McDonald http://www.mikemac.com/mikemac/photos/
David Meiland http://www.davidmeiland.com/
Tom Mickllin http://www.tmicklin.com
Joe O'Neil http://www.multiboard.com/~joneil
Christopher Perez http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/
Chuck Pezeshki http://users.moscow.com/pezeshki
Craig Pindell http://www.wyomingphotographers.com
Lynn Radeka http://www.radekaphotography.com/index.htm
Keith Schreiber http://ww.jkschreiber.com/
Thor Lancelot Simon http://www.panix.com/~tls/photo/
Dale Strouse http://www.dalestrousephoto.com/
Kerry Thalmann http://www.thalmann.com
Eric P. Volpe http://www.limpoc.com/gallery
Scott Walton http://www.scottwaltonphotographs.com
Carl Weese http://home.earthlink.net/~cweese/index.html
Butch Welch http://www.mindspring.com/~butchwelch/home.html
Gary Whalen http://www.garydwhalen.com
Bruce Wilson http://chemweb.dynu.com/photo
--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com


From: "John Yeo" jonnieo@thegrid.net
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] 4x5 Plans AVAILABLE ONLINE
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 

To anybody who would like the 4x5 camera plans, originally from the october
1942 issue of Popular Mechanics and made available by Jim Ketcheson, I have
the plans hosted on my website. http://www.enteric.org/4x5_camera.pdf

John


From: "Peter De Smidt" pdesmidt@dotnet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Calumet Cadet for beginner?
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 

Mr. Simmons said:
> I don't agree with this. The older Kodak camera is a knuckle buster (IMHO) and
> the older Graphic cameras are very limited in their features.

The Super Speed Graphic is a nice field camera, as are the older Linhof
Technicas. Check out www.wehmancamera.com for a modification of a Super
Graphic. Mr. Wehman doesn't seem to find it that limiting. I agree that the
regular Speed and Crown graphics are quite limiting, which is why I didn't
suggest them, although Mr. Simmons implied that I did. None of these field
cameras would be the best choice if one is doing architecture, but they are
much better options than the Cadet for field work.

As I said in my earlier post, regular wooden field cameras would work as
well for field or general purpose use. In the budget sector, I recommend
the Shen Hao from www.badgergraphics.com. I haven't used it, but I've
looked at it quite extensively and Badger Graphics. It's a very nicely made
camera. I liked it more than the Wistas, Tachiharas, Nagotas that I've
seen. For general landscape photography, this is probably your best value.

Regarding calling the Kodak a "knuckle buster", I'm not sure why Mr.
Simmons said this, and I have one sitting right in front of me on my desk
here. This camera is really suited to the studio, though, as it's quite
bulky and heavy. It has more bellows draw, a revolving back, buble levels,
geared rise, more extension and more movements than the Cadet.... Oh yes, it
also has quite large bellows which cuts down on flare, as would using a
proper lens shade of course. In any case it's cheaper. Parts are generally
available.

The Sinar A or Alpina can often be had around $500. I used one for years.
It's a fine camera, but again it's a little bulky for field use. This camera
is much better than the Cadet.

A used older style Arca Swiss is pretty nice, but make sure that you get all
of the accessories that you need.

There are other nicer cameras out there, but they are more than I think a
beginner should spend, unless you're independently wealthy. But if you are:
Studio: Sinar P2. Architecture: Arca Swiss F-line. Backpacking; Toho FC45X
Shimo. Flagrant display of money: Ebony model with on axis tilt and swing.
To impress you nautical friends who like brass and wood, consider a Wisner
or Gandolfi.

In conclusion, the Cadet is IMHO a crappy camera. It is poorly made. It
should depreciate once you buy it. Decide what kind of photography you want
to do. Perhaps rent a model or two. Read Tuan's large format homepage.
Narrow down your choices. Then ask some more specific questions.

Good luck.
Peter De Smidt


From: camartsmag@aol.com (CamArtsMag)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 04 Apr 2003 
Subject: Re: Calumet Cadet for beginner?

more capable, and that will cost you less. For studio work, the Kodak
Master View, which is the same as the Calumet CC400 series, is a much better
camera than the cadet. For field work, consider a super speed graphic, a
Linhof Tech V or some of the used wooded field cameras. If you get any of
my suggestions, their value won't go down unless you mangle them.

Peter De Smdit

I don't agree with this. The older Kodak camera is a knuckle buster (IMHO) and
the older Graphic cameras are very limited in their features.

On our web site in the public section is an article

4x5 Cameras for Less Than $1,200.00. I would suggest reading this

www.viewcamera.com

steve simmons


From: "Peter De Smidt" pdesmidt@dotnet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Calumet Cadet for beginner?
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 

> Quoth "Jim Waggener"
> | I was looking at the Cadet w/150mm pkg at Calumet. Would this be a good
> | starter camera for a LF newbie?

In my opinion, no. It's rinky dink. The standards don't line up. The knob
for front tilt is in a very poor place. I bought one mail order years ago
and immediately sent it back. There are many better used cameras that are
more capable, and that will cost you less. For studio work, the Kodak
Master View, which is the same as the Calumet CC400 series, is a much better
camera than the cadet. For field work, consider a super speed graphic, a
Linhof Tech V or some of the used wooded field cameras. If you get any of
my suggestions, their value won't go down unless you mangle them.

Peter De Smdit


From: two23@aol.comSPAMnot (Two23)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 04 Apr 2003 
Subject: Re: LF paradox Re: why so expensive?
Bob--

It's not your imagination. LF lens prices have gone up on eBay. Most all
camera gear goes down during winter months, and rise in the Spring. LF never
went down in price. Medium format seems to be dropping like a rock, and the
newer 35mm is slipping slowly. (Longer tele's that are non-AF seem to have
dropped substantially though.)

Kent in SD


From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Cheap 8X10 FKD conversion finished!
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003



Well this project didn't end up being as cheap as my $25 5X7 project but
still ended up very reasonable for an 8X10. I started out with a russian
FKD 18X24CM plate camera off ebay for $150 including a russian tessar copy
300 f4.5 coated lens.

When I recieved this big guy it was in pretty good shape except whatever
they used for glue had given up being glue! Almost every joint was loose so
ended up having to totally diassemble the camera and reglue everything.
This wasn't a bad thing IMHO as it allowed me to adjust all the clearances
to tighten up the bed from the wear it had. It has very nicely machined
wood with precise joints made of many different pieces which makes for a
very pretty camera. After reglueing everything, I also found the russian
wood screws weren't the best so replaced them with slightly larger/longer
US versions. Had to redrill/countersink the metal hardware which being made
from brass was easy to do.

Once I got the camera itself solid, I bought an old wooden 8X10 film back
with ground glass for $25. It needed a little repair (one small strip made
and glued onto it) and refinished. I then took the old plate back that came
with the camera and between it, 4 pieces of strip wood and the "new" 8X10
film back made a convertion back to use regular 8X10 film in. The only
downside is it now doesn't fold up with the back attached but lost no
movemets or anything that hurts it's usability. If it works well I might
make a longer piece under the front standard so it will fold up with the
back attached?

So for under $200 I got an interesting (pretty?) 8X10 and a MONSTER 300 f4.5
barrel lens. Hope to try it out tomorrow and see how good it works! 
--

Stacey



From: "konabear" maurert@ameritech.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Top Ten gear needed for LF?
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003

Top Ten? My opinion:

1) Budget for film and processing.
2) Camera holding system: tripod, bean bag, clamps, etc.
3) Camera body
4) Medium wide angle to normal lens with timing mechanism (e.g.. in shutter
or "other" solutions)
Either towards the 90mm end or 180-210 lens.
5) Metering system. (e.g.. sunny 16, light meter, 35mm camera with meter or
spot meter)
6) Film back(s) (I prefer readyloads.)
7) Cable release
8) Carrying system: (e.g.. case, backpack, lens wraps...)
9) Polarizing filter.
10) Lens at the other end of the range from #3 above.

Next:
11) Graduated neutral density filter.
12) folding reflector disc, largest you can easily carry, I prefer
silver/white.
13) Third lens.

IMHO items 1-8 are the "required" list.

My point of view is that I take color transparencies of landscape and
scenic. Copy work, table top work, architectural work etc. may have a
slightly different list.

Also I basically listed the top 10 things I use in the field. I'll admit
that what I carry and use is also a product of what I currently own. I left
out some of the smaller things like lens caps, though for someone getting
started they should be in the top 6.
...


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Plastic 4x5?
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 

"Sly D. Skeez" wenner@cbs.umn.edu wrote
> "Ken Burns" kenburns@twave.net wrote 
>...
> > The Toyo 45CF is probably the one they are talking about. In the April Pop
> > Photo Steve Sint reviews it. The title of the article calls it "Plastic
> > Fantastic." It's not plastic though, it's carbon fiber.
> >
> > KB
> I was curious, so I looked it up
http://www.toyoview.com/Products/45CF/45CF.html
>
> It's a mix of polycarbonate and carbon fiber, 3.4 lbs,
$839 at B&H.; It
> also looks like a Speed Graphic with improvments.
>
> Jay Wenner

That's interesting. The Century Graphic is made of
plastic. Graflex called it "Mahoganite", I suspect its a
phenolic resin like Bakelite. In any case, it seems to be
long lasting and tough; Century Graphics are on the order of
fifty years old now.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: Le Grande Raoul raoul@olympus.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Plastic 4x5?
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 

...
> I was curious, so I looked it up
> >
> > http://www.toyoview.com/Products/45CF/45CF.html
> >
> > It's a mix of polycarbonate and carbon fiber, 3.4 lbs,
> $839 at B&H.; It
> > also looks like a Speed Graphic with improvments.
> >
> > Jay Wenner
>
> That's interesting. The Century Graphic is made of
> plastic. Graflex called it "Mahoganite", I suspect its a
> phenolic resin like Bakelite. In any case, it seems to be
> long lasting and tough; Century Graphics are on the order of
> fifty years old now.

Leave it to Richard to not only know that a Century Graphic was made of
plastic but to also know Graflex's trade name for the material!

I'd have to agree that the Toyo CF is an improved substitute for a
Speed/Crown Graphic. It has a few changes (frontal movements) and
deletions (rangefinder and viewfinder) that people have talked about
wanting for the Speed/Crown. And at a competitive price, too. Seem
prices of a clean Crown these days???? What a surprise! I paid $!50
for my top rangefinder/Schnider Crown two years ago and the selling
price of these things just goes up!

Wonder if a Kalart RF could be adapted to the Toyo CF? I *love*
handheld 4x5 work but would like more movement options than my Crown.
Yes, there is Linhof but, with grip and viewfinder, we're talkin'
almost $1500/2K for a Technika IV or V....

Jeff


From: Alan Browne alan.browne@videotron.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: LF-dipping my feet - III
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 

I looked at the "Getting Started" piece at the www.viewcamera.com site.
Good general advice.

Is there a site with more detail about the mechanics of making a shot?
As I understand it...

--Lug equipment up hill, over dale, through valley, over rocks...
--return to car (6 miles away) to get the film
--return to equipment (pray has not been stolen)
--Setup
--compose/focus, meter, aperture, close and cock shutter
--load film sheet
--remove protector
--click
--unlcick
--insert protector
--remove film
--store it safely
--pack equipment
--return to car (hills, dales, etc.)
--drive home
--get film processed (E-6)
--be amazed (disgusted)

But a good website with more detailed instruction, in particular with
the horseman 450 (which is what I'll be renting) would be mucho apreciated.

Cheers,
Alan


From: john@stafford.net (J Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Any recomendations for view finder kits?
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 

morongobill@excite.com (Bill
Mcdonald) wrote:

> I came across Bender camera's website and it looks interesting. Any
> thoughts on the quality etc of kit camera's. [...]

It seems to be verboten to criticize Mr. Bender's camera kits but I will
dare, regardless. First, the machining of the parts is simply beautiful;
one doesn't need to really sand to fit anything: sand only to freshen the
surface and then very lightly. Second, as odd as it seems, the
practically tool-free assembly instructions actually work very well _if_
one follows the directions to the letter. (I've built his camera with his
instructions and also using all my good tools, so I do know this to be
fact.) In these regards it is a well engineered camera and his choice of
wood stock is very good so it is very pretty when complete.

What I did not like is the way the movements drifted and changed due to a
lack of serious friction fittings. I could not keep them tight enough
without breaking something. I solved that by cementing (contact cement)
unobtrusive wet/dry sandpaper strips to the contact areas. It does not
show when the camera is all centered. Now it works very nicely.

If you like wide work, then Jay has a bellows and lensboard to facilitate
it. You must order it separately.

As for pictures taken with it - they will be every bit as good as the lens
permits.... and as good as the assembly of the ground glass stops. Again,
follow Jay's directions and all will be okay.

The camera has the typical liabilities of a lightweight camera:
sensitivity to wind and it is fragile, but you make it and you can fix it!


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Getting a 4x5 lens off
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003

David Nebenzahl" dnebenzahl@access4less.net wrote 
> Just got my new toy today, a pretty nice Crown Graphic, bought on eBay, that
> contrary to some reports here cost significantly less than an arm + a leg.
>
> Just one dumb question: how do I get the lens off the lensboard? It came with
> the Ektar 127 mm, but I'd like to try another lens I have to see if it'll
> cover. Can't figure out how to get the shutter off the board: how do you
> remove the rear flange with the 3 holes in it? Does this unscrew?

I should have added. Instead of removing the Ektar get
another lens board. Different lenses have different diameter
holes to mount them. I would not re-bore this lensboard for
another lens. Leave the Ektar on it and find another. I
think Steven Shuart and Midwest Photo have lens boards for
the Pacemaker series Graphics. They are no longer cheap but
they are a one-time purchase. Unfortunately, the metal
boards are not so easy to make as the older wooden boards
for the Anniversary series Graphics.

For much more on Graphic cameras see
http://www.graflex.org

Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Getting a 4x5 lens off
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 

"David Nebenzahl" dnebenzahl@access4less.net wrote 
> Just got my new toy today, a pretty nice Crown Graphic, bought on eBay, that 
> contrary to some reports here cost significantly less than an arm + a leg.
>
> Just one dumb question: how do I get the lens off the lensboard? It came with
> the Ektar 127 mm, but I'd like to try another lens I have to see if it'll
> cover. Can't figure out how to get the shutter off the board: how do you
> remove the rear flange with the 3 holes in it? Does this unscrew?
>
> --
> As for lean, these grossly, grossly, grossly overweight all-American
> lard-ass behemoths come in at 155% of the mass (293,500 lbs vs 86 t) and
> 42% of the power (3600 hp vs 6.4 MW) of your typical contemporary
> Euro-weenie locomotve. A good thing extreme measures are being taken
> to keep oil cheap.
>
> - Richard Mlynarik, spot-on as usual, comparing
Made-in-U.S.A. to European
> railroad equipment in ba.transportation

There is a retaining ring or dual purpose flange on the
back of the lens. This must be unscrewed. The shutter has a
pin on the back which fits into a depression on the
lensboard to keep the shutter from turning. So, you can't
unscrew the shutter. The flange or retaining ring (Kodak
supplied both styles) may be tight. First try a gripper of
some sort, a rubber glove will help. If that doesn't do it
use a suitable wrench with the jaws padded to prevent
gouging the flange. Some retaining rings have slots for a
spanner wrench. You can get these from many larger photo
supply stores, or, if you are mechanically inclined, make
one from a sheet of hard brass or steel. The latter are
actually better and have less tendency to slip.

The Ektar is an outstanding lens and Kodak Supermatic
shutters are very rugged and can generally be brought back
to life by cleaning.

Ektars, and many other old lenses, tend to get hazy
inside. The haze comes off with plain lens cleaner or
alcohol, but you must open the cell. The cells have front
retaining rings (150mm Ektars have a back cap, making life
easier). If your lens needs cleaning and you want to try it
e-mail me and I will post instructions, its not difficult.

Many old lenses are thought to be of low contrast when they
are just dirty.

Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Kodak D2 and Century 1
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 

"J Stafford" john@stafford.net wrote
> The topics regarding the Kodak D2 makes me wonder - what are the
> differences between the D2 and the Century 1? Don't have the Kodak, but
> from the pictures they seem similar.

They are probably related. Century camera was founded in
1900 (hense the name) and bought out by Kodak about a year
later. Century remained the principle manufacturer of
Eastman and Kodak studio cameras until the lines were
discontinued in the 1960's.

Kodak also owned Graflex for a time. They were forced to
divest Graflex but had a contract with them to build some
Kodak cameras and Kodak film holders for many years
afterward.
Kodak and Eastman view and studio cameras are generally
very well built. The 2D is a sort of minimum camera with
limited movements. Its quite sturdy and more rigid than it
looks. A complete one should have an accessory bed
extension.

The Kodak All Metal View Camera, also sold as the Kodak
Commercial View Camera, is, esssentially, a metal version of
the 2D. It has front shift as well as rise and fall, which
the 2D does not have.

This is not to be confused with the later Kodak 8x10
Master View, an all metal camera similar to the old Century
Universal camera, a favorite of Edward weston.


From: Alan Browne alan.browne@videotron.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: LF-dipping my feet - III
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 

I looked at the "Getting Started" piece at the www.viewcamera.com site.
Good general advice.

Is there a site with more detail about the mechanics of making a shot?
As I understand it...

--Lug equipment up hill, over dale, through valley, over rocks...
--return to car (6 miles away) to get the film
--return to equipment (pray has not been stolen)
--Setup
--compose/focus, meter, aperture, close and cock shutter
--load film sheet
--remove protector
--click
--unlcick
--insert protector
--remove film
--store it safely
--pack equipment
--return to car (hills, dales, etc.)
--drive home
--get film processed (E-6)
--be amazed (disgusted)

But a good website with more detailed instruction, in particular with
the horseman 450 (which is what I'll be renting) would be mucho apreciated.

Cheers,
Alan



From: kaliushkin@att.net (Dan Kalish)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Architectural photography
Date: 9 Jun 2003 

john@stafford.net (J Stafford) wrote 

> As an aside, I find it interesting that my 30's Zeiss (and other) folding
> cameras had vertical and horizontal front movements, as if once upon a
> time the consumer actually understood these things. (I wonder if similar
> built-in digital controls will ever catch on with the public.)

And my 1929-1933 Voigtlander Avus. But no swing or tilt and no movement
of the film. My first view camera!

Dan K.


