"jch" <jch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:47CB0284.5060302@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>>> Could you name three brands and formats i should look
>>> into? Back in
>>> 1982/3 i rented a 4x5 camera once to complete an
>>> assignment for a glossy
>>> magazine spread. I used Ektachrome sheet film if i
>>> recall correctly.
>>
>> I can recommend one: get a nice used Crown Graphic (*not*
>> a Speed Graphic), with the Kodak Ektar 127mm lens (one of
>> the most common). Yes, it lacks movements (tilts, swings,
>> etc.), but it'll get you started very nicely, and folds
>> up into a nice compact package.
> _____
> David,
>
> Thanks for this recommendation. Shall start visiting the
> various local photographic shops.
>
>>> My Durst enlarger can handle a maximum negative/positive
>>> size of 6cm x
>>> 9cm. I would need to get another enlarger. My darkroom
>>> (still to be
>>> rebuilt) is _very_ small.
>>
>> Like LF cameras, used enlargers are now going very
>> cheaply, either locally available or on a certain little
>> web auction site. (If you're in an area served by
>> Craigslist, check there.)
>>
>> A 4x5 enlarger doesn't take up that much more room than
>> your present one.
> _____
> Fair enough. Have you any recommendations for enlargers?
> I have _never_ looked at MF or LF enlargers. Are they
> mainly condenser types, or the diffusion types? For
> example, the condenser in the Durst is already pretty
> massive and heavy. I shall also have to design the
> enlarger base surface for multiple enlarger mounts.
> --
> Regards / JCH
The usual reason for rejecting the Speed Graphic is
weight, the Crown is lighter and has a shallower box.
However I do find the focal plane shutter to be useful
especially for barrel type lenses. Also, Crown Graphics,
originally the economy model, are often more expensive than
the Speed Graphic on the used market.
Either will give you a taste for LF although they have
very limited movements and limited bellows draw. Graphic
cameras were intended to be hand held and offer a way of
getting a large negative for situations where a tripod can
not be used.
Older Graphics do not have some features of the later
series but these may not be important to you. The Pacemaker
Graphic has a front tilt which is not available in the
earlier models and a body release. I would choose a camera
on the basis of condition rather than model.
Graphics made after about 1951 had the Graflok back as
standard. However, the back could be refitted onto any
Graphic so many earlier Graphics, including the Anniversary
series, are found with the Graflok. This back is desirable
because it allows using certain accessories like roll film
adaptors but has no particular advantage for shooting sheet
film in conventional holders. Make sure any Graflok back has
the Ektalite field lens (Fresnel lens) installed. Some very
early versions did not have the lens but later ones all did.
The problem is that they are sometimes missing and
replacements are hard to find. The presense of the lens is
important in establishing the correct plane for the ground
glass, that is, if the Fresnel is missing the ground glass
will be in the wrong position.
As for lenses, the best of the standard lenses were the
Kodak Ektar f/4.7, 127mm and f/4.5 152mm (not often found).
Next best are probably the Zeiss Tessars found on older
models. I have not had good results from the Wollensak Optar
series standard lenses although the telephoto lenses are
very good. Unfortunately, Graflex went to the Wollensak lens
as standard in the early 1950's. The Wollensak shutter was
better suited for use with a flash synchronizing solenoid
than the Kodak Supermatic and that may have been one reason.
Both the Wollensak and Kodak shutters are excellent but many
of the Wollensak lenses leave something to be desired. The
Kodak Ektar can IMO hold its own against modern glass.
There is a great deal more on these cameras at the
Graflex org site at Http://www.graflex.org
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
