Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,296   Posts: 1,535,730   Online: 836
      
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 61
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    san jose, ca
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,537
    Images
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm View Post
    Tim, there is no beamsplitter in a Graflex SLR. There's a mirror. 100%/0%. All of the light goes to the GG, or all of the light goes to the film.

    Most of the recipes for replacing a Graflex SLR's Graflex back with a Graflok back require that the ground glass be shimmed to adjust for the different flange-to-film distance.
    Dan,

    I know there is no beam splitter. There is a point where the image beam either goes up to the viewer or back to the film plane. That's the split point. They are tied by geometry. Change the distance to the lens for one, you need to change the other. By adding distance to the back to put an adapter on, it changes the length to the lens. The distance to the viewing screen does not change. What is in focus on the view screen, is not in focus on the film plane.

    I'm tired of trying explain it. When your pictures come out fuzzy, you know why.

    If some guy has built an adapter for the 3x4 that does not change the length from the film plane to the lens, go for it. Me? I'll just use 3x4 film or my 120 roll film adapter.

    tim
    Where ever you are, there you be.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,147
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by k_jupiter View Post
    Dan,

    I know there is no beam splitter. There is a point where the image beam either goes up to the viewer or back to the film plane. That's the split point. They are tied by geometry. Change the distance to the lens for one, you need to change the other. By adding distance to the back to put an adapter on, it changes the length to the lens. The distance to the viewing screen does not change. What is in focus on the view screen, is not in focus on the film plane.

    I'm tired of trying explain it. When your pictures come out fuzzy, you know why.

    If some guy has built an adapter for the 3x4 that does not change the length from the film plane to the lens, go for it. Me? I'll just use 3x4 film or my 120 roll film adapter.

    tim
    i know what you mean tim
    it seems like an awful lot of work
    to ... waste 1/4 of a 4x5 sheet of film ..

    pablogustav: is the main reason why you want to convert the camera because
    your lab-guy doesn't want to scan your negatives ? using a roll back will allow you
    to shoot a larger variety of film and still remain friends with your lab guy

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by k_jupiter View Post

    I'm tired of trying explain it. When your pictures come out fuzzy, you know why.
    I'm pretty sure everybody here understands the concept. We just seem to disagree how big of a problem that is to overcome and/or the utility of doing it

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    11
    Yes, thanks for the welcome very much; I have lurked on here for a while and have always enjoyed the brainstorming that goes on in this forum and this is a great example of it. I took photography in high school in the 70s and my first camera was a Canon Ftb that I bought brand new when I was 16 after working summers on a farm picking string beans for $2.20 an hour. I had a darkroom in the basement that my brother and dad helped me build that ended up instead being my solitary haven by telling my parents that they couldn't come in when the safe light was on; so I could basically get stoned in there instead...ah those great teenage years and the fun photos. I then loved super 8 for many years, making movies in college and still do enjoy it. I have 3 girls and for the early years when my oldest was quite young I still used a Nikkormat to document her progress. After my twin girls were born and I was hallucinating from sleep deprivation for 5 years straight, I embraced digital photography as it was easier and the results were quite good for documenting all the chaos that dominated the household. My enthusiasm became muted though, as I saw the millions of photos on computer screens that only live in computer screens; I sadly lamented the wonderful photo albums or personal loving scrapbooks lost, that no one makes anymore. My wife has wonderful black and white photos of her ancestors in wonderful formal clothes for the special occasion of a portrait and how come these look so much better than anything achieved with all the latest technology? As my kids have gotten older (one 16 and two 10years), we began to discover and enjoy together Buster Keaton films and an old stereo photo viewer that I have with wonderful old stereo prints. I realized that I was starting to form their aesthetic appreciation, as they were not as impressed as they used to be with a CGI hollywood movie and would enjoy more watching the original version of "20,000 leagues under the sea" instead. I began to really turn into an obsessed Luddite and jettisoned most of my super 8 cameras and now only use wind up mechanical regular 8 and 16 mm cameras. These cameras are engineering marvels that are built to last and are a joy to operate (even if my good results are only about 50%). I now see myself taking a parallel path with still cameras, as I have sold the Mamiya 7II and the Pentax 645nII that I was so in love with and now only want machines of castings, machinery and wood. Last year I got a Graflex National and just love screwing around with this thing; and when one shot by chance happens to come out great it is so meaningful. I have this one photo of my eldest daughter who is Gluten intolerant standing in a wheat field scowling that is worth more to me than most of the digital photos I have ever taken. I have no idea what I am babbling about and some of the responses to my query have left me amazed just by the sheer technical mastery of these machines that I have yet to comprehend. Perhaps I feel a little bit intimidated now, that I was being hasty in my thoughts about the Graflex RB. I just have been having so much fun with the 3 1/4 with the auto diaphragm. I would like to purchase, as some have suggested an auto 4 x 5; but the last two I watched on ebay went for over 1k and the 3 1/4 I purchased for $200....Even if my problem or puzzle does not get solved, I want to thank all for their help and obvious commitment to these classic methods and machinery; for all these creations I think give us the needed therapy for exiting, for a brief respite anyway, the crazy, technical and sometimes unsympathetic world.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails pic673.jpg   pic672.jpg  