From: Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Newbie questions on 4x5
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 

memyself wrote:
> hi
> I am a 35mm user but have been interested in 4x5 lately. I mainly shoot
> landcapes at 14-24mm range, 135mm, 300mm. What type of kit would I need?
> camera preferably one that can tilt, holders, lenses. Im real new, i think
> a 58mm will gice 16mm eqivalent. I have big tripod (can handle a up to
> 11kgs) and a lightmeter that reads both ambient and relected light.
> Wayne
>
>

View Camera magazine has a discussion of how to start off in large format at

www.viewcamera.com

Also, the large format web page at

www.largeformatphotography.info

is invaluable for large format photographers at all stages and has lots
of information about how to start off.

One problem with what you intend is that very short focal length lenses
don't usually work with the obvious choices for a beginner such as a
moderately priced field camera. You really need a bag bellows and/or a
recessed lens board to be able to focus close up and also take advantage
of movements. A typical moderately priced field camera, under $1000,
may have a fixed bellows. For example, my Toho FC-45X, which is
actually a monorail well adapted to field use, already has limitations
on movements at 90 mm and probably can't be used effectively much below
75 mm. So you should think carefully about what you may want to give up
in a camera in order to be able to use very short focal length lenses.
Or be ready to pay for what you need.

Another problem is that wide angle large format photography is different
in many respects from wide angle 35 mm photography. For one thing, the
shapes of the formats are different. Unless you crop, you get an aspect
ratio of 1:1.25 in 4 x 5 and 1:1.5 in 35 mm. If your picture is in
landscape orientation, the 4 x 5 frame has much more space in the
vertical direction than you are used to. 5 x 7 format is closer to 35
mm format in terms of aspect ratio.

In addition, short focal length lenses can be difficult to focus for a
variety of reasons.

I never was a fan of extreme wide angle photography in any format, but I
had been quite comfortable using a 28 mm lens in 35 mm, and a 65 mm in
6x 7 and 6 x 9. I found it took me a while to learn how to use my 90 mm
lens in 4 x 5, and I still sometimes don't get it right. Some day I may
graduate to 75 mm, but I can't imagine going below that.

At the other end of the spectrum, keep in mind that a 135 mm lens
translates in 4 x 5 roughly to a 400-500 mm lens and a 300 mm lens to a
900-1200 mm lens, depending on how you do the calculation. Few large
format photographers would be using lenses in the latter range, but the
former are not uncommon, usually of telephoto design to accomodate
limited bellows extension. If you really want to do photography at
extremes of long and short focal lengths, you may need to spend more
than you intended in order to have suffficient extension combined with
interchangeable bellows. When combining this with lightness and ease of
use in the field, your choices will be even more constrained.
--
Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu 


From: John john@darkroompro.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Newbie questions on 4x5
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 

"memyself" nospam@samiam.com wrote:
>hi
>I am a 35mm user but have been interested in 4x5 lately. I mainly shoot
>landcapes at 14-24mm range, 135mm, 300mm. What type of kit would I need?
>camera preferably one that can tilt, holders, lenses. Im real new, i think
>a 58mm will gice 16mm eqivalent. I have big tripod (can handle a up to
>11kgs) and a lightmeter that reads both ambient and relected light.
>Wayne

Consider the 5X7 format as well as the 4X5 (153 diagonal) . 4X5 is fine
but even my wife was somewhat astonished at the difference in negatives when
held side-by-side. Try it with prints and you'll see what I mean. A 4X5 contact
print is pretty small compared to a 5x7 contact print.

When it comes to size the 5X7 camera doesn't seem 2X the size of a 4X5.

Also note that 5X7 (207.8mm diagonal) will accept many of the lenses that
a 4X5 will and of course any 8X10 lens will work fine as long as you have the
bellows. An example would be the 90mm/8 Super Angulon-type wide angle/high
coverage lenses for the 4X5. Of course they usually only have around 220 mm of
coverage so you wouldn't have a lot of movements but you would have the
equivalent of a 19 mm on 35.

BTW, while there are some long lenses for the larger formats, a 6X lens is
going to be mighty pricey. As an example the 450M by Nikon is only 2.2X. The
Nikon T1200 would be close enough for government work but the cost is around
$2000.

Lastly is enlarging and printing equipment. There are quite a few 5X7
enlargers available and their prices are actually quite comparable to 4X5's as
they are larger and many people don't want to be bothered with such a large
piece of equipment. For example I paid $750 for a Durst CLS301/138S in B
condition and $950 for a D-5 in A (near mint) condition.

Regards

John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster
Formulas, Facts and Info on the Photographic Process
http://www.darkroompro.com


Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Newbie questions on 4x5
From: "Tom Thackrey" tomnr@creative-light.com
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003
"memyself" nospam@samiam.com wrote:
> I am a 35mm user but have been interested in 4x5 lately. I mainly shoot
> landcapes at 14-24mm range, 135mm, 300mm. What type of kit would I need?
> camera preferably one that can tilt, holders, lenses. Im real new, i  think
> a 58mm will gice 16mm eqivalent. I have big tripod (can handle a up to
> 11kgs) and a lightmeter that reads both ambient and relected light.

www.largeformatphotography.info has pretty good dope on getting started with
LF.

I would suggest a field camera, they are easier to haul around and provide
the movements you need for landscape work. Be careful of the bellows length,
my field camera has a fixed bellows which makes it impossible to focus
extremely close. Wide angle lenses often require a special recessed lens
board to focus at infinity, make sure your lens/lensboard/camera will work
together (sometimes the lensboards are so small that you can't use a deeply
recessed lensboard).

Ready/Quick loads give you a lot of flexibility in the field. You can pack
as much film as you can carry without having to load and unload film holders
in a changing tent. Film holders are absurdly expensive and bulky so it's
impractical to have large numbers of them. I have 14 which is 28 shots, on
the road I spend each evening (and sometimes lunchtime) unloading and
reloading film holders.

Many LF shooters use a spotmeter and often the Zone System. One huge
advantage of LF is you can develop each negative separately so you can
practice the zone system more easily than with roll film.

Speaking of roll film, you can use roll film backs with your 4x5. I often
shoot a 6x7 back. There is a focal length multiplier because you are
cropping the 4x5 frame to 6x7.

Camera
Lens/shutter/Lensboard
Cable release
Filter holder/filters
Tripod
Tripod head
Focusing cloth
Film holders, changing tent, film
or
Read/Quick load holders, film
Polaroid back, film
Focusing loupe
Spotmeter
Level
Lens wrench
Camera bag
Camera wrap
Lens wraps

--
Tom Thackrey
www.creative-light.com


From camera makers mailing list:
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 
From: Robert Griego rgriego@juno.com
Subject: [Cameramakers] Re: 7 x 11 filmholders

>... sources of suitable materials for septum and darkslide?

I bought a bunch of 8x10 holders a few years back without darkslides. A
single new darkslide from Fidelity was more than I paid for the 4
holders! So I went to Walmart and bought some aluminum "For Sale" signs
(not plastic!). Contact cement two of them "ink to ink" and you end up
with about the same thickness as a Fidelity plastic darkslide. Plus it
will never split or crack.
Robert



From camera makers mailing list:
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 
From: Marv Soloff msoloff@worldnet.att.net
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Filmholders

It has been suggested on this NG (as well in other areas) that suitable
tape for repair of filmholders can be found at a library supply house.
I.E: a form of bookbinding tape.

Regards,

Marv


From: Jean-David Beyer jdbeyer@exit109.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Help choosing a used 4x5
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 

Stephen Bloye wrote:
> I use a Nikon FM3 for 35mm and a Bronica ETRS for 6x4.5 at the moment
> and want to get into 4x5 format. As a start i have around o300 to
> spend on a used camera. I take flower and bontanical photographs
> indoors, so i guess a monorail with around a 150mm lens would be fine
> at this stage. I want to use both film and polaroid.
>
> Can anyone help with some choices

My first suggestion, if it is an option, is to select a very few, based
on what you read, what people in your local camera club suggest, etc.,
and then rent each one for a weekend (one each weekend) and try them
out, because it is a very personal matter.

Whatever you select, make sure the monorail and bellows are long enough
so you can focus close enough. Many nice folding view cameras have short
bellows.

If you look around, a Calumet CC-400 monorail, if available where
Sterling money is used, should be quite cheap. I bought a brand new one
around 1975, for about US$150 (camera only). They cost more now used,
but should be a very good deal anyway. This is an all metal (mostly high
grade aluminum) camera with vinyl type bellows.

Front axis tilt, Front Axis swing, front shift, front rise and fall.
Rear axis tilt, Rear axis swing, rear shift.

If the price is right, and it probably will not be, a Gandolfi can be
good. My sister has one that she uses for everything, including flowers,
though her lenses have historic apertures so are outdoors only (Her
Goertz Dagor may be useable indoors). I have used a Deardorff 4x5
special and now use mainly a Wisner 4x5 Technical field. These are
unlikely to be anywhere near your price range, but if you can look at
any of them, it may give you an idea what capabilities you may have to
sacrifice to get into your desired price range.

--
Jean-David Beyer 


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Tips for an 8X10 rookie?
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 

"J. C. O'Connell" hifisapi@gate.net wrote 
> I bought my first 8X10 camera this week and expect to try it out
> next weekend. While I have dabbled around with 4X5 for about
> 10 years and pretty heavily for the last year or so, I still wonder if
> there's anything I should know about 8X10 that I might overlook
> as a rookie?
>
> My gear will be:
>
> Camera : Cambo 8X10 Legend
> Lens : Kodak 10" commercial ektar F6.3
> Film : Tmax 400
> Tripod : Big bogen (forget the model #)
>
> Secondly, I've been scanning my 4X5 and printing
> digitally for the last few years but I havent really been
> satisfied with digital BW printing.
>
> I want to do contact printing with the 8X10 negs.
> Can I use polycontrast paper and use filtered
> light coming out of my 67 enlarger to vary the contrast
> of the prints if necessary?
>
> JCO

You can make perfectly good contact prints on VC enlarging
paper, I do it all the time. The filters work just as they
do in enlarging.

The 10" Commercial Ektar is just about at the limit of its
coverage at 8x10. This is exactly the same as a 127mm lens
on 4x5. At f/11 it will be sharp to the corners but will
vignet much beyond that. It is operating as a modestly wide
angle lens for the format. Commercial Ektars are
exceptionally good lenses. Watch out for internal haze, it
can kill the contrast of the lens. I think the 10" has a
back cap for the front cell. If so, getting to the inside
for cleaning is easy, just unscrew the cap, and pick up the
rear element with some sticky tape (better than letting it
fall out). Plain lens cleaner or window cleaner will remove
the haze.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Anybody know a source for lens boards for Crown Graphic
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 


"jdunn" jddunn@plano.net wrote
> Some one told me I can make my own out of wood.
> I can get 8 ply aircraft birch in thin stock.
> This person told me I don't need it to curve in
> at the edges to block light. Is this correct info?
> Is it worth doing?

This would work for the older Anniversary Speed Graphic but
all Crown Graphics are Pacemaker series cameras with flanged
metal lensboards. Making these is not trivial. They used to
be plentiful on the used market but are getting harder to
find and more expensive. Try Midwest camera and other places
which carry a lot of LF stuff. Shutterbug magazine usually
has ads from these companies.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: New Vue 4x5 lense board ?
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 

"thumbs" nobodyman@bigmailbox.net wrote 
> I have a Speed Graffic Kodak Ektar 160mm that fits into a 45mm hole in
> a board that has to me near 4" x 4" - Is it easy to file out the 39mm
> standard holes to 45mm in metal boards? Or can a machine shop do the
> work? Any recomendation? How about a thin sheet 1/16" of sturdy wood
> cut into a 4 inch square and hole sawed for the 45mm center?

What lens is this? AFAIK the Kodak Ektar was not made in
this focal length for Graphic cameras or any others. Is it
in a shutter or a barrel? The mounting hole for the larger
size Supermatic shutter is 47mm.

You can file out the existing hole but there is a lot of
metal to take off. Check with a machine shop for cost of
enlarging the hole but if its a lot its worth just filing it.

Does the camera take standard 4x4" Anniversary Graphic
boards? They are still relatively plentiful and are fairly
easy to make. You can make a board of sheet aluminum or of
wood. In fact, I've made temporary boards of cardboard. The
same size board fits Anniversary and pre-Anniversary
Graphics, Graphic View cameras, B&J; press cameras, and
Calumet CC-400 cameras (although the Calumet boards are
flanged sheet metal the camera takes the Graphic boards
perfectly. Graphics, however won't take the Calumet board).
Where the hole is too large one can make a reducer from
thin sheet metal.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: "Michael C. Daily" mcdaily@indy.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Camera and lens questions
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 

William D. Tallman wrote:
> Kirk Fry wrote:
--snip--
>>DRGM stands for Deutsches Reich Gebrauchs Muster. This was a model
>>registration, quicker granted and cheaper than a patent registration.
>>DBGM - Deutsche Bundesgebrauchsmuster, post-war German (which War ?)
>>for `registered design'. And D.R.P AND D.R.G.M ARE PRE 1945
>>COPYRIGHTS. Take your pick, you can find anything on Google. Go with
>>the coating.

DRP=Deutsches Reich Patent -- German Reich Patent (pre 1945)
--snip--

>>The camera is a CC401 or CC400 from calumet (interestingly the model
>>number is not on the camera, at least mine anyway). Kodak designed it
>>in the late 40's or early 50's and sold the license to Calumet when
>>they bailed out of making view camera's in the 50's. Great learning
>>camera, has all the movements and is build like a main battle tank. A
>>bit heavy and does not travel in airplanes well (can't take it apart).


It does come apart--take off the end cap -- usually remove a
setscrew and slide the camera and tripod mount off the rail. Takes 5 min.
Then it will lay in a suitcase with at least 22" diag and 4" deep. I did
it many times. Watch the graphite lube on the rail--it doesn't wash out
easily...

> Yep. Sure is well built! 
>
>> Calumet made them for about 30 years. Early ones are gray, late ones
>>black. Sell for about $200 (about what they did for new). Must be at
>
> Mine's gray. 
>
>>least a hundred thousand of them made. Probably the most common
>>monorail ever made. Go use it. Calumet used to sell a very nice
>>shade for it but a Lee filter shade would be a good bet.

Simple shades can be made from plastic plumbing step-down adapters
adjust force-fit with stick-on felt pads spray plastic with matte black
paint. Vivitar and other filtermakers make lenshoods and step-down
adapters. Rubber lenshoods are available in many camera stores and on
the internet for about $5.00 and up. There is a place on the Internet
that sells discount lenshoods, but I no longer have the website--I
bought 2 diff sizes for under $10.00 ea. The range of sizes they have is
very wide.

Michael



From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Camera and lens questions
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 

CamArtsMag wrote:
> Lens: (from around the front ring) "Carl Zeiss Jena Nr 758976 Tessar 1:4.5
> f = 16.5 cm". It's mounted in a Compur shutter; above the lens it says
> "Zeiss Ikon"; below the lens is: ".D.R.P No258646 D.R.G.M."; on the side is
> "No108019". Lens glass appears to be
> uncoated
>
> This is an older lens, 165mm which is essentially a normal lens. If it is
> uncoated I might use it for black and white but not for color unless you
> want an image w/o a great deal of saturation and sharpnesss. In black and
> white you can partially make up for this lack of contrast and sharpness by
> developiong your negs a little longer. Remember, I said partially overcome
> the effects of no coatings. Even a lens with a single coating would be a
> great improvement.

I wouldn't expect to see a "great" improvement on a lens this simple unless
you're shooting back lite subjects or not shading the lens. I have shot
with coated and uncoated tessars and if I'm careful using them, can't see
any difference in contrast. Coatings would make no difference at all in
sharpness.
--
Stacey


From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: finally 4x5
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 


"JSR"  wrote

> ...I returned to school full time to finish my engineering degree,
> so with the current financial situation ...

> ...if anyone wants to make recommendations on a lens/shutter...
> something in the 210 mm ...

If you are looking for a lens to fool around with until you can
afford serious glass, then there is lots to choose from.

If you are not taking action shots (a la Lartigue) then you really
don't need a shutter. Using slow film (100) and keeping a red and
pola filter on your lens you can shoot in bright sunlight with
a shutter speed of 1 second. This one can do by manipulating the
lens cap. You can also use ND filters to drop the effective EI
of the system to ASA 8 or so.

The use of a deep red (or green or blue) filter will really improve
the performance of an otherwise mediocre lens as all chromatic
aberrations have been _eliminated_ and your lens is now apochromatic:
all colors (red, red and red) coming through the lens all come to
focus at the same point.

All that said, a barrel lens of early 1900's vintage will work fine.

And don't forget, for the ultimate in cheap there is always pin-hole
photography.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com


Subject: Re: Linhof Technikardan 4X5
From: Jon vze249jf@verizon.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003

Hi Nicholas,

Since no one has actually answered your question, I'll give it a shot.
> Does anyone know of a serious reason why I should not purchase a used but
> as new Linhof Technikardan 4X5?

No. I love mine. I have the 45TK--not the 'S' model, but I may upgrade if I
can find a good deal.

What I like about it:

-Extensive movements
-Precise (degreed) movements
-Folds up very small for a 'monorail'
-Usable with a wide range of lenses
-Feels like it would survive a considerable drop/fall (it is well
designed/made)

A few dislikes:

-Price!
-Tripod sockets are either too far forward or too far back. I got a
Really Right Stuff QR plate (which screws into both tripod holes) and clamp
and it works _very_ well. For some pictures, see here:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=283628

-A tad on the heavy side--compared to, say the Canham DLC:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/canham/canhamdlc.html


If you like binocular viewers, there isn't a stock option (there is a guy in
the Netherlands that will do a mod. to adapt the Horseman Folding Reflex
Viewer, email me if you want info). The Linhof monocular is a ridiculously
priced piece of junk.

I have the Linhof fresnel, which works wonders for wide lenses.

>This baby comes with 4 lenses (75/5.6
> Super Angulon, 120/5.6 Super-Symmar, 180/5.6 Apo-Symmar and 240 god-wot
> tele), two
> bellows (normal and w/a), prontor shutters, triple shutter release,
> fresnel glass, extra
> ground glasses, etc. The only thing I can think of is it has no dof
> calculator, but I guess I'll just have to learn to do that in my head.

Yeah, that is probably the best way.

> I want to use it for architectural/landscape and also for some interiors,
> maybe some product shots. If I had to choose just one lens from the above,
> would it be the 120 or the 180? (owner is selling it piecemeal).

For interiors, I would say the 75mm SA. The 180mm is close to 'normal'
length, and is the next lens I'm adding (after the great 110mm Super Symmar
XL). Much of this will just be your personal preference. Maybe you could
rent those lengths and see what you like?

Here are some links for you to check out:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/linhof/tk.html
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/roundup4x5.html
http://www.butzi.net/reviews/linhoftk45s.htm
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/recessed_lensboard/

Jon


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Anybody know a source for lens boards for Crown Graphic
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 

"jdunn" jddunn@plano.net wrote 
> Some one told me I can make my own out of wood.
> I can get 8 ply aircraft birch in thin stock.
> This person told me I don't need it to curve in
> at the edges to block light. Is this correct info?
> Is it worth doing?

Not for a Crown Graphic. All Crown Graphics are of the
Pacemaker series which replaced the Anniversary series
cameras c.1947. They take stamped metal lens boards with a
lip around the edge. The lip is part of the light trap.
Anniversary and earlier Graphics used wooden boards, which
are easy to make, I don't know of a simple way to make
Pacemaker boards.

All Crown Graphics are Pacemakers; there were no
Anniversary or earlier Crown Graphic cameras, only Speed
Graphics.

Its possible someone skilled in sheet metal work could
figure out a simple way to make Pacemaker boards. If so it
would be a service to the many who use these cameras.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: eirram eirram@geenhotspammail.com 
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Anybody know a source for lens boards for Crown Graphic
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 

David Nebenzahl nobody@but.us.chickens wrote:
> jdunn spake thus:
>
>> Some one told me I can make my own out of wood.
>> I can get 8 ply aircraft birch in thin stock.
>> This person told me I don't need it to curve in
>> at the edges to block light. Is this correct info?
>> Is it worth doing?
>
>My guess is no, not worth doing. The board would need to have a curved lip on
>it, like the standard Graflex boards. This would make them very difficult to make.
>
>I too am looking for lensboards. Though I can't give you a definitive answer,
>I'm pretty sure lurking around eBay would eventually pan out.
>
>Have you checked places like Pacific Rim Camera (http://pacificrimcamera.com/)?

Have a look at URL: http://www.uglx.org/homemadelensboards. I am also
looking for lensboard, but feel it is not so difficult to make. Just
as an experiment I split a 3.5" floppydisk which almost fits
perfectly. There are some holes to tape off but once finished, it
seemed pretty much light tight. Ofcourse a floppydisk isn't really
gonna hack it so something more sturdy needs to be used. Googling
provides more sources if information. If you know your way around a
saw and drill, you can furbish some yourself.

Cheers,
Marinus


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Question on fresnel & gg on Crown Graflex
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 

"jdunn" jddunn@plano.net wrote 
> My ground glass was splotchy so I took it out for cleaning.
> Under it was the Fresnel. Are they supposed to be dry or is there
> some kind of compound to mate them together ? If so what is it ?
> What's the best way to check to see if the fresnel was done
> properly so the focus is correct?
> It looks like the etched surface ofthe gg faces the lens and the
> lined face of the fresnel faces the gg. Is this correct?

They are dry. The Fresnel goes in first with the prism
surface facing the back of the camera, teh ground side of
the ground glass faces the prisms. The fit in a sandwich
which will be held tightly by the clamps in the back. A weak
solution of dishwashing detergent is effective in washing
them. Make sure they are dry before reassembling.
Graflok backs are pretty precise so I don't think there
will be a focus error if the two sheets are in the correct
relative positions. The best test is to take a picture using
a known good film holder. Photograph a tilted ruler with a
mark at the point you are focused at. Focus using the ground
glass, of cource, and photograph it wiht the lens at its
maximum stop to have the minimum depth of field (and depth
of focus).

I think there may be some information on the Graflex org
web site, at least its worth a look http://www.graflex.org
Speed and Crown Graphics are great cameras and most can be
brought back to life with a little work and care.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Graflex 4x5"?
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 

"Max Perl" max_perl@post11.tele.dk wrote
> I found out it is a Super Graphics and it looks in very good condition.
> It is folded in a alu. case like that on the famous Linhof Techika.
> The lens is a 150/5.6 Symmar....not an Apo or Super. But I guess that
> the Symmar is able to take a decent image?.....I have a box of 50
> TMAX 100 sheets. Or is TMAX 100 to big a challenge for a Symmar?
>
> Max

The Super Graphic was the last of the line. These are
excellent, all metal, cameras with good front movements.
They are not as flexible as the Linhof but are much lighter
and will do most of the same jobs.

The f/5.6 Symmar is a very good lens. The chrome barrel
ones are convertible so that you can use the front element
alone for a longer focal length. Of course, the image
quality is not as good as the assembled lens, but its good
enough for some uses.

This is a "modern" lens so I don't think you will be
dissapointed with it. The Symmar was also a standard lens on
Linhof cameras for some time. 150mm is "normal" focal length
for 4x5.

Its probably not the original lens. Most Super Graphics
came with Tessar type lenses made by Rodenstock under the
Graflex Optar trade name. These are also very good lenses.
If the lens is in good condition you won't have any
complaints about image quality.

Graphics are very rugged cameras, much more so than the
Linhof.

There is some information on the Super Graphic and Super
Speed Graphic on the Graflex org site at
http://www.graflex.org The Super Speed Graphic was the same
body with a special shutter that went to 1/1000th second.
These shutters were not very reliable so you are better off
with the standard model. The Graflex site has some
information on making cams for the rangefinder. BTW, Graphic
rangefinders, either the old Kalart type of the Graflex (top
mounted or built in) are very accurate when properly set up.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Graflex 4x5"?
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 

"Max Perl" max_perl@post11.tele.dk wrote
>
> "Gregory W. Blank" WhoWill@hear-a-who.net skrev i en meddelelse
>"Max Perl"  max_perl@post11.tele.dk wrote:
> >
> > > I have never heard about the brand Graflex before I saw the camera. Is it junk?
> > > Max
> >
> > Are you new to photography? Not to be a wise ass but Graflex cameras
> > were produced in the 1940's onward. Whether its a suitable camera
> > depends on the shape its still in,.....for some types of work they lack.
> > However maybe a good test of your resolve to do LF work,...at a lower
> > entry price.

> OK.
> I have shot a lot of 24x36 (Nikon equipment) and the last few years a lot
> of MF (Hasselblad 500 series). It was the first time I saw the brand Graflex.
> When I look at used LF equipment it is mainly Linhof, Sinar, Toyo and Arca
> Swiss. I have always liked the feel of the Linhof Technika but I have never
> shot with a LF camera (only without film :-) ). I have watched a person trying
> to "cam" a new lens to a Technika so the coupled distance viewfinder could
> be used. Apparantly not an easy job. I don't think the Graflex has this
> feature.
>
> Max

The best advise is to check out the Graflex org site at
http://www.graflex.org

Graflex cameras have a long history. The name "Graflex"
was originally used for a large format single lens reflex
camera. The company also built folding type cameras under
the Graphic name.

Originally Graflex and Graphic cameras were built by
Folmer & Schwing. This partnership started out in New York
city builting gas lighting fixtures. Then, when bicycles
became a craze they got into the bicycle business (like the
Wright Brothers). They began selling lightweight folding
cameras suitable for carrying on bicycle tours. When the
bicycle craze died down they began builting cameras. Folmer
designed a simple and very rugged focal plane shutter and
used in for a single lens reflex camera called the Graflex.
They company also made folding cameras under the Graphic
name.

The Speed Graphic was a folding camera with the focal
plane shutter built into it. The Speed Graphic originated
about 1912 and became the most popular camera for news
photographers around the mid to late 1920s. The camera was
built in many models up to about the mid 1960's. All are
very rugged, intended for hand held use, and of very good
quality. The later cameras were more elaborate than the
earlier ones. The company was bought by Eastman Kodak early
in the twentieth century but Kodak had to divest itself of
the company about the early 1930's. However, they remained
close and F&S;, later called the Graflex Co., built many
camereras under contract for Kodak. Kodak also supplied many
lenses to Graflex.

It a sign of how much time has gone by that the Speed
Graphic, once the very symbol of the press photographer, has
become so obscure.

BTW, the Speed Graphic is one of my favorite cameras.


From: duganfoto@aol.com (DuganFoto)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 17 Aug 2003 
Subject: Re: Going to take my CC400 into field...suggestions?

Believe it or not, I use a cardboard box that came with reams of copy-machine
paper. I line the bottom of the box with my folded dark cloth for
padding....camera fits diagonally inside the box.

Cost: Nothing. It doesn't say "STEAL ME, I've got valuable photography equipment inside !!!",
either.

For "not-too-far-from-the-car" shots, I carry the camera on the tripod (padded
with roll-bar padding) over my shoulder.
For longer treks, I use an old Army surplus frameless, pouch-shaped backpack,
dark cloth wrapped around camera, monorail sticking out from side to side
behind me. Cost $4.00 at a swap meet.

I tend towards the cheap and functional.
My CC-400 had a hard life (ex-High School camera) before I owned it, and I
haven't been exactly nice to it either.
It's a sturdy, well built workhorse, and can stand a fair amount of rough
handling.

The money I saved on the body by not buying "the latest and greatest" paid for
a lot of other photo equipment.
When you get down to it, with large-format, the camera is a light-tight box
with movements...the features are pretty much the same, the conveniences just
cost more.

I'm just not the kind of guy who needs a zircon-encrusted GPS system hooked up
to my camera, or a programmable calculator to calculate intermediate f/stops to
14 decimal places....

Hope this helps! Now go take photos! :)

Doug Allen



[Ed. note: Feininger has a set of photos showing 8x10" camera using office magnifying lens..]
From: "Norman Dennett" dennett@vlr.dorea.co.za
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Using spects - glasses - lenses
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 


Hi Mustafa,
Any lens that can be focused to produce an image on the Ground Glass 
screen can be used. You will also need a shutter, can just be a lens cap 
or even your hat, and also some form of diaphragm will improve the image 
considerably.

A #1 diopter lens has a focal length of 1 meter, #2 diopter 500mm etc.
You can also use the lens from a Close-up lens set that is attached to 
the front of a normal lens using the filter thread.

There was an article about this topic in View Camera, July/August 2002. 
By John Siskin. "Hand Assembling Lenses for the View Camera".
This article was posted somewhere on the net but I can't find any 
reference to it now. Perhaps someone can help.

Norman.


From: "Stan Patz" SKP113@MINDSPRING.COM
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: crappy lens please
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 

To Rocco and the group,

A number of years ago I faced the same problem. I wanted a "crappy lens"
(and cheap) for 4x5 field work. Here is how I solved the problem.

I collected a large number of old Kodak folders from flea markets and tested
their lenses. I found that many of these lenses, when cleaned, made very
nice images. But the real keepers are the "meniscus" lenses - simple two
cemented element lenses which are found in cameras with the painted brass
lens shades. (When you look at these lenses, they are hard to see, because
they are recessed behind the "shade".)

When these meniscus lenses are used as Kodak intended, they are good,
especially at small apertures. BUT, if you remove the "lens shade" and use
more of the glass, the image deteriorates smoothly to maximum opening. The
shade restricts the lens to about f8, but there is another stop or so
depending on focal length. Wide open the image is pretty smeary.

You could use the Kodak ball-bearing shutter the lens comes in. Crude, but
useful. I had a Copal shutter adapted to two choice lenses, a 101mm and a
120mm. I made a dual aperture scale for the lenses on the Copal, but I
seldom use the 120mm; the 101 covers 4x5 with very limited movements.

I think this thread bored a lot of people. If you (Rocco) want more info,
contact me off list. Even though you cannot see the softening effect in such
a small picture, you can go to my website and see a lake scene which has
some mist rising; it is in the "Infrared" section.

--
Stan Patz NYC

www.PatzImaging.com

> rbellant@yorku.ca (Rocco Bellantoni) wrote 
> > I am wondering if anyone can suggest a really bad lens for 4x5 work.
> > I'm serious. All of my large format lenses are super-sharp, and just
> > too good. I've grown tired of this look; I want my personal work to
> > take on a more impressionistic feel. Sort of like the Holga look,
> > except for large format. I don't want a new lens though as I don't
> > want to pay much for it. I'm looking for something old. This is not a
> > solicitation, I'm only looking for suggestions. Lens flare, low
> > contrast, low resolution, colour shifts and strong vignetting are all
> > welcome.


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 
From: "Pat Perez" patdperez@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: [RF List] Large format rangefinder camera



Hey, looks like I was right.

And I meant to say that the rangefinder was coupled to the lens.

Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: Denise Garone [mailto:stuartanddenise@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003
To: rflist@topica.com
Subject: Re: [RF List] Large format rangefinder camera


> I saw a camera that looked like a polaroid but appeared to be 4x5
> format. Does anyone know anything about this camera?
>

I think you are refering to the Littman 45.
I am very tempted by them. check out:
www.littman45single.com

-stuart


From: Robert Feinman robertdfeinman@netscape.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Light from Holders
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 
all.users@giffels.com says...
> Hi there -
>
> Does anyone keep a dark cloth over teh camera when shooting? I don't and get
> a bright band on the bottom of my negs.
>
> I am thinking of taping a small flap to the top of my dorff...
>
> Anyone dealt with a similar issue. I treat my 8x10 like a 35mm in a lot of
> respects and tend to forego some quality for convenience.

Something is wrong with either your holders or your camera.
Take the lens off and look through the camera with a holder
in place. Do this in a darkened room.
While peering through the camera shine a flashlight around the
back of the camera and see if you can spot the place where the
holder is not fitting properly.
Also check the light seals on the flaps of the holders.
Old holders develop leaks on the cloth hinges.
Some brands of holders don't exactly fit some brands of cameras.
--
Robert D Feinman
robertdfeinman@netscape.net
Landscapes, Cityscapes, Panoramas and Photoshop Tips
http://robertdfeinman.com


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Light from Holders
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 

"Bruce MacNeil" all.users@giffels.com wrote ...
> Hi there -
>
> Does anyone keep a dark cloth over teh camera when shooting? I don't and get
> a bright band on the bottom of my negs.
>
> I am thinking of taping a small flap to the top of my dorff...
>
> Anyone dealt with a similar issue. I treat my 8x10 like a 35mm in a lot of
> respects and tend to forego some quality for convenience.

I do this routinely although I don't have the problem.
To find out where the light is coming from take the
lensboard off, put a holder into the camera with a sheet of
writing paper in place of film, take the darkslide out and
shine a strong light around the periphery of the back of the
camera. My suspicion is that its not the holder but
something keeping the holder from seating correctly.
Holders can be checked for leaky darkslide light traps by
removing the dark slide and shining a flashlight around the
darkslide slot while looking at the inside by pushing the
loading flap back. Loading flaps have light traps as part of
their construction, they do not depend on the hinge tape for
light-tightness.

Warped holders can cause leaks around the edges be not
seating correctly in the camera. Anything in the holder slot
in the camera can also keep the holder from seating
correctly. You may have to take the spring panel off and
look at it and the surfaces the holder rests against.
Another possibility is a reflection from the rebate in
front of the film. This can usually be seen on the ground
glass by shining a light around from the front so it strikes
the ground glass and rebate from an angle.

There should be no light leaks even in strong sunlight if
the holder seats correctly and the light traps for the dark
slide are OK. There are other possible sources of leak
light, nearly all can be found by either shining a strong
light at the camera while inspecting from the inside or by
placing a nite-lite type lamp, or other lamp which is fairly
bright but doesn't get too hot, inside the camera and
looking at it carefully in a darkened room. Sometimes the
bellows will light up like a planetarium when you do this.
If you find what is causing the leak (I think you will)
the fix may be obvious, otherwise post back here or to me
via e-mail.

In any case its a good precaution, even with a known tight
camera to fit the dark cloth over the back.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com



From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format 
Subject: Re: Longest lenses on Crown Graphic lens Board 
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 

"Jdunn" jdunn@sbcglobal.net wrote ... 
> I read that 4x5 lenses longer than 210mm require the Copal  #3 
> shutter and that this hole, required for Copal #3, is too 
> large for the standard lens Boards on my Crown Graphic ? 
> Is this true? 
> Further, there is an issue with the bellows draw for  longer 
> lenses. How do I determine the longest lens I can mount on  my 
> Crown and focus at infinity ? 

The lens board for the 4x5 Crown Graphic and Pacemaker 
Speed Graphic, is metal and 3-3/4 x 3-3/4 inches in size. 
The maximum diameter hole which will clear is around 2-3/4 
inches or about 70mm 

The No.3 Copal requires a 65mm mounting hole so it should 
fit fine. Actually, I have a Pacemaker board which is bored 
for a #4 Betax shutter, which is even larger. 

The maximum focal length you can use on a Crown or Speed 
Graphic depends on the minimum distance you need to focus. 
The bellows draw is very slightly more than 12 inches so you 
can focus most 12" lenses at infinity but not closer. There 
is enough range to focus a 10" lens fairly close. For focal 
lengths longer than 10" a telephoto lens is more practical 
than a long focus lens. 

Graphics before the Pacemaker series took 4x4 lens boards 
but the inside of the camera has a light trap mask with a 
circular hole of 3-1/4 inch diameter which limits the size 
of rear elements. 

The Pacemaker series replaced the Anniversary series in 
1947. All Crown Graphics are Pacemaker Series. 

-- 
Richard Knoppow 
Los Angeles, CA, USA 
dickburk@ix.netcom.com 


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format 
Subject: Re: Newbie to Buy Crown Graphic, Advice? 
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003

...

The Schneider Xenar is a pretty good lens, better than the 
Wollensak Optars which were the more common lens. This may 
be an original lens if the camera says Crown Graphic Special 
on it. Special meant the lens. Lens condition is all 
important. If its scratched or gouged forget it, you will 
need to replace it. If the lens and camera are in 
_excellent_ condition this is a fair price. 

The roll film back is worth perhaps $100. Polaroid backs 
are all over the place as far as price. If its a 545 its 
close to the current model. If its the old 500 it can be 
makeshifted but is a pain if you are going to use it much 
and isn't worth much because its obsolete. 

Since the roll film back is offered the camera must have a 
Graflok back. This is important because the Graflok has a 
removable spring panel so it can take all sorts of 
accessories. It also has a field lens (fresnel) which gives 
a brighter an more even ground glass image. 
There are probably better lenses for photographing flat 
work but this will do nicely. 

The Graflex org site seems to be broken at the moment but 
has a great deal of information on it. 
http://www.graflex.org 
---
Richard Knoppow 
Los Angeles, CA, USA 
dickburk@ix.netcom.com 


From: Tom tom@localhost
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: How to hand hold a Graphic
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 

There is a little bit about this on my website.

http://www.graywolfphoto.com/graphic.html

Note that I use the solenoid button on the battery case to trip the shutter. The
body release worked okay on new cameras but most of them are now too stiff to
smoothly release the shutter. You could probably hold the cable release and the
camera with your hand under the hand strap and push the cable release with your
thumb. I have seen Century and Anniversary Graphics with a clip screwed to the
corner of the camera to how the cable release convenient to the thumb.
...


From: David Nebenzahl nobody@but.us.chickens
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: How to hand hold a Graphic
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 

Nicholas O. Lindan spake thus:
> "Neil Purling" sextant@sextant.karoo.co.uk
>
>> I have a Crown Graphic in the post to me.
>> I am wondering how to use it hand held for max stability.
>
> I have a Pacemaker Speed Graphic, and I am assuming the Crown
> is the same with respect to shutter releasing.
>
> There is a 'body release' on the right lower forward edge of
> the camera that can be released with a forefinger. On the
> Speed this release can be set to release either the 'back'
> focal plane shutter or the 'front' between the lens shutter.
> On the Crown this would always release the front shutter.
>
> I find the body release to be an anathema when it comes to
> holding the camera still. The action of the body release
> is not smooth and the forces are high -- bad news all
> around, with lots of bad negs to prove it.
>
> I now hold the camera on the left, utilizing the handstrap.
> I stabilize the camera bed with the right hand, tripping the
> _lens's_ shutter release lever with my finger. The lens
> shutter release is very low force and can be tripped
> with no resulting motion to the camera.

Let me add another ingredient into the mix, just to spice things up a little:
you can also use the shutter solenoid, if your camera is so equipped. Mine
came with one, and after learning (from Richard K.) what this was and how it
worked, I made a portable battery pack and a connector for it. I ended up
using 4 "D" cells to supply 6 volts, which is just enough to trip the shutter
decisively. This way, you can rig up any sort of pushbutton switch that's
comfortable for you; you can even use it for remote control of the camera, a
la O. Winston Link.

The only tricky part I found was making a connector to the solenoid: I ended
up cobbling together a contraption using two nails to fit into the contact
holes, some sheet styrene and a miniature power connector socket and jack. You
could do just as well just soldering the wires to two nails of the right size
and shoving the nails into the holes in the solenoid.



From: Christopher Cline ccline@westminstercollege.TakeMeOut.edu
Subject: Re: How to use a grafmatic back
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 

...
I forgot to add, there is an online manual for the Grafmatic on the Graflex
web site:
http://www.graflex.org/speed-graphic/grafmatic/
--
Christopher A. Cline


From: Nick Zentena zentena@hophead.dyndns.org
Subject: Re: Making the jump
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 

Matthew mwensing@uchicago.edu wrote:

>
> Not stuck on new. I've been browsing KEH and B&H; and Calumet and eBay
> looking for old 4x5's, and I do see options, but it seems there are so
> many variations that I don't know which to feel confident about
> purchasing. Any solid suggestions by brand or model for an
> oldie-but-goodie? The Tachihara 4x5 'new' looks good, but if I can
> get a well-performing classic at a 'VERY cheap' price, I'm all for it.


You need to define your requirements:

1) How long a lens do you expect to use? This plus 20% or so will be your
max bellows length.

2) How short a lens do you expect to use? This will be the min bellows
you'll need. Ignoring recessed lensboards.

3) How heavy are you willing lug?

4) Which movements do you need? Obviously this will be the hardest one for
you to decide on.

5) What style of camera do you need? There is no real reason you can't
use a monorail in the field. But it'll be easier to haul something else.


You might also want to check out the sellers that tend to handle more
large format.

www.mpex.com

http://www.badgergraphic.com/


An old monorail can be had for less then $200. They'll have almost all
the movements possible. The downside is they tend to be heavy and a pain to
haul. If you decide that you don't need a lot of movements but need
something easier to haul then one of the cheaper press cameras might be
okay. The main thing wrong with my $60 B&J; press camera is the lack of rear
movements. OTOH it's a lot easier to haul around then my monorail.

Nick


From: "Sherman" sherman@dunnam.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Making the jump
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 
 
"Matthew" mwensing@uchicago.edu wrote...
> Nick Zentena zentena@hophead.dyndns.org wrote
> > Are you stuck on new? Plenty of older VERY cheap 4x5 cameras out there.
> > Cameras that will take most any lens you want. Later once you've figured out
> > which camera features you want then you can consider getting a new 4x5.
> > Keeping all your lenses.
> >
> > Nick
>
> Not stuck on new. I've been browsing KEH and B&H; and Calumet and eBay
> looking for old 4x5's, and I do see options, but it seems there are so
> many variations that I don't know which to feel confident about
> purchasing. Any solid suggestions by brand or model for an
> oldie-but-goodie? The Tachihara 4x5 'new' looks good, but if I can
> get a well-performing classic at a 'VERY cheap' price, I'm all for it.
>
> Matt

Matt,
I have a Tachihara 4x5 purchased new four or five years ago. I have found
it to be an excellent camera with all the movements I have ever needed for
the type of landscape and nature photography I do.

I currently have three lenses for it, the more or less standard troika of
90mm, 150mm and 210mm. Just by chance all the lenses are Caltars
(Rodenstock) which offer good value in LF lenses. The 90 and 210 were
purchased on eBay and immediately forwarded to SK Grimes for CLA. The 150
was purchased new from Calumet.

Costs break down like this-
* Tachihara $500 (I think it is $600 now) from Midwest Photo Exchange
* 90mm 6.8 Caltar (Rodenstock Grandagon N) eBay $210, mint
* 210mm 5.6 Caltar (Rodenstock ) eBay $245, mint
* 150mm 6.3 Caltar E (Rodenstock Geronar?) new with a previous monorail kit.
Alone I think it runs under $275?

So you can do 4x5 for your budget if you are patient. I probably bid on 10
90mm lenses over a period of 6 months before getting mine at that price!

If I were looking today I would seriously consider a Shen Hao. More
movements than the Tachihara (front shift for instance) at about the same
cost, or basically the same movements for less cost. The only drawback I
currently find in the Tach is that bellows draw is limited (as it is in the
Wista) to about 300mm. One of these days I'd like to get a 360mm lens.
When I do that I'll make an extension back rather than change cameras.

Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: film holder care
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 

"khoi" knguyen@colum.edu wrote ...
> Hi guys,
>
> I must be handling my film holders wrong but I am getting light leaks
> on alot of them. I was wondering what kind of extra precaution should
> i take. Better yet, which film holders do you think I should buy?
> These are for 8x10 if it makes any difference. What's strange is that
> one some the flap on the bottom (where the film notch) is, has leaks.
> But others have it on the top of the film holder. The top of my film
> holder is not sealed (ie not one piece) with my bottom of the
> filmholder, the lisco regal. Where those two pieces join, i have a
> lightleak. Are there filmholders that are not disconnected like the
> lisco regal? This is probably confusing, i'm not good with
> discriptions.
> Thanks,
> Kyle

The light trap of the loading flap is a rebate on the
flap, not the hinge tape. There should be no light leaking
there even if the tape is not in good condition, although
loose tape may keep the flap from seating correctly.
Leaks at the dark slide end are common. There are several
arrangements for the trap there but all use spring loaded
felt or velvet of some sort. Thse can become worn with use.
To check for leaks at this end take the dark slide out and
shine a flashlight into the slot. Look at it from the
loading flap end with the flap folded down so you can look
directly at the inside of the slot. You should not see any
light comming in.

Probably the best check for loading flaps is to examine
both the inside part of the flap and the holder to make sure
there are no cracks or bits broken off. Also check that it
folds flat when there is film in the holder.

Light leaks can also occur if the holder dosen't seat
correctly in the camera. One way to check for this is to put
plain white writing paper in a holder and put it in the
camera. Take the lens board off and look into the camera
while shining a strong light all around the periphery of the
holder and back. The paper is helpful in seeing any leak
light which would strike the film.

About the only precaution I know of is to fold the dark
cloth over the back of the camera when making exposures.
I have many old film holders, most are light tight. A more
common fault in old holders is warping of the septum causing
the film plane to be wrong.

Allen Brubaker specializes in repair of film holders and
building special purpose new ones (he can make 11x14
holders. He has a very large backlog but I will pass along
his adderess anyway.

Alan Brubaker

awbent@filmholders.com

AWB Enterprises
33320 Gafford Road
Wildomar, California 92595
Tel/Fax: (909) 674-0466
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com



From: two23@aol.comSPAMnot (Two23)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 17 Nov 2003 
Subject: Re: Large formad drawback?

I am amazed that so far, no one has mentioned that it is quite possible to get
FAR more dof from a LF camera than a 35mm. In fact, it's one of the
advantages. We're all aware of that unique "front to back, everything in
focus" look of landscapes shot with LF. I found I could use larger
f-stop/faster shutter speed than I could with medium format and get even more
DOF. How? Lens tilt, of course! The perspective controls of LF often more
than compensate for any reduced DOF in the lenses!


Kent in SD



From: dpcwilbur@excite.com (Collin Brendemuehl)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Large formad drawback?
Date: 17 Nov 2003 

DOF is controlled primarily by 2 things -- 
focal length and aperture opening size --
and secondarily, less significantly by
optical design.

With that, a normal lens on 8x10 (300mm) @ f5.6
will have less dof than a 50mm on your 135 camera @ f5.6.

But that's not a disadvantage.
It's a major why people buy "fast" lenses -- to get more control of DOF!
It's what makes classic portraits look so special, with just the eyes in focus.
Can't do that with 35mm unless you go acquire a 1.2 or 1.0 lens.
Even then you don't have movements to manipulate things.

now a little rant, just for fun ...

With 4x5 hand-held, many used flash to compensate.
But 8x10 & larger is generally either long exposure or very good, bright lights.
There have been 5x7 press cameras but never an 8x10 hand-held that I'm
familiar with. (Anyone willing to try?)

Most good 35mm lenses are as sharp or sharper than 4x5 or 8x10 lenses,
but the cost is significant. Having to deal with coma, barrel, and
pincussion distortions, spending a fortune on lenses just to get sharp
snapshots from the best lenses.

I've talked about the Pentax Limited series and how excellent they are
but also how expensive. Yet for the price of one of those lenses you can
get a medium or large format solution that will provide even sharper pictures.
Though not as convenient as 135 systems, good medium or large format will
get the job done better and easier than one might expect. It's why I use
135 for convenience, as it is intended, but medium and large when I want a
really nice picture for the wall.

One would do well to get a Yashica Mat 124G ($100 to $200) or
Rolleiflex 2.8C, D, or E ($300 - $600) and
get really nice pics when they're wanted.

Keep 135 costs under control. Get a nice system and enjoy it.
You can spend a lot of money to get a neg the size of a postage stamp.
You can spend less and get an equivalently sharp larger neg.
Take your pic.

Collin


chibitul ch1b1tul@eudoramail.com wrote 
> Hi,
>
> I crossposted this question to r.p.digital and the 3 major film
> newsgroups since it's related to Depth Of Field vs. sensor (medium) size.
>
> From what I understand, the larger the medium, the longer the focal
> length (for a given angle of view) and thus the shallower the Depth of
> Field. Clearly some P&S; digicams with small sensors have huge DOF, while
> full frame 35 mm have much shallow DOF. I never worked with medium or
> large format cameras, but I imagine the DOF is even smaller there...
>
> so, you get great detail, sharpness, but you *have to* use a smaller
> aperture when you take the photo, otherwise the DOF will be so small;
> thus a longer shutter speed. So am I right when I imagine that most
> medium/large photos are taken at longer shutter speeds compared to
> 35mm??? does anyone use medium format for sports photography? just
> wondering... thanks!



From: "jjs" nospam@please.xxx
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Larger diameter lenses?
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 

"Dave" galt_57@hotmail.com wrote ...
> I thought that might be confusing. I mean the diameter of the glass.

Remove the outliers such as the 300mm F2.8 for 35mm, some Grandagons,
process lenses, and the bizarre diameter of some early aerial camera lenses
and most MF and LF fall into a range of 24mm to 72mm in diameter for the
front lens. Of course, it seems to turn out that our favorites are just
oddly sized enough that finding lens shades is a huge problem. :)

Bob Salomon might have numbers regarding the market distribution of front
element (filter) sizes, but it might be a trade secret. Dunno.



Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 
From: Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Focusing your camera

Robert Feinman wrote:
> Perhaps, a dumb question, but how do you focus your view
> camera?
> I use about a 3x loupe hanging on a string around
> my neck. I need one hand to hold the loupe to the groundglass,
> one hand to keep the dark cloth from slipping, one hand to
> move the focus knob and one hand to turn the lock before
> everything shifts.
> I've also tried a clipon magnifier used by watchmakers.
> This eliminates holding the loupe, but as I move my head
> the groundglass goes out of focus.
>

I use the focus spread method described at
www.largeformatphotography.info. I focus on the nearest point I want in
focus, note the position of the standard, focus on the furthest point,
and do the same. I then set the standard halfway in between, look at
the image on the gg and make adjustments if I feel they are appropriate.

I got myself some +5 diopter glasses which allow me to get within seven
inches of the gg. When focusing on near and far point, I try to err if
possible in opposite directions, so when setting the standard in the
middle, the errors cancel. I sometimes focus several times and notice
how much variation there is in the position of the standard, and choose
an average position. (This is aided by the scale I put on my focusing
knob which magnifies movements along the rail. See my essay at
www.math.northwestern.edu/~len/photos/pages/dof_essay.pdf)

The glasses provide only about 2 X magnification, but that usually
suffices for typical scenes in which I want quite a lot of DOF, and
getting the exact plane of focus just right is not critical. If I need
to focus more critically than that, I use a 3.6 X loupe (occasionally a
7 X loupe), and I have essentially all the same problems you have.
Usually I use a dark T-shirt as a dark cloth which hangs on the rear
standard at the neck, and I don't have to hold that once my head is
inside it. When I use a genuine dark cloth, I hold it in place with
velcro I attached to it. I focus as best I can with one hand holding
the loupe and the other the focusing knob, tighten down and check to see
if the focus held. If not I adjust it. A few iterations of this may be
necessary.



From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lens Board
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004


"T R" TheRevMre@hotmail.com wrote 
> Hello,
>
> I've just acquired a Newton "New Vue" 4x5 camera for my introduction to
> large format photography. The camera did not come with a lens board. So,
> here's my questions:
>
> 1. Are lens boards relatively standard amongst 4x5 cameras? In other
> words, can the lens board for another camera be used with the New Vue?
>
> 2. Can a lens board be crafted at home with relatively simple tools, or
> must it be precision-machined by a skilled and properly equipped craftsman?
>
> 3. Related to question #2, what are the proper dimensions for the board
> and the lens cutout? I understand that the lense cutout determines the
> type of shutter that can be used (Copal #0, 1, 3 or Prontor Press). If
> this is the case, can someone post the dimensions for all these options?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Trad Lad

Unfortunately there has never been any standard on
lensboards for cameras of any size. However, a number of 4x5
cameras take 4"x4" lensboards of the type used on Speed
Graphics from the early 1930's to late 1940's. Its possible
that the Nue Vue takes these. If the opening is 4" square
there is a good chance it does. Nue Vue cameras were made
for only a few years after WW-2. I don't have one and its
been too long since I've seen one to remember what the lens
board looks like.

If its the 4x4 board they are not hard to find and can be
made pretty easily. For temporary use you can make a lens
board of corrugated cardboard. Use two pieces glued together
with the corrugations crossed. Tape the edges with black
masking tape to avoid light leaks. Such boards are
surprizingly strong.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: radio913@aol.com (Radio913)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 14 Mar 2004 
Subject: LARGE FORMAT IS VERY COOL!

Hello,

I got into large format for the purpose of making archival and
reproduction quality transparencies of my art work, but i have to tell you, the
photography itself is quite pleasurable! Far more interesting than the point
and click world.

And David N. concurs with me that the Crown Graphics, with their
historical value and their tank-like construction and mechanics, are a pleasure
in and of themselves to behold. It's just great to wake up in the morning to
look at an older camera that actually has a bellows!

The stopwatch-in-left-hand-shutter-release-in-other action is still a bit
tense, as i hate to waste film (the Sironar-N has a very sensitive release that
i wasted one sheet on), but the results are great. It's really a pleasure now
that i have a new shutter release that doesn't stick (!) and a $33 demo-model
tripod that has a vertical crank.

It's really amazing how accurate the colors are with a 64T transparency.
Perhaps the correct info is there on a negative, but it seems that they can
never really get the prints right, especially with computer controlled
"corrections", and with temperature dependant developing.

A handheld bubble level that i bought at HomeDepot has made copy work
without a copystand very easy. I place it on the rails that the lensboard
moves on, and also on the camera body and the painting itself, and then
everything falls into place pretty easily. It's just a matter of cranking up
or down to make the painting in the exact center of the fresnel lens, and the
perpendicularity is quite easy to achieve.

I'd like to thank everyone here for the advice, guiding me along this
little adventure. 


How important do you think vacuuming of your 4x5 film holders really is?

I mean, i have occasionally seen some trannies come back that have a
rather large black speck on them (nothing that Photoshop couldn't handle), but
it really doesn't seem to be caused by dust, as they are really black. I'm not
sure if these defects are from the original film, or if they are made in
development, but it doesn't appear to me that regular dust would do this.

I've got a pretty picky eye with my 10x loupe, and i haven't noticed
anything like dust appearing in my trannies.

Anyhow, thanks again folks.


Slick


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: B & J Lens board
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 

"st" s@t.com wrote...
> Does anybody know if a Calumet 4X5 lensboard will fit a Burke & James Orbit
> View camera? Is there any other lens boards that will fit the Orbit?
> Thx.

I am not sure of the Orbit. The lens board for the Calumet
CC-400 is a flat metal plate with a raised rim around the
periphery. The camera will take 4x4 inch Anniversary Speed
Graphic or Graphic View type boards although the Calumet
boards will not fit on those cameras. I suspect the Orbit is
the same, i.e., it will take either the flat Calumet boards
or wood or metal Graphic type 4x4" boards.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com



From: largformat@aol.com (Largformat)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 17 Nov 2003 
Subject: Re: Large formad drawback?

Strictly speaking tilt doesn't alter depth of field, it changes the plane of focus.

