[LargeFormat] Graflex Adventures

[Lanz]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk at ix.netcom.com>
To: "f32 Large Format Photography Mail List" <largeformat at f32.net>
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 12:53 AM
Subject: [LargeFormat] Graflex Adventures


>    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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LargeFormat mailing list
> LargeFormat at f32.net
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/largeformat
>