Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,228   Posts: 1,532,809   Online: 1018
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
  1. #1
    KenM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    800
    I purchased a used Gandofi Variant Level 3 a few months back, right before I began construction on my new darkroom. I ran some quick tests, found everything to be satisfactory, and ended up selling my Toyo 45AII.

    A few weeks ago, after I had finished the darkroom, I started going out more with the camera. However, I found that I was getting fogged negatives. I initially though it was the Grafmatic backs, but after further testing, and careful inspection of the camera, I found that it was letting an unsettling amount of light in (well, any light not coming in through the lens would be unsettling!).

    There were three light leaks:

    1. Around the lens opening in the front standard, due to poor fitting lens boards. One of my lens boards was fine; the other three were way too loose. This leak was fixed by putting a ring of weather stripping around the inside of the opening, painting the opening black (it was finished wood before), and using black tape on the inside of the opening to make sure that no light would leak underneath the weather stripping. Leak covered.

    2. My camera has a revolving back (Calumet/Cambo?). When a light is shone from the inside of the camera out at a very particular angle (with a grafmatic loaded), you can see light on the outside of the camera. However, going the other direction does not show any light at all, at least that I can see.

    3. After further investigation of the back, it appears that Grafmatics don't work particularly well with this camera back - the springs are stretched too far to hold the back snugly in place. I thought about using the backs with just the clips (remove the glass), but I'm not confident that the clips would hold the back securely enough. After further investigation, it appears that #2 may be caused the Grafmatic's as well, due to the stress put on the revolving back.

    As I test, I put all my 2-sheet film holders through a strenuous test outside in the bright sunshine, with no protection for the back. Expose a negative, rotate the back, and the camera in the sunshine. Developed all the negs - no fogging.

    So, I'm back to my cut sheet film holders. I can only carry 24 sheets of film as opposed to 36, but it's still pretty tough to run through 24 sheets in a single day.

    After that long narrative, has anyone else has problems with rotating backs? How about light leaks in general - had problems finding a leak?

    It took me about 3 hours Friday night, and a few hours Sunday to diagnose and fix all these problems. I know, however, can rest assured that I have a light-tight camera.

    I hope :-D
    Cheers!

    -klm.

  2. #2
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,215
    Images
    20
    I'm not sure about the Gandolfi, but I use Grafmatics on my Technika with just the clips and the groundglass removed, and they work fine. They were designed to work that way, mainly for press photographers focusing by rangefinder who didn't need the extra weight of a groundglass back.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  3. #3
    KenM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    800
    Well, the camera back is, I believe, a Calumet or Cambo rotating back, so it's a *standard* back (as standard as you can get, I would guess). The clips, however, do not fit into the groove on neither the Grafmatic backs, or the standard cut sheet holders. I had the same problem on my Toyo.

    Do the clips on your back fit into the grooves?
    Cheers!

    -klm.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Pikes Peak
    Posts
    205
    I use graphmatics almost exclusively for cut film on a Tech IV under the spring back. I rarely use the graphlocs and unless I get over eager in working the film drawer I do not get light leaks.

    In the past I did get light leaks with graphmatics as I found I was pulling back when operating the film changing drawer. If you use the graphlocs like David does you won't have this problem.

  5. #5
    KenM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    800
    Sorry, nope.

    I can take a flashlight,and shine it onto the back from the lens standard (without the lens, of course) and I can see light flashes through a small space at the corner of the grafmatic - it just doesn't seat flat.

    The holder seems to be flat, it just doesn't sit 'deep' enough.

    A two-sheet holder does not have this problem - I just finished running a few more tests, and no fogging at all. I rotated the camera through all the motions, making sure sunlight hit all parts of the camera.

    Barnbaum uses Gramatics with a Tech IV as well, and he doesn't get light leaks either....

    Me? I'll stick with cut sheet holders for now.
    Cheers!

    -klm.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Pikes Peak
    Posts
    205
    That's odd as when I look at a Lisco vs. Graphmatic it appears to me that a Lisco would be more likely to leak at the corner. Oh well, graphmatics are certainly not necessary but it would drive me crazy trying to figure out why.

    I would probably end up destroying both camera and graphmatic in a possibly futile attempt to fix. A personal failing :oops:

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Gandolfi is pretty good at answering e mails, why not drop them a line?

  8. #8
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,215
    Images
    20
    Yes, the Graflok slides fit the grooves on a Grafmatic properly on my Tech V.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  9. #9
    KenM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    800
    By jove, I think I found the problem.

    Check out this link:

    http://www.apug.org/site/main/album_page.php?pic_id=672

    You're looking at the bottom left of the camera back, removed from the camera.

    See the tab on the left? That tab prevents the grafmatic from sliding in all the way. The ridge on the grafmatic therefore doesn't slip into the groove on teh camera back, making a light-tight seal. If you do push the back down far enough to seat the notch and groove, the bottom left of the back is raised away from the camera back, again preventing a light tight seal.

    My question is this: what the heck is that hole for? It's threaded...

    I'm tempted to grind the sucker off.

    Opinions?
    Cheers!

    -klm.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Pikes Peak
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by KenM

    I'm tempted to grind the sucker off.

    Opinions?
    Since that's the kind of thing I would do I'll give you the benifit of my hard won and often painful experience. DON'T DO IT!!!

    Really why not try Jorge's idea first.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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