It more closely aligns the plane of focus with the subject plane thus
minimizing the need for dof.

steve simmons


From: sahamley@netscape.net (Steve Hamley)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Question for backpackers
Date: 28 Mar 2004 
steveg666@ultranet.com (Stephan Goldstein) wrote
> I've never seen this addressed in any reading, and now that I've
> finally got a 4x5 I'm wondering....
>
> For those of you who backpack with more than one lens, do you
> carry the lenses mounted on the boards, or do you just bring one
> board for each shutter size and carry a lens wrench? The former,
> while a bit heavier, is obviously much quicker.
>
> Thanks for the enlightenment (or enheavyment, depending on the
> replies!).
>
> Steve

Steve,

Certainly you can do it if you use flanges screwed to the lensboard
rather than retaining rings; the lenses screw into the flanges without
disassembly. If you use flanges, you need one flange/board for each
size and type of lens. I even know a pro that had a brass bushing made
to reduce his Ilex #4 flange for use with an Ilex #3. He was a studio
photographer though, the brass bushing weighed considerably more than
another lensboard and flange!

If your lenses use retaining rings, then the previously posted advice
is sound; you don't want to be unscrewing the cells in the field. I
also vote for a board for each lens, it reduces the "fumble factor".

Steve H.


From: Stefan Patric tootek2@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: which camera for architecture ?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 

Donn Cave wrote:
> Quoth Stefan Patric tootek2@yahoo.com:
> ...
> | I've used a Cambo SC II, on which all today's Calumet LF rail
> | cameras are based, for the past 20 years or so for ALL my large
> | format work. Even with the 12" short rail, it is NOT a lightweight
> | camera and is NOT
> | all that portable. Broken down, it fits along with 4 lenses on
> | boards with accessories into an 18 x 22 x 8 inch metal transport
> | case and
> | weighs in without tripod or film holders at 30 pounds or so. I
> | suggest you go with a lightweight, folding, bed type, field camera
> | and
> | backpack. It'll save you from dislocating your spine.
>
> Architecture can be pretty demanding on features, though, so it
> depends on how serious he is about that. Maybe the smart way
> to approach it is to do as you propose and get a wood field,
> and keep it simple and cheap. Then if it's really not enough,
> get the 45nx or whatever for the hard core architecture stuff.

I get the impression that the OP's photographic intent is more fine art
architectural work. The OP only has to please himself. There's no
demanding client to please like when you're doing it for a living.

> The alternative is a super field, like the Gandolfi Variant,
> or a light monorail (Toho? Arca-Swiss FC? Technikardan?),
> but they're expensive compromises between extremes that can
> be done better and cheaper. Picture accidentally dropping
> a Technikardan on the rocks, or in a creek or something.

I don't think these types of field or compact cameras will ever be
needed really. Your basic "inexpensive" field camera will more than do
the job.

> I think my 200m Nikkor M is better for 4x5 than the f5.6 symmar
> type lenses, which are in my opinion better for the 150mm-180mm
> range. I'd want a lens in the 135-150 range, too - 210mm & 65mm
> doesn't sound like a very versatile pair.

I like the Fuji 240 APO myself -- compact like the 200 Nikkor, but much
greater coverage. And I find that the spacing between it and my 125
f5.6 Fujinon W works well. I used to have a 180, but it was never long
enough. Rarely used it. Got rid of it. However, the 200 M is a very
nice little lens. I was considering getting one at one time. I tested
it against a 12 inch Commercial Ektar made in 1966 IIRC on an 8x10
Kodak Master View (the metal one) just for fun. The Ektar won in
coverage (about 60 degrees at f32) and was sharper, but only in the
corners, and then only a little. I was very impressed that a 35 year
old, single coated, Tessar lens designed and manufactured without the
aid of computers was still just as good as a modern computer designed
and made optic.
--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com


From: Stefan Patric tootek2@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: which camera for architecture ?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 

geo wrote:

> I'm looking for a 4x5 for architecture and the usual outdoors
> artsy-fartsy
> type stuff. My priorities are reasonable - reasonable price,
> reasonable weight, reasonable movements, reasonable convenience. I've
> trolled around (that's not a bad thing if you're fishing by the way)
> different sites (thank you Tuan for your great
> www.largeformatphotography.info) & this NG and sort of narrowed it
> down to a Calumet 45nx. Seems to have all the essentials, reasonably
> priced and not too heavy for lugging in the field, lots of movements,
> rotating back. I briefly toyed with the idea of a field camera like a
> Linhof Super Technika or Toyo CF since it's so light but movements are
> pretty limited and how often am I going to need to take a handheld 4x5
> with the Linhof anyway? I can get a Super Graphic for 1/4 the price
> or, more practically, use my 6x6.

You should ask yourself this question: Do you NEED the features that a
view camera offers? Do you NEED swing & tilts, rises & falls, and
shifts? Do you NEED the large negative? Are you going to be using the
Zone System, and NEED the control that individual development of
negatives offer. And, don't forget the bigger enlarger to print the
negatives. Or do you intend to just start out with contact prints? Or
are you going to scan and print digitally?

Most LF tyros think they need a camera with unlimited movements. The
bigger the numbers, the better. But really radical movements are almost
exculsively needed for only small product work, where the close working
distances and the shallow depth of field of the longer lenses used
necessitate greater ranges of movements to "correct" perspective and/or
bring things into focus. For architectural work, I've never used more
than 15 - 20 degrees of swing, 30 degress of tilt, 30mm of rise (have
never used falls), and 25mm of slide. Most any modern, flatbed field
camera has that range.

I've used a Cambo SC II, on which all today's Calumet LF rail cameras
are based, for the past 20 years or so for ALL my large format work.
Even with the 12" short rail, it is NOT a lightweight camera and is NOT
all that portable. Broken down, it fits along with 4 lenses on boards
with accessories into an 18 x 22 x 8 inch metal transport case and
weighs in without tripod or film holders at 30 pounds or so. I suggest
you go with a lightweight, folding, bed type, field camera and
backpack. It'll save you from dislocating your spine.


> I think 2 lenses should do for a while. Something around 65mm on the
> short
> end and around 210 on the long. How is the Linhof Symmar 210/5.6
> Convertible? Pretty tempting to get 2 lenses in one. For developing
> I'll get a Uniroller with 8x10 paper tank. Thanks for any feedback.

A 65 is a pretty wide lens -- equivalent to an 18 to 20 on 35mm -- to
begin with and just covers 4x5 leaving little room for movements. The
defacto 1st wide angle for 4x5 is the 90 -- equivalent to a 28. It has
good coverage and generally is reasonably priced because of the higher
sales volume.

A 210 is a reasonably priced long lens and will work well with a 90, if
you want a "general purpose" 2 lens system with the greatest focal
length range possible without too radical a spacing.

My lens kit for all my 4x5 work -- architectural or otherwise --
consists of a 75, 90, 125 and 240 apo.

For developing b&w;, I use a Jobo 2 reel 4x5 film tank (Takes up to 12
sheets.) and a Beseler reversing roller base. It works just fine.

Convertable lenses? Convenient, yes. But the lens when converted (you
remove the front lens cell) consists of only 3 elements, so the
resolution is less, the angle of coverage is less, and you loose a
couple stops max aperture, but you do get a longer lens. I never found
the converted lens "sharp" enough to suit me.

FWIW: Calumet, at one time, made a good quality, 6-element 150 lens that
came with a 2X converter to make a 300. It screwed onto the rear cell.
The image quality from the resulting combo was excellent.

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: How close is close enough for a lensboard?
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004

"David Nebenzahl" nobody@but.us.chickens wrote
> I just got a lensboard I ordered for my Crown Graphic. It's meant to hold a
> lens in a Copal #1 shutter. (The lens is a 127mm Tominon for copying work.)
> The vendor (Columbus Camera Exchange) told me the hole was "about 40mm", which
> would be just fine for my shutter. Problem is, the hole is bigger; closer to
> 43mm. (I measured it at 1.69", or about 42.9mm. The shutter's thread is 1.54",
> or about 39.1mm.) At this size, both the mounting thread as well as the
> locating pin on the back of the shutter fit into the hole.
> Waaah!
>
> I'd say this is significantly not what I ordered, wouldn't you? So should I
> return it? Or could I just mount the lens in it and live with it being
> off-center? I could actually work around this by mounting it off-center
> vertically and just use a little front rise to compensate.

The hole should be just enough larger than the shutter
barrel to clear it. Most locator pins are just screwed in
and can be removed. They are useful where the shutter must
be kept in fixed relation to something else like a solenoid.
Pacemaker boards are not drilled for pins but have a cupped
area. If you drill the board you must be sure to plug the
resulting light leak.

Pacemaker lensboards, and other stamped metal lens boards
are a bit of a PITA because they are hard to make without
machine shop facilities. If in doubt get a board with a
smaller hole. Its not hard to enlarge them.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: bobjames27@aol.com (Bob G)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 08 Jan 2004 
Subject: Re: Aletta wood monorail kit?

>So I'm wondering-- has anyone here tried one, or even so much as heard of
>this company before? I did a net search, and the only thing I found was a
>brief thread on photo.net where it appeared that no one had heard of it.

I see the owner regularly at the Grapevine (Dallas) TX swap meets. Pleasant
enough, will talk about his cameras forever (you have to just walk away from
his table).

The camera looks handsome and seems to be well made. The bellows seemed to me a
little too thick and so perhaps somewhat rigid, but I can't say for sure, not
having played with one long enough.

I'm sure he will offer you a money-back guarantee if you're not happy. Ask him.

BTW, he'll certainly be at the next Grapevine show, Jan 17 and 18.

It's at the Grapevine Convention Center, a bare mile north of the Dallas-Fort
Worth International Airport.

Bob G


From: dpcwilbur@excite.com (Collin Brendemuehl)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What's best outfit for starting out?
Date: 8 Jan 2004

SInce you shoot landscapes in 35mm you probably know the need for a little
bit of movement. A little rise can help with the height of trees,
mountains/hills, etc. It doesn't take much to improve your pics.

Personally, I like Schneider lenses for their color correction.
They work well with both Kodak & Fuji film and have a result similar
to what your Pentax 35mm (which I also use) produces.
Any good modern multi-coated lens will suffice. You can spend from $300
to $1000 on a nice lens.

If you're packing, look into a wood field camera. Light-weight is a winner.
If not packing, I like the Busch Pressman 'D'. The rotating back is nice
and it costs a fraction of what a Super Graphic sells for to get that feature.
One of this is commonl around $100.

A very nice starter lens would be the Schneider Symmar 135/5.6. It's single-
coated but produces some nice results. It's also compact and best of all ...
INEXPENSIVE! My Lilies and Artists on photocritique.net was shot with one.
http://www.photocritique.net/g/phtg?COLLIN+BRENDEMUEHL

A Rodenstock Geronar 150mm is also a fine lens, compact, modestly priced,
and multicoated.

An average, decent lens like the Symmar 135mm resolves around 60 lpm, about
70% of what your 35mm system does. But it does it over 25x the area.
So even an average lens will give you about 10x the detail.
A great lens like a Super Symmar will get up around 100 lpm, surpassing
many good 35mm lenses over that large area. But that may be outside your
budget. (It's certainly outside mine.)

A 4x5 enlarger can be gotten pretty cheaply these days. What costs $1000
3 years ago can often be gotten for $300 these days. Keep your eyes open.
I got an Omega D5 with condenser head, 5 ft. upright, fine-focus adapter,
bails for color and condensor heads, and a lens carrier for < $60 at a
local shop. They're going to be supplying me with a used color head for
another $40 soon. Keep your eyes open. Digital is killing color darkroom
and deals abound, and will get even better.

Here's a consideration: Medium format.
Up to and including 16x20 one can hardly tell the difference between
4x5 and 6x7. You won't get lens movements (without spending a fortune)
but there's some fine bargains out there that are more convenient than
sheet film. The Pentax 6x7 and Mamiya RB/RZ lines are excellent choices.

You should easily be able to start nicely at around $400.
< $150 for a body.
< $250 for a lens.

Enjoy the craft.

Collin


From: David Nebenzahl nobody@but.us.chickens
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What's best outfit for starting out?
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 

Nick Zentena spake thus:

> David Nebenzahl  wrote:
>
>> And then there's the matter of money; while a G-note may not seem like all
>> that much to you, it may be to others.
>
> The problem is a good condition graphic is hardly cheap. The difference in
> price between a fairly good graphic and one of the new small 4x5s isn't very
> big. Worse the later supergraphics can be more money. Older cameras of
> similar vintage to a graphic can cost quite a bit less. They won't have the
> name but it's hard to take a better photo with name recongition.

Not to provoke a long drawn-out discussion, but just to point out that I got
my Crown Graphic with excellent starter lens (Kodak Ektar 127mm) for less than
$150 on eBay. Risky, yes, but in this case it paid off nicely. And others like
mine can be found regularly there. I'd say that's significantly less than most
"new small 4x5s".

But I agree that more information about what the O.P. wants to do would be
good before folks start giving specific recommendations.



From: Bob Salomon bob_salomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Places to buy used LF gear?
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 

Rafe B. rafe.bustin@verizon.net wrote:
> So besides eBay and KEH, what are good
> places to look for and buy used LF gear?
>
> Prowling around on eBay seems a bit
> painful, at least KEH is a lot better organized.
>
> Eg., I hear Nikon (Nikkor) makes nice lenses
> for LF, but haven't found the right keywords to
> find any on eBay - just the usual 35 mm stuff.
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Glazers, Adolph Gasser, Keeble & Shuchat, Samys, Silvios, George's,
Photomart, Tempe Camera, Denver Pro Photo, F11, Helix, E.P. Levine,
Photo Habitat, Photo Gizmmo, Lens & Repro, Foto Care Ltd., Quality
Camera, Midwest Photo, Jack's, PPR are a few. Where are you?


From: "AArDvarK" noway@yourprob.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: The deals on Ebay
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 

"Raphael Bustin"
> Get a new ShenHao from Badger and get a
> very nice 150 mm f/5.6 for $200 on eBay.
>
> The Shen-Hao has all movements execpt shift.
> It has rise/fall, swing, and tilt on both front and rear.
> It's beautifully built, and the bellows draw should
> comfortably accomodate a 240 or 270 mm lens.
>
> (Still shopping for my first long lens, see below.)
>
> Lenses in the "normal" range of 150 - 180 mm
> are easy to find on eBay and are relatively
> inexpensive. So you can easily have your outfit
> for $900 instead of $1200.

I would say it is important to consider all the extras
at actual cost, film holders, how many used @$8 -
$12 each? Each one is two exposures ... a note book
that is specialized for recording exposures in con-
junction with the pencil markings on the holders,
of course the film itself, dark cloth, spot meter and
it's calibration if bought used (a must), a Fred Picker
Zone VI book, the CLA on the used shutter the lens
is in, the decent quality cable release, the tripod that
is sturdy enough to cope with a 4x5, the quick release
for both the camera and the tripod, lens cleaning
supplies, lens filters, shades for the lenses, the
carrying case, lens wraps, a ground-glass protector,
film changing bag, oh and jee-whiz ... possibly an
entire darkroom too, of which it is possible to do
without an actual "dark-room" but that is another
lesson, and set of costs.

Add it all up and it is not menial. I would say it costs
*one hell* of a lot more than a sweet $900.xx ... even
if buying a cheap monorail to learn with. And a great
many details to keep in mental tune.

now I challenge all of you to economize on all of this,
because one set of sweet ideals is not the way to think
about getting into large format, please, don't fantasize.

Alex



From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: recommendations for a 4X5 studio camera
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 

"michael" mjt42@cwnet.com wrote.
> I'm looking for recommendations. I do a lot of giclee printing for artists.
> I need a 4X5 studio camera and lens suitable for shooting paintings up to
> about 30"X40".

A Speed Graphic is the normally recommended camera for this purpose.
See: http://www.graflex.org . The Speed model has the advantage of a rear
focal plane shutter, allowing you to use a 'barrel' lens - one
without a shutter. Graphics go for $180-300 with lens.

Graphics are available from http://www.ebay.com/
and Midwest photo http://www.mpex.com/

Other alternatives are Cambo, Calumet and B&J; monorail cameras, going
for about $200-400 w/o lens or lensboard (figure an extra $40 for a
lensboard - guess where the profit is!).

The usual lens on a Graphic, an Optar or Raptar, is not the best
choice for copy work. Nor is the usual 120-135 mm focal length. 

Graphics can be found with 152mm Ektars, and these make quite
good copy lenses.

The best lenses for copy applications are 'process lenses' in the
150-210mm (6" - 8") focal length range such as the Red-dot Artar
and G-Claron.

Another good choice is to use a 150mm enlarging lens, such as a
Rodagon, El-Nikkor or Componon.

Process lenses may or may not come in shutters. Enlarging lenses
come without shutters.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.



From: Nick Zentena zentena@hophead.dyndns.org
Subject: Re: What's missing in LF newbie online resources?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 

MikeWhy mikewhy@my-deja.com wrote:
> LF is a mature technology. :-) If there ever was a mature technology, LF
> certainly qualifies. In fact, I think it matured in the 50's or 60's, and
> that's part of the difficulty just starting out. I was still in my zeroes
> when 1969 left us; my tens and teens waited one more year, in the 70s.
> Whether it's a cultural difference, or simply a lack of continued
> "refinement" and change after that, the result is that how things work or go
> together are, for lack of a better word, foreign. The solutions are
> different from how we would design them today. Not that I can think
> of a better way; it's just different.

Depends totally on what you're used to. LF cameras that I have seem to
have moved past the point that they require complicated gizmos to prove they
have worth. Everything is dirt simple. Turn the knob and something moves.
Just play a little and it makes sense. Many of todays items need to be
complicated to convince people they haven't wasted thier money. Or at least
it seems that way.


> The film holders I ordered arrived today. I still lack the camera, but I can
> pre-load the film that arrived earlier this week; the UPS guy is my new best
> friend. I really look forward to our brief meetings. Again, in hindsight,
> it's all too obvious how the film goes in the holder. It was several
> minutes, though, before I noticed that the back hinged out and away.
> Reaffirming, then, that everything is already fully thought out and not easy
> to get wrong, once you understand which brand of fool they were proofing
> against.
>
> Until you've seen it done, or actually did it yourself, every one of those
> hundred and one little things you do to take a picture are potential sources
> of anxiety, frustration, or the simple joy of discovery. Once you've seen it
> done actually did it yourself, every one of them I'm sure will be too simple
> and too obvious for words, let alone the pictures that would make everything
> exceeding clear.