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    548
    Hmm, that's quite ridiculous. I recently sold my Super D to someone over at Large Format Photography for $500 (or was that $450? ).

    Well, you can wait a while and see how I fare. I'll update you when/if I hear back from Bert.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,378
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    hi pablogustav

    see if you can contact the person who posted the photographs of his 3x4 to 4x5 conversion here
    http://photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/00OQrN
    he said it took him 20 mins and it was not difficult

    good luck !
    john
    Putting a 4x5 back on the 3x4 will allow you to use 4x5 film. It will not cover the entire sheet of film though.
    In my opinion it butchers the 3x4, while not functioning properly.

  7. #27
    mhcfires's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    El Cajon, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    550
    I still have three boxes of Efke 3x4 film in the freezer. I have some Ilford 3x4 film from their special order last year also in the fridge. When this stuff is gone I may start cutting x-ray film and using it. The stuff is dirt cheap, works quite well and I have been using it in my 5x7 Kodak 2D. I am tempted to put a graflok back on one of my 3x4 Series-D cameras (Not Super-D), this thread gives me some inspiration. Rawhead, let us know if Bert is still making those adapter plates.

    m
    Michael Cienfuegos


    If you don't want to stand behind our troops, please feel free to stand in front of them.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,147
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    Putting a 4x5 back on the 3x4 will allow you to use 4x5 film. It will not cover the entire sheet of film though.
    In my opinion it butchers the 3x4, while not functioning properly.
    yeah, i know ... but at least the camera's being used ?
    rather than being a "shelf diva" ...

    it's too bad the OP's lab-guy doesn't just make quick and dirty contact prints ( he is in a photo lab ?)
    and make numericalizations of the prints instead of the films ... it seems the OP's main reason for wanting to "upgrade" his camera
    is to accommodate his lab-guy's not wanting to deal 3x4 film because it doesn't fit in the negative holder correctly.
    heck, he could just put the film in a contact printing frame, leave it out in the sun for a few hours and scan the
    ephemeral sun prints ( or make cyanotypes that last forever ) ... much easier and cheaper than frankenstiening a camera ...
    Last edited by jnanian; 02-12-2013 at 03:02 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    san jose, ca
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,537
    Images
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    yeah, i know ... but at least the camera's being used ?
    rather than being a "shelf diva" ...

    it's too bad the OP's lab-guy doesn't just make quick and dirty contact prints ( he is in a photo lab ?)
    and make numericalizations of the prints instead of the films ... it seems the OP's main reason for wanting to "upgrade" his camera
    is to accommodate his lab-guy's not wanting to deal 3x4 film because it doesn't fit in the negative holder correctly.
    heck, he could just put the film in a contact printing frame, leave it out in the sun for a few hours and scan the
    ephemeral sun prints ( or make cyanotypes that last forever ) ... much easier and cheaper than frankenstiening a camera ...
    So what would a 6x9 Graphics roll film holder for a 3x4 rb be worth? My daughter goes to college next year....
    Where ever you are, there you be.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Washington, the state
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,099
    Images
    16
    My solution:

    Got a Beseler 45 MX II enlarger off of eBay: Cost $17
    Got a 3x4 film holder off of eBay: Cost $30
    Got a Schneider 135mm Componon-S enlarging lens: cost $50

    I just print the 3x4 film myself. Setup cost was less than $100.
    Dave

    "She's always out making pictures, She's always out making scenes.
    She's always out the window, When it comes to making Dreams.

    It's all mixed up, It's all mixed up, It's all mixed up."

    From It's All Mixed Up by The Cars

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin