Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,719   Posts: 1,670,019   Online: 1039
      
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 58
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by fotch View Post
    It is so much easier to cut the film to size, why go through all the effort to re-invent the .......?
    I don't know if you've read everything in the thread, but it is *not* "so much easier to cut the film to size."

    1. The conversion takes 20 minutes, as per one of the links above suggested: How many 3x4s can you cut from an 8x10 in a darkroom that some of us don't have or a dark bag where you can barely squeeze in a paper cutter in 20 minutes?

    2. The conversion is semi-permanent: once you do it, you're set. You can use 4x5 film or 3x4 instant, or any of the roll film backs up to 6x12 to your heart's content; cutting film to size has to be done every single time you want to shoot, for the rest of your life

    3. The 4x5 that comes out of your converted back can be easily developed at your developers (at least any of them that do 4x5); like the OP says, not always the case with 3x4

    4. The 4x5 that comes out of your converted back can be easily scanned on your Epson flatbed (or Imacon) scanners with 4x5 holders; with 3x4 film, you are on your own to DIY a 3x4 holder

    5. The modification is non-destructive (despite how some people are insisting on calling it "butchering") and 100% reversible



    It's funny how y'all have these elaborate "workarounds" to make this near-obsolete technology work in the modern-day and yet would accuse those of us looking for a simple, one-time solution to the problem as somehow "going through all the trouble"

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    17
    thank you Yronnen, I believe that is the advice I have been looking for. Now, you have given me the insight into how this is done. I agree with many comments, that we do not want to bastardize these fine old beasts. I will leave my 4 x 5 series b alone as it is perfect as it is. I will search for a destroyed carcass of a 4 x 5 and take the graflex back from it and install it on the 3 1/4 per your advice. As it is easily converted back, I see no harm in it. thanks so much! Here is a shot I took of my twins with the 4 x 5; I love these cameras!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails ??263.jpg  

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Washington, the state
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,173
    Images
    17
    How is it an "elaborate" workaround to put film in a film holder, make an exposure, process the film and make a print?
    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

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Quote Originally Posted by rawhead View Post
    I don't know if you've read everything in the thread, but it is *not* "so much easier to cut the film to size."

    1. The conversion takes 20 minutes, as per one of the links above suggested: How many 3x4s can you cut from an 8x10 in a darkroom that some of us don't have or a dark bag where you can barely squeeze in a paper cutter in 20 minutes?

    2. The conversion is semi-permanent: once you do it, you're set. You can use 4x5 film or 3x4 instant, or any of the roll film backs up to 6x12 to your heart's content; cutting film to size has to be done every single time you want to shoot, for the rest of your life

    3. The 4x5 that comes out of your converted back can be easily developed at your developers (at least any of them that do 4x5); like the OP says, not always the case with 3x4

    4. The 4x5 that comes out of your converted back can be easily scanned on your Epson flatbed (or Imacon) scanners with 4x5 holders; with 3x4 film, you are on your own to DIY a 3x4 holder

    5. The modification is non-destructive (despite how some people are insisting on calling it "butchering") and 100% reversible



    It's funny how y'all have these elaborate "workarounds" to make this near-obsolete technology work in the modern-day and yet would accuse those of us looking for a simple, one-time solution to the problem as somehow "going through all the trouble"
    I couldn't tell that from the link posted. As long as it doesn't permanently change the camera, all is well.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by mopar_guy View Post
    How is it an "elaborate" workaround to put film in a film holder, make an exposure, process the film and make a print?
    When you need to

    1. Cut larger size film to 3x4 every single time, or
    1'. order 3x4 film with limited selection and double the price from a faraway land since you can't get it at your local shop

    before you can "put film in a film holder", and

    2. find a lab who will work with 3x4 film (since not all of them do), or
    2'. buy a developing tank that can take 3x4 film, since I know my Jobo 2509 ain't gonna cut it

    before you can process the film, and

    3. find a lab who will work with 3x4 film (see above), or
    3'. re-equip your darkroom with materials required for 3x4 printing (neg holders, etc)

    before you can print the film. Provided, of course, you *have* a darkroom to begin with, which not all of us do. I know I don't.