> No, no steenkin FAQ for me. FAQs are predominantly typed text. I find it odd
> that for a photographic interest, long tomes are mostly what I've found.
> Well written, useful, and meaningful to be sure, but I don't think I want to
> follow that model. A simple photo essay with the digital will have to do.


Paul Butzi's film loading web page made it all click for me. The pictures
made the words make sense. Alot of it would be easier with somebody to show
you but most can be figured out with just trying. I'm always amazed when I
figure out some new and novel method and then the next day I read it in a
book. Proving that it was invented 70 years before I was-)

http://www.butzi.net/articles/filmload.htm

Nick


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: dark slide material
Date: Sun, 02 May 2004 

"joe smigiel" jsmigiel@net-link.nOt wrote
> I have a few ULF holders in various sizes that need new darkslides. I'd
> like to try making them myself and I'm wondering if anyone has actually
> made them out of garolite (sp?) or maybe sheet aluminum? Might other
> materials be appropriate?
>
> TIA for any info.
>
> Joe
> (Change the vOwEl in my email address to reply directly.)

Dark slides have been made of several materials. At one
time hard rubber (Ebonite) was used. Metal slides have also
been used and are quite satisfactory. Aluminum or brass
should do. Darkslides for Riteway and Kodak holders are
coded for IR opaqueness. Older, non-opaque slides are coded
with three bumps on the silver side, IR opaque slides have
five bumps.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com



From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" see@sig.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: A newbie... a new question...
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004

"AER" massimilianosantoniX@Xtiscali.it wrote

> A newbie... a new question...
> what orientation have the sheet film to the holder?

A very old question.

An old answer:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/loading.html

And we even have visual aids:

http://site.tekotago.ac.nz/staff/lgodman/drawing/info/Tech/Camera/viewcam16a.htm

Neet site, BTW:

http://site.tekotago.ac.nz/staff/lgodman/drawing/info/Tech/Camera/Cameracont.htm

--
Nicholas O. Lindan,


Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 
From: "Vladamir30" teemax@film.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: A newbie... a new question...

If you hold the film holder in your left hand with the flap end facing
towards your right the film should be positioned in your right hand in a
manner such that the notches will be in the lower right hand corner of the
film holder when the film is loaded. If you hold the film holder in your
left hand with the flap end facing away from you then the film should be
positioned in your right hand in a manner such that the notches will be in
the upper right hand corner of the film holder. Film loading is illustrated
at Paul Butzi's web site (Google to find it, I don't have the URL handy).

...


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lens board on Speed Graphic
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 

"ATIPPETT" atippett@aol.comnojunk wrote...
> Will the lens board on a Speed Graphic accomodate current lenses or must it be
> replaced or modified?
>
> Alan Tippett


There are two types of lensboards used on Speed
Graphics. A 4"x4" wooden board, used on Anniversary models
(made up to 1947) and the drawn metal board used on
Pacemaker series Graphics (there is a variation of this used
on the Super Graphic). The real limitation is the size of
the hole in the Graphic front, this may be too small to
accomodate some lenses with very large rear cells. You can
often fit these into the camera by removing the cell and
screwing it back in after the board is on the camera.
Otherwise the lensboard will take any lens or shutter up
to its size.

On Pacemaker cameras you may find some shutters or
barrels are too large for the body release lever to clear.
For these (which include the 15" Tele-Optar) the release
paddle must be losened and swung aside.

Anniversary lens boards are easy to make, Pacemaker
boards are not.

The 4x4" metal boards made for the Graphic View camera
will also fit the Anniversary camera.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: PPG papagordygrapes@NO_SP_A_Myahoo.com
Subject: Re: Request comments on this package
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 

Bob G wrote:

>>Calumet Monorail camera package
>>for $650. I am a complete newbie to LF. The camera really doesn't
>>appeal to me due to its size and weight (I'd prefer a field or
>>similar), however I see this as a potential opportunity to acquire
>>some pricey accessories/lenses and to get started.
>>
>>The camera includes the following:
>>
>>1) Calumet Calter-W II 90mm f8 in Copal 0
>>2) Calumet Ilex 215mm f5.6 in Copal 1
>>3) Calumet C2 rollfilm holder
>>4) Polaroid 545 (?) back
>>5) five film holders
>>6) big old case and a black blanket (for viewing I imagine)
>>
>>Cosmetically things look good. I was unable to test the shutters and
>>to closely examine the glass, but would do so before purchasing from
>>the local seller.
>
> There are many different models of Calumet cameras. You'd have to describe
> yours a little better.
> Assuming the accessories are in at least Excellent condition:
> 90mm Caltar about $300, deduct $50 for a bad shutter
> 215mm Ilex about $150, deduct $50
> C2 roll holder $125
> Polaroid 545 $50
> Holders $5 to $10 each
> Old case $20, focus cloth $10
> The cheapest Calumet is $125, the most expensive about $400
> Cheers,
>

Bob,

I sold off some of my unused 35mm gear (I still have a nice 35mm setup),
and got the above LF setup for $600. Everything is in excellent
condition. Glass is very clean on both lenses. Both shutters seems good
and 1s seems about right. The 215mm lens is a "convertable" to
360mm....it is a Caltar Ilex Series-N. The 90mm lens says it is "Made in
Germany", so I can only imagine it is Schneider or Rodenstock. 

I believe the Calumet is a CC-400, and is painted black which I think
means is a later model. It is definitely unwieldy, but hopefully this
will allow me to test the LF waters to determine if I should get a field
camera in the future. 

I'm concerned I just plopped down a bunch of cash on something I won't
like, but hopefully I can get most of my money back if I sell the stuff
off piece-wise. Time was running out on this deal which I thought was
fairly good, so I acted. 

Thanks for the guestimates on the value of items.

--ppg


From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" see@sig.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: MF v LF
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 

"Collin Brendemuehl" dplotusnotes@yahoo.com wrote
> For landscape shooting, a good wood field and something like a Nikkor
> SW 90/8 would be perfect. You could do it for < $1000.

For less perfection and $800 less cash: A Pacemaker Graphic
and the 127 Ektar that comes with it.

But why not just rent the 4x5 of your choice for a weekend
and try it.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan


From: "jjs" john@mychain.stafford.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: MF v LF
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 

"Frank Pittel" fwp@warlock.deepthought.com wrote
> [...]
> : I realise that LF has many advantages as far as camera movements is
> : concerned. That aside, how much improvement in 16 X 20 prints could I
> : expect from a 4X5 field camera? Am I dumb to be even considering LF?
>
> There will be a noticable improvement in detail and tonality. However the change
> won't be as large as going from 35mm to MF.

The following shows how different MF and LF can be
http://course1.winona.edu/jstafford/compare.html


From: "dr bob" rsmith@dmv.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lens board on Speed Graphic
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 

"ATIPPETT" atippett@aol.comnojunk wrote ...
> Will the lens board on a Speed Graphic accomodate current lenses or must it be
> replaced or modified?
>
> Alan Tippett

There is only one lens board (blank) which can be drilled out for several
varieties of lenses. The more common ones, and which can be bought new/used
are drilled to fit Copal #0 thru #2. Probably the most "popular" size hole
is 39mm. I'm pretty sure there is one size board for all Speed, Crown
Graphics, and probably other Graflex cameras. All boards can be modified by
either enlarging the hole or fitting an adaptor blank drilled for a specific
lens. Lots of fun, huh?

If all else fails, see Steve Grimes' Co.

Truly, dr bob.


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: electronic flash for speed graphic 4 x 5
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004

"charles ufford" cufford@surfbest.net wrote
> hello,
> I'm wondering what the brand of flash was used with the 4 x 5 speed graphics, and if
> there is a place to check for them to be for sale.I know that all of the regular flash
> tubes have been cannibalized for star wars lightsaber kits.
> thanks,
> charles

The most popular strobes were the Graflex strobe and the
Heiland Strobonar strobe. Both had heads which fitted on the
standard flash gun.

Kodak Flash Supermatic shutters will synch strobe. They
have two sets of contacts. For strobe connect the unit to
the same flash connector used for flash bulbs but do not
cock the synchronizer.

All of the later Compur shutters used on Graphics have X
synch. Earlier Compurs can be modified for it.

Wollensak Rapax/Graphex shutters with flash synch have a
switch position for X synch. You can not use strobe with the
focal plane shutter of a Speed Graphic although you can on a
Super-D Graflex SLR.

There were a few very early strobe units, the Wilcox was
one, which had delay relays in them so that they could be
synchronized with flashbulb synchronizers. These are quite
rare. I suspect such a delay unit could be made easily.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: Jean-David Beyer jdbeyer@exit109.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Possible Newbie Question
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 

MATT WILLIAMS wrote:
> I am familiar with medium format, but know nothing about large format. I am
> thinking about renting or purchasing a used large format camera to see if I
> like it. However, I have a few questions. If I am using 4x5 sheet film on
> location do I need a lot of film holders that have been preloaded before to
> shoot more than one shot. Since I do not plan on doing my own developing how
> do you get the negatives/slides to the lab ? Thanks. Matt
>
>
You do need "a lot" of film holders, but the number may be less than you
think. I usually carry about 12 holders, but it depends on what I am going
to do. If I am just walking around hiking in the hills of New Jersey, I
might have 6 holders (12 sheets) black and white (typically TMX) and 6
holders of color transparancy film. It is rare to shoot all that in a
single day (for me).

On the few occasions where I am doing posed portraits, I fill 8 Graphmatic
holders (48 sheets) and one regular holder (2 sheets) with the film I will
be using. I shoot until the model starts tiring, which is usually before
all 50 sheets are exposed.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer 


From: slberfuchs@aol.com (Ted Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 13 Jul 2004 
Subject: Re: Possible Newbie Question

Fuji has Astia, Provia, Velvia, Acros 100, RTP II,NPL NPS available in
Quickloads. Kodak has Tmax 100, 160VC, E100G, E100GX, E100VCS, EPN, EPP, and
EPY ...... while it is not all the emulsions available in 4x5 sheets it is
definitely not limiting.

Ted Harris
..


Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 
From: "Vladamir30" teemax@film.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Possible Newbie Question

> So what is a "Readyload ?"

Kodak and Fuji both sell certain of their films in light-tight envelopes,
one sheet of film per envelope. Kodak calls their film packaged this way
"Readyload," Fuji calls theirs "Quickload" but they both work the same way.
You buy or rent the required special holder and a box or two of Readyloads
or Quickloads (20 Readyload envelopes to a box). To make a photograph you
put the holder in the camera the same way you put a normal holder in the
camera, insert an envelope in the holder, follow the instructions, then
remove the envelope after the picture is made and take the envelopes to your
lab when you're ready. No need to worry about dust, no need to worry about
loading and unloading film in a light tight room or fiddling around with a
film changing bag, no need to buy and carry a lot of film holders around
with you. Very convenient, especially for someone like you who is just
testing the large format waters..

The two downsides are film cost (about double the cost of plain sheet film)
and the fact that not all Kodak and Fuji films are available in Readyload or
Quickload form. The only Kodak black and white film you can buy in
Readyloads is T Max 100, I don't know about color films or Fuji films since
I don't use them but I know the selection is limited. Light leaks used to a
problem with Readyloads but Kodak changed the system around a couple years
ago and this seems to have eliminated the problem.

If you pursue this do some reading about holders and holder compatibility
with different brands. A good place to go is www.paulbutzi.com or maybe it's
just www.butzi.com, that site discusses holders and compatability.

"MATT WILLIAMS" kauai82@verizon.net wrote 
> So what is a "Readyload ?"
> "jjs" john@mychain.stafford.net wrote ...
> >
> > "MATT WILLIAMS" kauai82@verizon.net wrote 
> > > So in taking pictures on location I would need numerous film holders
> > > preloaded with the undeveloped film ?
> >
> > No. You could use a changing bag or Readyloads. The later means only one
> > film holder. A good idea.



From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" see@sig.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Field or View (technical) Camera?
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 

"Alparslan" sorry.tired.of.spam@mymailbox.com wrote

> I am not familiar with large format photography and trying to make a
> decision on my first camera. I think I like the Horseman FA 4X5 as it has a
> lot of movements including the back. I am interested in nature, portraits,
some
> architecture and still life

> I want to make a right start

Starting from zilch the chances of picking the 'right' camera are also
close to zilch. Best to let ebay bury the dead. Do not worry about your
first date: you are not going to marry her.

> I know I will not stop here

Famous last words ... very few stick with LF.

If you stick with LF you will soon buy a different camera(s): the
original choice is too heavy; not enough bellows draw; won't work
with very wide lenses; limited availability of accessories; too
much windage and (very occasionally) not enough movements.

There aren't two photographers in the world who will agree (even
with themselves) as to the 'ideal' camera to start with.

That said, the SAG (std. advice given) is to always buy used
when starting out. You will then be able to sell the camera
for the same money you bought it for.

==

As to movements:

For landscape photography the only movement you may require is forward
tilt.

For portraits you will require _no_ movements.

For architecture you will need front rise and the ability to use
very wide lenses, these usually needing a bag bellows. Occasionally
front drop and lateral shift are a help.

For still life, the usual 'three apples and a dead bird' type, no
movements are required.

The only need for pretzel movements is in commercial work such as automobiles
-- distorting the shape of the car making it look long and sleek -- and
table top product photography -- achieving tremendous depth of field while
keeping lines parallel. Oh, and when you have just bought a new camera
home from the store ...

Ask yourself: how many times, when shooting with a '35 has a shot
been spoiled because you didn't have movements? How many times
would you have to have twisted the camera into a knot?

For a starter a technical or press camera is not a bad choice.

True technical cameras - Linhoff and Horseman - are very pricey,
meant for very hard usage and accessories are expensive and
hard to come by. How's $960 for a viewfinder sound?

Finally: the recommendation:

On this side of the puddle the starter advice is to buy a Speed
(Pacemaker) Graphic press camera - the UK version is an MPP.
Then add to this a monorail camera if you wish continue in LF.
Sell the Graphic and buy a wood field for the je ne sai quai.

A Graphic can be used handheld and used with the rangefinder
and viewfinder. This means you don't need to take a tripod
when hiking. Taking 4x5 snapshots of family and friends
is a gas.

* * *

OT -- favorite rant (one of many):

> This is an investment for me

I think you will find it an expense: You will not get your
money back; and if there is any interest, you will have to provide
it yourself.

A story:

At one time in the land of US we had a scandal when General Motors
put 'Cheverolet' engines into 'Oldsmobile' automobiles
(Chevy Monte Carlos Vs Olds Cutlass). Differences
between the engines were minuscule: blue Vs orange paint,
a decal on the valve cover and such. The cars were identical
underneath the sheet metal, and even much of that was common.

This being America numerous lawsuits were filed.

The evening TV news had an interview with a recent purchaser
of an Oldsmobile:

"If I knew it was going to have a Chevy engine I would have bought
a Chevy instead of investing in an Oldsmobile"

Chevys are bought, Oldsmobiles are invested in.

Price difference between the cars was 200 dollars.

The idea that purchase of a product is an 'investment' is
the creation of advertising agencies.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio



From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it?
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 

"Tom" tom@localhost wrote...
> I do not want to get into a pissing contest with Richard, so I will not argue
> with him except to say that most newspapers usually had more than one camera
> and/or lens available. I was not there back in the 20's and 30's, but I have
> talked with old timers myself. Often what they told me, and what Richard says
> was very very different.
>
> On things like grip-n-grins, the mainstay of the old time press, it was usual to
> shoot one shot on one side of the holder, and a safety shot on the other. The
> safety shot often was never even processed unless there was a problem, such as
> someone blinking, with the first shot. However, to the best of my knowledge a
> working press photographer never went out with just one film holder, and for
> major events they often used pack film, WeeGee certainly did if you can believe
> what he said in his books.
>
> Funny thing is folks who seem to never have used the stuff, or who have only
> used the 16 sheet packs made in the 70's with the then new untra-thin film in
> them, have strange ideas about filmpacks. For one thing you could do just one
> shot and remove it in the darkroom with out wasting the rest of the pack.
> However, even back in those days film was not so expensive that a working
> photographer was afraid to waste the rest of the film in the pack even if he had
> only shot only 2 or 3 of the 12 sheets of film. And the film in the 12 sheet
> packs was not all that thin, nor was roll film in the 50's and earlier.
>
> --
> Rebecca Ore wrote:

Snipping...

I don't know who you talked to but I was taught the
business by a press photographer who happened to be one of
my highschool teacher. The practice of press photographers
was well established and historical records are plentiful as
are records of the cameras and other equipment used. In
fact, the very camera used to take the famous Hindenburgh
photo is in the hands of a collector.

I don't know what "strange" ideas you think people have
about film packs or what changes you think were made in the
1950's. Actually film packs were introduced early and did
not change much over the decades they were made. They came
is different sizes ranging from about 12 exposures to about
18. It was ALWAYS possible to open the thing and retrieve a
single or several films, I did that many times. It is a PITA
and the pack is not always usable afterward. Pack film was
not much used in press photography. In fact, most of the
popular press films were not available in pack form. Your
statements about the thickness of film packs and roll film
is just plain wrong. The sizes were exactly the same as
later ones, I think you have never seen them.

For those who have never seen a film pack perhaps some
description is in order. Film packs were oblong packages
which fit into a very simple adaptor. Adaptors were
available for both sheet film cameras and for plate cameras.
Film packs were especially popular for older folding plate
cameras. The pack had a series of numbered paper tabs coming
out of one side. To use it you placed it in the adaptor, put
the adaptor in or on the camera (of course) and tooke the
dark slide out of the adaptor. Then you pulled the first
tab. This tab was the "dark slide" of the film pack. The
first film was then available to expose. After exposing it
the next tab was pulled. This pulled the film around a
roller into the back of the film pack, it was then torn off.
After all the films were exposed the pack was opened in the
darkroom by pulling the sides off. The exposed film was in
the back. Pack film had to be very thin so it could be
flexible enough to go over the narrow roller inside the
pack. Normal sheet film developing hangers could not be used
because the pack film would fall out of them. One used
either special pack hangers or a closed tank similar to roll
film tanks. The main advantage of film packs was the ability
to change film very quickly but they also had problems with
jamming and scratching. In general sheet film holders were
more reliable.

