[LargeFormat] Graflex Adventures

[Richard Knoppow]

    I recently dug out my Super-D Graflex and a Calumet roll 
film holder and did some shooting with it. The first roll 
was awful, underexposed and blurry, plus the images were 
mis-framed. I decided to recheck the alignment of the 
camera. I discovered that the mis-framing was due mostly to 
the makeshift finder mask I had made but some of it was due 
to the whole finder image being slightly off-set from the 
film image. I corrected the problem for the roll holder by 
making a new mask. I used thick clear plastic to make the 
overlay and marked the limits by placing the roll adaptor on 
the camera with a bit of ground glass in the film gate. The 
other problem remains. I made some marks with a marker on 
the top of the ground glass to give a guide as to the actual 
picture limits but I could not find anything adjustable. The 
film gate seems to be exactly centered on the optical axis 
so it is the reflex finder which is off. I could find no 
adjustments whatever. The mirror is located by the internal 
construction of the body and is where it belongs. The finder 
screen is mounted on two strips which allow adjusting for 
focus match but not for any other movement. It is also 
located by the body of the camera. This camera was modified 
at some time for a Graflok back. I thought at first that 
this might be the problem but it proved not to be. It also 
has a Fresnel in the finder but these were standard on 
Super-D Graflex's. The Graflok back has a somewhat different 
depth than the original Graflex back, requiring shimming of 
the finder screen to get it to match. After spending a lot 
of time with this I found that my original shimming was 
correct, very odd. I also tested the shutter for speed. I 
use a Calumet shutter tester. To measure focal plane 
shutters the intensity of the light at the tester must be 
adjusted so that it measures from the 50% exposure points 
rather than total open time. This is not hard to do. I made 
two sets of measurements, one with no lens and a fairly 
distant source, the other with the lens in place and focused 
on a large, diffuse, source. Both sets were the same within 
reasonable limits. The shutter on this camera is pretty 
accurate at low and medium speeds. It is slow at the highest 
speeds but that may be due to not getting complete 
correction for the difference between total open time and 
_effective_ speed. The Graflex shutter is not particularly 
efficient so its effective time is significantly shorter 
than than the total open time for the narrowest slits.
   I shot another roll a couple of days ago, included in 
this roll were some test shots using a tripod. The results 
were reasonably properly exposed although I think the 
effective speed of the shutter may be a little fast even 
though it measures right. I.e. somewhat thin negatives. The 
shots were dead sharp. Both the Ektar and Optar lenses used 
on these cameras are excellent. So, I don't know what the 
problem with the original roll was. The new finder mask also 
eliminated off the mark frames.
  The Calumet holder is heavy and somewhat unbalanced. Its 
necessary to use the lock strips of the Graflok back to be 
sure it stays firmly in the camera. While these adaptors 
will work in nearly any spring back their weight and balance 
requires great care in use to be sure they haven't pulled 
out slightly, the lock strips on the Graflok assure stable 
location.
   The focal length of the lens in the 4x5 Super-D is 190mm. 
This is just about right for portraits using a 6x7 holder 
like the Calumet. The only problem for pictures of women is 
that its so sharp. The Super-D is a big, heavy (nearly 10 
lbs) camera but very well designed for hand held use so I 
like it for portrait work. I am quite sure a Mamiya RB/RZ 67 
would be a better and lighter camera, but I don't have one 
and can't afford one, so I stick with the Graflex.
   I know there are a few other Graflex users on this list 
and perhaps a some others who are curious about this camera, 
I hope this post will be of interest to them.
   BTW, the film used for the second test is HP-5+ which is 
10 years past expiration. This has been refrigerated for 
most of its life. The fog level is quite reasonable (low) 
and otherwise the film seems as good as if fresh. 
Development is in D-76 1:1.
   BTW, another small puzzle: D-76 and Ilford ID-11 are very 
similar. I am speaking of the packaged developers, not the 
published formulas, which are identical. Presumably, the 
development charts published by Ilford are for the packaged 
variety. One would think the times to be the same: they are 
not!  For D-76 1:1 the time is 11 minutes @ 68F and for 
ID-11 1:1 it is 13 minutes @ 68F. Since the negatives look 
just a bit low in contrast perhaps I should have used the 
ID-11 times. I will try this next time since I still have 
quite a bit of this film.

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