    All of this vs., a non-destrutive, 100% reversible mod that will cost you maybe $100 and will be finished in less than 1 hour.
    Last edited by rawhead; 02-13-2013 at 09:32 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16
    Sorry I just realised that I did not make it clear in my previous post (as yronnen) the conversion I suggested using a 4x5 Graflex back which IMHO does little to compromise the aesthetic integrity of the camera as you are just swapping like for like. It just happens the back is an inch is an or so wider. It does not result in you being able to achieve 4x5 images on the film with a 3x4 Graflex SLR. You get 3x4 images on the film but you are spared the need to cut down the film.
    Glad some found my post useful.
    Last edited by Roger Hesketh; 02-13-2013 at 12:41 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    558
    Got a hold of Bert. He wasn't well, and he claims he's getting up there age-wise (he's 82) and don't know how long he'll continue making these things. I was able to secure one 3x4 Graflex to 4x5 Graflok conversion plate from him, which should be arriving in a week or two Will let you all know how it goes.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    17

    sheet developing

    Thank you Roger and Rawhead,

    Thanks for all help and advice. To update; I recently went to my photo finisher around the corner from me and was told they will no longer handle my 3 1/4" x 4 1/4" negs anymore....so, I went to my other option on the other end of town and dropped off my 12 sheets to them from my magbag. Their fee is 4.50 per sheet. They are a great shop that is keeping film alive, but I realized I definitely do not want to be spending that amount for every sheet. The counter person understood my dilemma and as many people have advised, he showed me a Patterson tank with an adjustable frame that I can load my sheets into for developing. For $40 it seems like the obvious way to go. Before I purchase it, I just wanted to see if that is a good standard tank that most people use or should I be considering another brand? Also, I am following Rawhead's advice and looking out for an old beater RB that I can scavenge the 4 x 5 rotating back off of to install on the smaller Graflex, but for now, I want to give developing it myself a try. Here is the last photo I took with the RB series B 4 x 5; these cameras are really a hoot!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails gg:g.reflex.jpg  

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    san jose, ca
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,569
    Images
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by pablogustav View Post
    Thank you Roger and Rawhead,

    Thanks for all help and advice. To update; I recently went to my photo finisher around the corner from me and was told they will no longer handle my 3 1/4" x 4 1/4" negs anymore....so, I went to my other option on the other end of town and dropped off my 12 sheets to them from my magbag. Their fee is 4.50 per sheet. They are a great shop that is keeping film alive, but I realized I definitely do not want to be spending that amount for every sheet. The counter person understood my dilemma and as many people have advised, he showed me a Patterson tank with an adjustable frame that I can load my sheets into for developing. For $40 it seems like the obvious way to go. Before I purchase it, I just wanted to see if that is a good standard tank that most people use or should I be considering another brand? Also, I am following Rawhead's advice and looking out for an old beater RB that I can scavenge the 4 x 5 rotating back off of to install on the smaller Graflex, but for now, I want to give developing it myself a try. Here is the last photo I took with the RB series B 4 x 5; these cameras are really a hoot!
    A Patterson tank with an adjustable frame for 3.25x4.25??
    News to me.

    I use the Patterson System 4 tank with handmade nylon screen tubes that you fit the film in (Emulsion to the inside). You get 4 or 5 tubes per load. Develop just like 135 film. The other solution is with fluorescent tube protectors cut to length, but then you have an additional step of washing the anti-halation film off the back when you are finished processing.

    Good luck. You will find processing your own give infinitely more control over your whole process.

    tim in san jose
    Where ever you are, there you be.

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    558
    Here you go; got the conversion plate from Bert a couple days ago, finally found the time to do the conversion. Took all of 35 minutes. 100% reversible.

    Only issue at the moment is that there's a focus calibration issue, and I may have to adjust the top ground glass to coincide with the rear focal plane.

    It covers a pretty big chunk of a 4x5 Fuji Instant film. Need to check with 3x4 Instant as well as 4x5 film, coming soon

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0806.jpg 
Views:	30 
Size:	475.4 KB 
ID:	64992

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0808.JPG 
Views:	28 
Size:	210.8 KB 
ID:	64993

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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