The standard press rig from about the early 1930s on to
the demise of press cameras in the 1960s was Speed Graphic
with a somewhat wide angle lens on it. The most common
lenses were Zeiss or B&L; Tessars of 135mm focal length, or
later, 127mm Kodak Ektars. The cameras were invariably
equipped with a flash gun which stayed on the camera even
when not in use since most cameras used an electrical
solenoid for tripping the shutter. This was a convenience
because the shutter was tripped by a button on the back of
the battery case which also formed a handle. These lenses
came in cocking shutters, either Compurs built by Deckel in
Germany or the B&L; version. The "press" version of the
rim-set Compur differed from the standard version in that it
had a blade arrestor and press-focus button in place of the
self-timer in the "civilian version" and also had a large
paddle on the cocking lever. I have a couple of these guys
and they are still accurate and reliable despite being 70
years old.

Typically, the cameras were shot using the most powerful
flash bulbs available for the purpose with the lens set at
f/22 or f/32 for depth of field, and the shutter set at
about 1/200 for some action stopping. The camera was
typically focused at about 15 feet and locked. The
combination give sharp enough pictures over a large range of
distance and resulted in faster work.

I will repeat my orignal point NO self-setting shutters
were ever used on a press camera and none were avialable on
any lens sold for press photography purposes at any time
during which the familiar sheet film camera was in general
use for news photography. That covers about a 30 year
period.

A final note: Tom, you and "hemi" have decided I don't
know what I am talking about, or that all my knowledge comes
from "books". You are dead wrong on both counts. I know
where Hemi's problem comes from, I don't know were yours
comes from. I happen to respect accurate knowledge. That
doesn't make me right all the time but it means that I pay
attention to sources and check things. I also have a very
long experience in photography (more than fifty years) with
a lot of practical experience with a lot of its aspects. May
I suggest to you that its dangerous to guess about people,
espcially in a forum like Usnet, you have no idea of who you
are talking to most of the time.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it?
Date: 26 Jul 2004 

Tom tom@localhost wrote 
> Humm...? Nope, not at all Richard. Self-cocking shutters were called Press
> shutters because in the old, old, old days of film packs the news guys (Press
> Photographers) used them, so all they had to do was pull the tab on the filmpack
> and shoot without having to recock the shutter. Sort of a primative motordrive.
> That, by the way, was how that famous sequence of the Hindenburg burning and
> crashing was shot. The kids who grew up with 35mm often can not understand how
> that sequence could possibly have been shot with a press camera.
>
> You are confusing the Press Shutter with the press-to-focus lever. And yes you
> are correct they were limited to 1/100 of a second or so. The German made
> Prontor-Press shutter was the best known of the type.
> --
> Richard Knoppow wrote:
>
> > self-setting shutters. They call the self-setting variety
> > "press" shutters but this is a misuse of the term. A press
> > shutter was a shutter with a blade arrestor allowing ground
> > glass focusing without changing the speed setting.
> > Self-setting shutters are convenient and simple, shutters
> > that need to be cocked can have much stronger spring motors
> > and give higher shutter speeds.

This is nonesense. The shutters used on press cameas were
invariably of the cocking varity. The most common shutters were Compur
and Compur rapid shutters made either nby Deckel or under contract by
Bausch & Lomb, up to about 1940 and a lot of Kodak Supermatics after
that. Those with blade arrestors were called press-focus shutters
which got shortened to press. Prontor shutters were used only on
rather cheap cameras until the company, Gauthier, aquired Fredrick
Deckel, the maker of Compur. After 1946 Speed Graphics were also
equipped with Graphex shutters, actually the same as the Wollensak
Rapax, a cocking shutter. Self-setting shutters were virtually never
found on press cameras, for one thing, high quality lenses were never
sold in them except for the very largest.

Please check your facts.

As far as speed of use its quite possible to take surprizingly
rapid sequences of pictures with cut film cameras if you know how to
change holders (I was taught how to do this by a teacher in highschool
who had been a press photographer). The time between pictures when
using a press camera have little to do with the shutter, it is holder
changing that absorbs most of it.

News photographers almost never used film packs. While they allow
rapid change of film they had disadvantages, one of which was the lack
of the ability to send off exposed film to the lab. Also, pack film
was on a thin support like roll film and for the same reason:
flexibility. That made it too delicate for the rough handling that
press negatives often got. I've never seen the actual negatives of the
Hindenburg disaster but doubt very much they were shot on pack film.
If you need convincing look at almost any edition of
_Graphic-Graflex Photography_ or find some press guy who worked in the
days when Speed Graphics ruled.

Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: "jjs" nospam@please.xxx
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: How to make lensboards for my wooden camera ?
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 
"PGG" papagordygrapes@NO_SP_A_Myahoo.com wrote ...
> http://www.emachineshop.com/
>
> Download CAD software for free, design your part and upload, and have
> it shipped to you shortly!

At emachineshop, a 9" square aluminum board with a 2.6" hole would cost you
$141 for a 14 day delivery, or $69 for 23 day delivery. (Laser cut)



From: "jjs" john@mychain.stafford.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: How to make lensboards for my wooden camera ?
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 
"Francis A. Miniter" miniter@attglobalZZ.net wrote 
> jjs wrote:
> > Where can I find a Southbend Model A for $114? Aren't you missing a
> > trailing zero?

> No. 2 boards x $141 each (@ 14 day delivery) = $282.

The price plummets with quantities. I just remade a board. One cost $99
(different material), and 10 came to $139 total. 100 would be $498.



From: PGG papagordygrapes@NO_SP_A_Myahoo.com
Subject: Re: How to make lensboards for my wooden camera ?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004

http://www.emachineshop.com/

Download CAD software for free, design your part and upload, and have
it shipped to you shortly!

 Marco Milazzo wrote:
> I have an old B&J; 8X10 , and need a couple of new lensboards -- 9"
> square. Can you purchase them anywhere, or is eBay the only resource?
> (They don't come up that often on ebay).
>
> It doesn't seem it would be too difficult to make one, however I
> notice that the old lensboards are made of three pieces; a large piece
> for the center and two ends, the grain of which is at right angles to
> the center piece -- I suppose this is to prevent warping. 
>
> If you made one, what would be the best wood to use?
>
> Could you make them of one piece, or is the three-piece construction
> essential?
>
> Does anyone have any for sale? (I'm in favor of the easy way)
>
> TIA,
> Marco


From: "Donn Cave" donn@drizzle.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: How to make lensboards for my wooden camera ?
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 

Quoth Marco Milazzo hgarrett@elp.rr.com:
| I have an old B&J; 8X10 , and need a couple of new lensboards -- 9"
| square. Can you purchase them anywhere, or is eBay the only resource?
| (They don't come up that often on ebay).
|
| It doesn't seem it would be too difficult to make one, however I
| notice that the old lensboards are made of three pieces; a large piece
| for the center and two ends, the grain of which is at right angles to
| the center piece -- I suppose this is to prevent warping. 

I have made lens boards - including a couple for an 8x10 B&J;, but
evidently a different model as they were more like 6 inches across.

The thing that can be difficult, if you don't have a router or a
good deal of skill with hand tools, is the compound edge. If you
look at the hole in the front standard, there's a shallow inset
around it for lensboard, about 1/8 deep. But the lensboard should
be about 1/4 thick, with the remainder nicely fitting past the
inset into the hole, for a better light baffle.

So I get 1/8 thick wood that's intended for veneers, and build
the lensboard up in two layers already cut to the right sizes
(or at least the smaller size -- the outside dimension is relatively
easy to work with and can be fine tuned afterwards.) The two
layers should indeed be oriented perpendicular. Use ordinary
woodworking glue like Titebond. The second most difficult part
is clamping while the glue dries. Ideally with wood this thin
you would want to clamp over the entire surface, and that will
also probably help with a tendency for the two pieces to squirm
as the pressure starts moving the glue around. The ideal wood
is fairly dense, because it's easy and highly undesirable to chip
or dent the edges. All kinds of hardwoods at your disposal, but
there can be some individual variation within identifications
like "maple". I would stay away from red oak anyway. I've used
maple, walnut and mahogany. Finish is up to you, I like an
oil finish applied several times, but anyway do finish both
sides for more stable wood. Then paint the back black.

The hole is the most difficult part, if you're drilling for the
usual Ilex 5. The local hardware store didn't have hole saws
that big, so I used a "fly cutter". You will need a vise for
this part, and a 2x6 or something for backing because there's
a lot of torque on it. It will cut a bit larger than you would
think. A drill press would be nice. If you don't have a vise,
it's probably just as well - I've done it with a coping saw, and
it's easy and less hazardous, though it will need a lot more
clean-up afterwards unless you're a lot more skilled than I am.
Doesn't have to be perfect, especially with an Ilex type.

You may choose to drill the hole a little off center, if your
camera has enough movements to correct for that but not enough
to fully exploit the lens' coverage.

Donn



From: "jjs" john@mychain.stafford.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: How to make lensboards for my wooden camera ?
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 

"Marco Milazzo" hgarrett@elp.rr.com wrote...
> I have an old B&J; 8X10 , and need a couple of new lensboards -- 9"
> square. Can you purchase them anywhere, or is eBay the only resource?
> (They don't come up that often on ebay).
>
> It doesn't seem it would be too difficult to make one, however I
> notice that the old lensboards are made of three pieces; a large piece
> for the center and two ends, the grain of which is at right angles to
> the center piece -- I suppose this is to prevent warping.
>
> If you made one, what would be the best wood to use?

You have made a good observation concerning the separate pieces. That was
usually done with large lensboards to add strength and especially to help
keep them from warping. That's not _really_ necessary today. Wood was
economical back then, but you can make the board from aluminum. If cutting
aluminum is a problem, then you can take two thin wood boards, sandwich them
with the grain at right-angles to each other and laminate as one with a
modern wood cement, then cut to dimension. This is a very effective, very
strong and reliable technique which can also look good, too. Adhesive
technology has come a long way since the day your camera was made. Elmer's
ordinary wood glue is good, and Elmer's Probond is great but requires a long
set time.

What wood? Well what hard wood you can you find in 1/8" or less thicknesses?
Someone is going to jump on me for using the term "hard wood" (which is not
the same as "hardwood") and tell you that flimsy Balsa is technically a
"hardwood", but you know what I mean - a tough wood; oak, cherry, is great.
I don't know what resources you have, but many large shops have thin woods
in hobby sizes. Even Menard's has it. Glue it up at right angles, clamp it
evenly and tight, and you are all set.


Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 
From: "Francis A. Miniter" miniter@attglobalZZ.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: How to make lensboards for my wooden camera ?

HI Marco,

I make my own lensboards - some of metal and some of wood.
And yes they are easy to make, and much cheaper than buying
one. For the wooden ones, I use plywood to avoid the
warping problem that you mention. You just have to use
plywood of the correct thinkness. A hole saw usually
suffices for the lens hole. For the metal ones, I use
either (a) an aluminum plate of the proper thickness, or (b)
a steel plate of sufficient rigidity that I thicken at the
edges with black foam. Again, with the metal ones, I drill
the lens hole on a drill press and then make the final
dimensions of the hole on a metal lathe, but in fact using a
round file would give adequate results.

Francis A. Miniter
...


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: help with Polaroid 545 Holder
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 

"Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote 
>
> "jjs" john@mychain.stafford.net wrote
> >
> > "PGG" papagordygrapes@NO_SP_A_Myahoo.com wrote
> > > I've got a Polaroid 545 Land Holder with some expired film. I'm baffled
> > > so far.
> > >
> > > I put the lever in the "L" position and inserted a  sheet. The directions
> > > say I then pull the envelope out to expose the film. The problem is that
> > > it doesn't catch and I just end up pulling the whole sheet. [...]
> >
> > S. K. Grimes has an excellent article with illustrations on exactly this
> > issue. See: http://www.skgrimes.com/545/index.htm
> >
> There is another version of this on the Polaroid web site
> but its well burried. The Polaroid method uses a medium
> sized paper clip to hold the thing that catches the stop
> tabs in place during assembly. Very simple.

The URL for this is much too long to cut and paste but
here is how to find it on the Polaroid site. First go to
http://www.polaroid.com

From there click on {Support} On the support page click
on the green bar that says Find Answers. On that page type
545 into the search window and click it. This will bring up
a list of stuff. A couple of them have titles like "A clip
is stuck in my holder". Any of these will take you to a
one-page PDF with the repair method on it. A small
screwdriver is helpful as a prying tool, not needed if you
have strong fingers.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: "jjs" john@mychain.stafford.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: help with Polaroid 545 Holder
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 

"PGG" papagordygrapes@NO_SP_A_Myahoo.com wrote ...
> I've got a Polaroid 545 Land Holder with some expired film. I'm baffled
> so far.
>
> I put the lever in the "L" position and inserted a sheet. The directions
> say I then pull the envelope out to expose the film. The problem is that
> it doesn't catch and I just end up pulling the whole sheet. [...]

S. K. Grimes has an excellent article with illustrations on exactly this
issue. See: http://www.skgrimes.com/545/index.htm


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Spare parts for Crown Graphic camera
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 

"Serge Korolev" usenet@korolev.org wrote 
> Hello,
>
> I've been lucky to pick-up one of the late Crown Graphic Special
> models a few months ago and, though I am quite satisfied with the
> camera, I would have some things improved:
>
> 1) The ground grass' surface is not evenly coated in sense that it
> punctured with a lot of small transparent spots. And its coated part
> seems a bit old dirty. All this makes it quite difficult to focus even
> at infinity.
> I've been thinking to replace it with a new one but I am not sure if 
> I suppose to look for this particular model's groud glass (framed in a
> Grafloc holder) or those sizes are standardized.
>
> 2) The camera rails used to be a bit tough on movements and I think
> I figured the source of this disturbance - small back rails (those
> which are sliding under the guides) are not perfectly flat.
> The camera doesn't look to have any complicated mechanics and so I
> believe it should not be hard to disassembe it.. Would it be possible
> to straighten the rails to the working condition or I've better look
> for a spare part?
> Do any sources of the parts for Graflex still exist? I'd buy another
> Copal #0 lens board as well but I don't know if the only place to hunt
> it is eBay.
>
> I am in Europe (Italy) and so local sources of those items would be
> preferable.. Though I have a number of friends in the US who could buy
> and ship goods to me with no problem.
>
> Thanks,
> Serge
>
> PS. If you answer to email please replace "usenet" part of it with
> "serge".

Unfortunately, the best source of parts (and service) is
no longer available. This was Fred Lustig, but Fred suffered
a stroke some time ago and I think is still out of action.
However, I think you can fix the back without much
trouble. The Crown Graphic Special is a fairly late version
of the camera. The "special" part is that it came with a
Schneider Xenar in Compur shutter rather than the Rodenstock
or Wollensak lenses generally supplied. It will have a
Graflok back. The Graflok back has both a ground glass and a
fresnel lens. The fresnel lens is under the ground glass
with the grooves facing the ground side of the glass.
They are held in place by clips facing toward you when
looking at the ground glass. Slip the ground glass panel out
of the camera and remove the ground glass and fresnel by
unscrewing the clips. Wash both in dishwashing detergent and
luke warm water. If necessary rub the surfaces very gently
with a soft cloth. Rinse well and blot dry with paper
towels. If there is something like glue on the ground glass
it can be cleaned with a solvent like Alcohol or Acetone
with no damage. The fresnel lens should NOT be cleaned with
anything other than detergent and water or window cleaner,
even alcohol may injure the plastic. Re-install the way the
sheets came out. That should brighten up the image
considerably.

Somtimes the fresnel lens is missing. I don't know a
ready source of replacments. It is necessary to have the
fresnel there because the ground glass will be the wrong
distance from the focal plane otherwise.

The focus rails can be lubricated by wiping them with
synthetic grease. If they are not lined up its possible the
bed braces are not aligned correctly or the bed has been
warped. All Graphic cameras are pretty rugged and are
usually repairable. There are reprint factory instruction
books available from John S. Craig at
http://www.craigcamera.com and from Petra Keller at:
http://www.camerabooks.com Not too expensive, both are very
reliable dealers.

A good source of general information on Graflex made
cameras is at: http://www.graflex.org
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com



From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Fun with a press camera
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 

"Laura Halliday" marsgal42@hotmail.com wrote ...
> "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote 
> > (snip...)
> > The lens may not be the original. Graflex serial numbers
> > after 1947 are so scrambled that they are almost worthless.
> > The company did not keep good records. Numbers were issued
> > in blocks so not all numbers were used. Some blocks were
> > re-issued so there are duplicates. All of the Pacemaker
> > cameras were made after this date so they are hard to date
> > by serial number.
> > If your camera has a side rangefinder it was made before
> > 1955. The side rangefinder is very accurate when properly
> > adjusted. The top rangefinder has the advantage of being
> > adaptable to many lenses by chainging a cam, but there are
> > problems with the linkage, the side rangefinder is very
> > reliable and rugged...
>
> Thanks for the information.
>
> My Crown Graphic is a later one with the top rangefinder,
> a Graflok back, and bed drop.
>
> I've never tried shooting colour LF, but I have a package
> of 4x5 Velvia 100 in the fridge that I really must do
> something with some time. I've had good results doing
> my own E-6 processing with roll film, just need to
> figure a way to keep the temperature right when I do
> it in trays. The hard way, I know. :-)
>
> I always figure the old purely-mechanical cameras are
> the best bet - as long as they are light-tight and the
> shutter speeds bear any resemblance to reality, they
> will take pictures. Good ones.
>
> Laura Halliday

When tuned up right Kodak Supermatic shutters are quite
accurate and reliable. BTW, if you have the Flash Supermatic
it will synchronize stobe! Just don't cock the flash
synchronizer. The Ektar will perform very well in color.

Graflex started making bellows from a very rugged
synthetic sometime around 1940. All the Anniversary and
Pacemaker, and later, Graphic and Graflex cameras have
these. I've never seen a bad one except where it had been
subject to severe mechanical damage.

