Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,701   Posts: 1,548,419   Online: 1038
      
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 61
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Washington, the state
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,131
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by yronnen View Post
    The simplest solution is to replace the 3x4 Graflex back with a 4x5 Graflex back not a 4x5 Graflok

    I like being able to use the roll film holders and bag mags between my cameras but Efke has now gone leaving only Wephoto or the Ilford special order run and quarter plate FP4 + is twice the price of 4x5 here in UK.


    Roger
    For me, I just loaded up some film holders and made some exposures. I didn't need to find a 4x5 Graflex Back. For my first shots I just bought some 8x10 sheet film and cut five pieces of 3-1/4x4-1/4 and viola, I had t-max 400 to use the camera. Quite simple. If you cannot make a 3-1/4x4-1/4 camera work as is, you aren't trying very hard.
    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

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    san jose, ca
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,547
    Images
    77
    As a result of this conversation, went and picked up the 3x4 rb from the bookshelf in my living room. It's beautiful. A timeless design. The predecessor of the rb67.

    Never, never, never will I butcher this tool to make something more 'useful'. It has its original leather hood, the 150mm Tessar lens; I have the Graphics 69 on the back (and a boatload of Graflex film holders).

    Butcher your cameras, as someone pointed out; they are not that rare. I'll keep mine as a tribute to Weston, and a hell of a fine camera in its original form. And... it's older than my parents (May they rest in a long deserved peace).

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

  3. #43
    fotch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    SE WI- USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,141
    It is so much easier to cut the film to size, why go through all the effort to re-invent the .......?
    Items for sale or trade at www.Camera35.com

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    548
    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"

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    11
    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  

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Washington, the state
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,131
    Images
    16
    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

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,459
    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.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    548
    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.

  9. #49

    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.

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    548
    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.

Page 5 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