All the Graphics have drop beds. The "pre-Anniversary"
models (made before 1940) don't have internal focusing
rails, all the later ones do. My Speed Graphics will take
lenses down to around 65mm without recessed lensboards, but
of course, there is no room for movements. Probably not a
great limitation when using a super-wide-angle lens anyway.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com



From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Fun with a press camera
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 


"Laura Halliday" marsgal42@hotmail.com wrote ...
> My new toy - a 4x5 Crown Graphic - arrived late last
> week, and I had some fun with it over the weekend.
>
> I got it from B&H;, who rated it 8 in their system.
> KEH would call the camera "Bargain"-grade - obviously
> used, but 100% functional, with no marks on the
> glass. For a camera that was last made in 1973,
> I'd be surprised if it *didn't* look used...
>
> My first tests were making sure the rangefinder,
> focusing scale and ground glass all agreed. They
> did. I tested the shutter with some Polaroid and
> my 545i film holder. That looked good too.
>
> So I loaded some film holders and went for a walk
> on Saturday. It's sure a lot easier to wander
> around with a press camera than my monorail (built
> from one of the Bender kits). The day was very
> sunny, and some of the shots (Delta 100 in Ilfotec
> DD-X, sunny f16) show why you don't take pictures
> in the sun on sunny days. But at least the lens
> didn't flare. :-)
>
> The lens, by the way, is the usual 127 mm Ektar. The
> date code on the lens is 1951; the code on the camera
> doesn't make any sense when I compare it to the stuff
> on the Graflex web page.
>
> All in all, I had fun. I can see this camera travelling
> with me a lot. I can also see my left arm getting a lot
> stronger.
>
> Laura Halliday 


The lens may not be the original. Graflex serial numbers
after 1947 are so scrambled that they are almost worthless.
The company did not keep good records. Numbers were issued
in blocks so not all numbers were used. Some blocks were
re-issued so there are duplicates. All of the Pacemaker
cameras were made after this date so they are hard to date
by serial number.

If your camera has a side rangefinder it was made before
1955. The side rangefinder is very accurate when properly
adjusted. The top rangefinder has the advantage of being
adaptable to many lenses by chainging a cam, but there are
problems with the linkage, the side rangefinder is very
reliable and rugged.

Graflok backs were made standard on all Graphic cameras
in late 1950 but many earlier cameras were refitted with
them, an easy job.

The Ektar is an outstanding lens even by modern
standards. About the only fault is that some of them develop
an internal haze. Its easy to clean off but the front cell
must be opened to get at the internal surfaces. Shine a
flashlight through the lens to detect the haze. Even a
little lowers the contrast surprizingly. Ektars were made to
sell Kodachrome, they have excellent color correction.
The Supermatic (or flash Supermatic) is actually a very
good shutter. With proper servicing it can be brought back
to original specs. When in good condition they are both
accurate and consistent.

Crown Graphics were introduced with the Pacemaker series
in 1947. It was intended as a lower priced camera than the
Speed Graphic but also many photographers who used Graphics
never used the focal plane shutters and liked the more
compact and lighter weight version.

Welcome to the Graphic club:-) I was introduced to them
when in highschool. One of my teachers was a former press
photographer and taught me to use a Graphic, both as a
camera and a weapon! They sort of stick to your hand. You
know you are in trouble when you find yourself shouting
"just one more" and "more cheescake".

Unfortunately, the best Graphic technician, Fred Lustig,
had a stroke and is no longer working on them. However, they
isn't much that can go wrong. With any care at all your
Graphic will still be working when they stop making film.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Starting camera - part II
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 
 
"Scott M. Knowles" scott@wsrphoto.com wrote
> I picked 125mm and 240mm because the 35mm shift lens and 800m
> tilt-shift lens or 85mm f1.7lens are my two most used landscape
> lenses, followed by 100mm macro lens, 24mm or 28mm, and 45mm lenses.
> This leave a 65-75mm LF lens the next logical choice(?).

Scott,

Just about any camera you are considering, monorail or field, will have no
problems with a 125mm or 240mm lens. Most cameras handle the midrange focal
lengths with ease. The problem comes when you want to go shorter or longer.
Some cameras are especially well suited to wide angle use, others aren't.
Obviously, a camera with a fixed 12" bellows isn't well suited to using long
lenses.

FWIW 65mm (and even 75mm) is seriously wide on 4x5. 90mm is still decently
wide, not too close to your planned 125mm, and easier to use. Take that
with a grain of salt as I'm not personally a big wide angle user. If you're
a big wide angle fan, a 75mm (or wider) may be just your cup of tea. Just
keep in mind the shorter you go the more it will limit your choice of
camera.

I hesitate to recommend a specific camera, as it's such a personal choice.
Little things like the location of controls that might seem logical to one
user might drive another nuts. If you don't think you'll use anything
longer than 240mm, there are a LOT of field cameras that would serve you
well and be reasonably priced. If you plan to go longer, your choices will
be narrowed. The Toho will easily handle a compact 300mm (like the 300mm
Nikkor M or 300mm Fujinon C) or a longer, heavier telephoto. A Canham DLC
or Linhof Technikardan will handle a 450mm Fujinon C without additional
accesories. These are two VERY different (and NOT inexpensive) cameras.
Hence, my reluctance to make a specific recommendation. I can quote specs
all day long, and I can tell you what I like and dislike. In the end, it's
what YOU like and dislike that matters.

Kerry


From: Tom tom@localhost
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: A pro new to 4 x 5
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 

Humm...?

Funny, I can hand hold a 4x5 Graphic at 1/25 second not problem, and mostly can
do 1/10 (with 135mm lens) and I am an old geezer.

The is some information on using press cameras as Press Cameras on my website:

http://presscameras.graywolfphoto.com/index.html

--

Gregory N. Latiak wrote:
> 4x5 is really no different from 35mm or 6x6cm for hand-held use if you have
> the strength for it and are willing to adapt to the different working
> styles. I have used Speed Graphics and Linhof handheld -- one follows the
> same basic rule that applied back with 35mm. The minimum shutter speed
> (unless you are very good or not breathing...) is the inverse of the focal
> length in mm. For 35mm, with a 50mm lens one had a minimum hand-held speed
> for 'acceptable' results of 1/50 sec. With a 4x5 and 150mm lens one would
> have 1/150th of a second (effectively 1/200th sec). That poses a problem in
> that using a 400 speed film you must work at f/11 or f/16 -- which restricts
> depth of field for closeup subjects. Fortunately, higher speed film is
> available and with 4x5 the grain will not eat your image. And that may not
> be a problem if you have a substantial flash setup.


From: contact@butzi.net (Paul Butzi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: A newbie... a new question...
Date: 14 Jun 2004 

"Vladamir30" teemax@film.net wrote 
> If you hold the film holder in your left hand with the flap end facing
> towards your right the film should be positioned in your right hand in a
> manner such that the notches will be in the lower right hand corner of the
> film holder when the film is loaded. If you hold the film holder in your
> left hand with the flap end facing away from you then the film should be
> positioned in your right hand in a manner such that the notches will be in
> the upper right hand corner of the film holder. Film loading is illustrated
> at Paul Butzi's web site (Google to find it, I don't have the URL handy).

Yes, a complete article, complete with photographs showing every stage
of loading a film holder, can be found at
http://www.butzi.net/articles/filmload.htm

-Paul
www.butzi.net



From: p2macgahan@compuserve.com (P. MacGahan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Goerz Dagors
Date: 16 Apr 2004 

"Neil Purling" sextant@sextant.karoo.co.uk wrote 
> I have not made that many exposures with this lens yet as it is not my primary optic.
> I got it as a curiosity. Fortunately the shutter seems to work well.
> What work I have done so far suggested the manner of focus shift I have
> mentioned. I think I should shoot something with a good bit of depth and
> focus wide open for 1 shot and re-focus at taking aperture for the second.
>
> The edges of the image are still poor. I assume this is spherical
> aberration shanging the focus there.
> In my tests to far I have focused on a point in the centre of the gg screen
> simply because at f22 the edges are unusuable.

Normally, by f:22 the whole field should be sharp by f:22. If the edges
of a 4x5" field (or a 9x12cm field) are unusable, you probably need to
check some things.

I am assuming that the edges are unusable because they are unsharp
(they should be by f:22). If you mean that they aren't bright
enough, that is another problem. You may need a different focusing
screen or a more convenient loupe.

Are the lens elements screwed fairly tightly into the shutter? Normally,
they are quite tight, but the can work pretty well over a little range.
If they are not tight, initially, I would be careful to not overtighten.
Merely turn the loose element (check to see that it is not cross threaded
before applying any significant pressure) until it is fingertip tight and
try the lens again. The elements should not actually be loose or backed
out. Also, is the lens installed in a shutter asa factory installation or
has it been improvised, later? If it appears on careful inspection to be
improvised, you may have found the problem (but I don't know an inexpensive
solution). There should be nothing loose (especially not any glass). 

Are you using the lens on a 4x5" field? It won't make it to 8x10", but it
should still be good for 4x5 and possibly reach 5x7" (perhaps with
dark or unsharp corners at f:22). Dagors tend to cover a bit more as you
stop down.

Are the camera front and rear standards parallel and the center of the lens
co-linear with the center of the 4x5 field?

There is probably a lot else to mention, but these might be a start. Others
may have even better ideas.



From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 
From: Bob Fowler crazybob2525@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Illuminated magnifiers 

...
I also find that the non-illuminated headband 
magnifiers works very well for long sessions in studio 
with large format cameras. As a bi-focal wearer, I 
find that my "normal" glasses are a pain in the butt 
when working on the groundglass and that a headband 
magnifier is perfect. 
===== 
Bob Fowler 
crazybob2525@yahoo.com 



From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Burke and James Press Lensboards
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004

"Tom Ferguson" tomf2468@pipeline.com wrote...
> Outside of making one with woodtools, is there a source to buy these?
> They are about 4x4 inches, and my friend's spare speed boards were
> close but didn't fit.

Burke & James lens boards should be identical to
Anniversary Speed Graphic boards. The same size board is
also used on the Graphic View except its metal. Sometimes
these boards have warped or expanded a little or the taper
at the bottom may need to be trimmed a little. Otherwise,
they should all fit. Thickness and rebate should be the
same.

I have some B&J; boards which I use on old Speed Graphics,
they are a perfect fit, not loose. Some boards may be a
little tight, some a bit loose, just aging of the wood.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: dpcwilbur@excite.com (Collin Brendemuehl)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: newbie: LF for hiking and landscapes?
Date: 8 Jun 2004 

So you're from LaCrosse? Cub fan? :)

I've old HS classmates in the area as well as othere with whom I used
to go to church camp @ Chetek (a bit further north).
I grew up in Bloomington, just a bit s. of you, and have other family
in the region.

Something you may find is that an 11x14 from a 4x5 and 6x6 will show
very little difference. They'll both show very impressively to
anybody, even those who look for detail. Good medium format is
roughly as good as 4x5 in the smaller enlargement sizes. At 16x20 you
can start to see the difference.

Given the modest prices, you might look into 5x7 or 8x10. These will
make the difference more pronounced. Just a thought. The real issue
here is those stinkin' big enlargers.

A 4x5 with a good lens will get you one other advantage -- lots of neg
space to crop from. So you can treat it like a very versatile medium
format with movements. Even cropping that much you can still get very
nice results with a decent lens.

My son & I did a comparison. He's took Rollei 2.8C and I took my 4x5
with the Schneider Symmar 135mm. Both on tripods. Interestingly, his
lens was more contrasty, though with arguably less detail. The
resulting 8x10 comparison was astounding. They were almost identical
in general appearance. (He used Fuji Acros and I used Kodak Plus-X.
Two excellent but different films seemed to be the only difference.)
The similarity as astounding.

Email me. Maybe we have friends in common. :)

Collin Brendemuehl


From: Robert Feinman robertdfeinman@netscape.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: newbie: LF for hiking and landscapes?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 


no_email@xyz.com says...
> Can I do anything in LF for $200-450? What should I look for on eBay and at
> local shops? Do I need a massive tripod, or will a basic Bogen 3001-type
> work?

Used speed/crown graphics are plentiful and cheap. They come with a
normal lens and have a slight amount of front movements which will do
for most landscape photography at reasonable distances. Try midwest
photo or KEH to see the range of models and prices.

Ebay is also a choice, but you need to know more about what you are
getting.

Another option is to rent a camera for a few days and see how you like
it. Many stores will let you apply part of the rental fee to eventual
purchase.

For details on graphic cameras go to:
http://www.graflex.org/

--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail: robertdfeinman@netscape.net


From: dpcwilbur@excite.com (Collin Brendemuehl)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: newbie: LF for hiking and landscapes?
Date: 8 Jun 2004 

Mike,

Yes, you can do a fine job in that price range.
As a starter body look for a Busch Pressman 'D' camera body.
Press cameras are durable and low-cost.
This will give you some basic and useful front lens movements.
The body can run you from $75 to $200, depending on conditon.

For a lens, keep your eye out for a Schneider Symmar-S 150mm.
This will be $200ish and very suitable for your application.
Add to these a changing bag and some film holders and your set
in terms of hardware.

To cut lens costs a little more and still get a really nice one,
the Symmar 135/5.6 - 235/12 is a very good buy. They run $100 to
$150.
As a 135mm lens I've been pleased with the results. You can take off
the front element for 235mm in a pinch.

For landscapes of vertical things like trees and mountains, adding
a little rise to the front lens helps greatly with perspective.
No more trees falling backward.

Rear movement is good to have if your landscapes involve (among other
things) flat land areas in front of you. You can adjust the
perspective on close items as well.

Being a cheesehead myself, go down to Wyalusing State Park and use the
4x5 over the confluence of the Wisconsin & Mississippi rivers. Do it
in the fall after the trees have turned. Beautiful. I'll be in the
area in July.

Collin


From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: newbie: LF for hiking and landscapes?
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 

Mike wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've been a 35mm enthusiast for the last 24 months (since I took up
> photography). However once I tried printing a 6x6 B&W; negative from a $50
> YashicaMat ebay purchase (on a whim), I saw how much more beautiful my
> 11x14 and 16x20 prints could be with a larger negative. The problem is
> that I really don't care for the TLR camera and am looking at other
> options.
>
> I'm a student and on a tight budget. The Pentax and Mamiya 645 cameras
> seem appealing, but pricey and bulky.
>
> Then I saw a picture of a 4x5 field camera folded up and started thinking
> how this might actually be better for hiking!
>
> My primary interests are landscape photography (and candids...which I would
> keep using 35mm). I don't understand how movements would be useful to me
> and from my understanding, these "view cameras" are bulky.
>
> Can I do anything in LF for $200-450? What should I look for on eBay and at
> local shops? Do I need a massive tripod, or will a basic Bogen 3001-type work?

Well a 3001 isn't going to do it. You'll need at least their next size up
one, that's what I use. I think it's a 3221/3047 head.

I use a super graphic and it's light and compact. It and 3 lenses isn't
much if any heavier than a 6X6 or larger medformat SLR with 3 lenses and it
fit into basically the same space. You get shift and tilt which is useful
for landscapes and of course you get a giant size negative.


Now the bad news. The hassle is the film holders, the cost of
film/processing, avoiding dust (which is a problem unless you're ultra anal
about handleing the film, I'm not..). The camera and lenses fits about the
same space as a medformat SLR kit, but the film and holders doesn't. There
are ready loads but they are expencive, I've never used them. If you're on
a budget, you won't be able to either. Carrying enough film holder to shoot
even a dozen shots is a hassle.

I find myself using my medium format SLR's much more because of the film
hassles. Medformat prices are dropping fast. I'm sure you could get an
older M645 mamiya for your budget price. KEH has a "bargain" rated one with
an 80mm lens, prism and 120 insert for $250 right now. Their bargain stuff
is ussually pretty nice and has a warranty. Also this would work with the
tripod you have now as well. If you're happy with your prints from the
yashica, you'll be happy with a 6x4.5 as well. I can shoot 220 film, get 30
shots on one roll and still get really nice 8x10's, which is what I print
most of the time.
--
Stacey


From: Claude DiBugnara dibugnara@sbcglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: newbie: LF for hiking and landscapes?
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 

...
You can add to the above list: Kodak's Large Format Photography.
However, that one is probably better in gloss than substance compared to
either Stone's or Simmons' books. There's Medium and Large Format
Photography by Roger Hicks and Frances Schultz, which may help you in
case you're still undecided between LF and MF. Finally, there's Leslie
Stroebel's View Camera Techniques, which is more a reference book than a
first-time introductory book. Since you're starting at square-one, I'd
recommend either Stone's or Simmons' book for a first-time book. Later,
add Dykinga's book, as well as many other prominent LF landscape artist
books: Muench, Fielder, Cornish, and so on.

Claude


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Kodak 127 for 4x5?
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 

"Raoul" gr8raoul@yahoo.com wrote...
> massimilianosantoniX@Xtiscali.it wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > I'm Italian; excuseme for my bad english.
>
> It's better than my Italian. ;)
>
> > I'm a new user of large format.
> > Can I adapt a Kodak 127 from my Graflex 3x4 on my Graflex view 4x5?
> > The circle of image is sufficient for the movements of camera?
>
> Yes and no. I've used a 127 Ektar on a Graphic View and, yes, it
> covers but, no, you don't have much movement. About a 1/4 to 1/2 inch
> either way. Now, the effect of being a little soft on the corners
> didn't really bother me too much. I kinda liked it.
>
> One benefit of the 127 is that is does a good job on closeups and it
> can effectively used wide open. So that may give you some creative options.
>
> > Which film b/w can use with Polaroid 545 holder?
>
> All of the Poloroid films, of course. At one time, Kodak recommended
> using the 545 for their Readyloads but I don't think they do any more.
> > Thanks for response, Massimiliano Santoni.

4x5 press cameras were typically equipped with 135mm or
127mm lenses because a somewhat wide angle lens is usful for
press work. The lenses are right at their limit of coverage
since both focal lengths are really meant for 3-1/4 x 4-1/4.
Both the 127mm Kodak Ektar and 135mm Zeiss Tessar will cover
4x5 at around f/11 or smaller. Before about 1941 the Zeiss
Tessar was the standard lens on Speed Graphics, although the
Bausch & Lomb version of the Tessar was also used in
considerable quantity. Once Zeiss lenses became unavailable
Graflex switched to Kodak lenses and shutters. The Ektar is
probably silghtly better than the Tessar but both are
excellent lenses.

"Normal" focal length for 4x5 is 150mm. The coverage of a
lens depends on its design. On the narrow side are "dialyte"
types like the Goerz Dogmar, Apochromatic Artar, and Kodak
Anastigmat 70 series and the f/7.7, 205mm Ektar. These have
image circles no larger in diameter at infinity focus than
the focal length. On the wide coverage side are lenses like
the Goerz Dagor and modern plasmat types, and, of course,
wide angle lenses wich can have image circles much larger in
diameter than the focal length. A Tessar type falls
somewhere in the middle. A good Tessar like the above can
cover about 65 degrees at f/22 but has virtually nothing
beyond this for movements. This is about the condition of a
127mm lens covering 4x5.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com




End of Page