First Shots with Graphic Century

I aquired this last week and today was the first decent day for picture taking.

(Well, it's a typical British summer, init?)

 

The camera came from Fotofix ( http://www.fotofixuk.co.uk/ ) who are camera

mechanics and have some very good stock at attractive prices. I previously

bought a 135mm Serenar from them at a bargain price and it has proved excellent.

 

I didn't want to try the Century out until I had found a decent lens hood for it

as I assumed the Graftar would require some shielding. Having aquired one, I

went out to a local village and shot off a roll. The result was seven pleasantly

sharp images plus a spectacular double exposure - ALWAYS wind on immediately

after making an exposure!

 

I came across a tip not to use the Kalart rangefinder's extension tube and with

that unscrewed, the rangefinder was an absolute delight. The eye-level finder is

a bit tight for the format, so I need to allow a bit more space around the shots

in future. I did as the old-timers would and stewed the FP4 slightly to boost

the contrast a little: 9 minutes at 20C in Acutol seems to have worked quite well...<div></div>

I'm actually planning to use this for 6x9 slides and I'm waiting as patiently as I can for some Velvia 50 that's in the post.<div></div>

And here's the beastie itself, in all it's red-bellowed glory :-)))<div></div>

Oh, your Graphic Century looks great. Is it required to sut the film before put it in to the film box?

H,

 

Pictures simple great!

 

Since I left Britain I don`t use my usual developer for Ilford film: Acutol. Good one.

 

The beastie is a pretty piece of jewellery, but please, don`t go to the tube with it or try candid shoots :-)

 

More pictures, please!

With the right mask, the viewfinder if working properly should be quite accurate. In the picture above, though, you don't seem to have any mask fitted; perhaps that's the problem?

 

Should you come across one at a good price, the slightly longer removable viewfinder for 4x5 Graphics (and the mini Speed) can be put on a Century Graphic (or 2x3 Crown Graphic); same field of view with identical masks, but it protrudes another inch or so further to the rear than the smaller viewfinder; useful when using rollfilm backs, especially if your vision requires you to get right up to the viewfinder.

 

The magnifying eyepiece for the Kalart can work wonderfully, if it's not full of dust and dirt. There are two lens elements in it; the one at the threaded end is held in place with a tiny split spring, which can be carefully removed, allowing that lens to fall out so you can get inside with a cotton swab and lens-cleaning fluid to brighten things up a bit. Be careful reassembling everything, as putting the element in backwards will produce interesting results...

Forget the squinty finder and use the open framefinder which pulls up in the front while the eyepiece flips up in the rear. The framing is very accurate.

Kevin: it has a roll film holder for 120

 

Luis: so I take it a Zenith Photosniper is out? :-)))

 

Michael & Al: thanks for the tips.

I agree with Michael, get the longer VF and you can find masks which are

virtually 100% accurate for various distances. They're often on eBay around

$10.<P>OH, yeah -- nice work.

H,

It is great to have a 120 film holder. I saw one in a old camera store last night and it use cut film.(Should be smaller then 4X5)

If it is using 120 film, how many photo can be taken in a roll of 120?

Kevin: I have the "23" Graphic back, which takes eight 6x9 shots per roll. I believe that there was a "22" back made, which took twelve 6x6 shots.

 

Bill: thanks, I'm looking now :-)))

You can also get a Graflex/Singer 6x7 roll film back. It is a later design, an will

give flatter film because the negative area to be supported is smaller, and

also there are larger rollers . Also interesting, is that the negative size with roll

film is several mm larger than the sheet film.

Michael: I just did some figuring on the back of an envelope and realised that your suggestion to use the 5x4 viewfinder has a couple of flaws in it, unless one does a little modification.

 

The first flaw is that the frame format is wrong. As near as I can get it, the frame size for 5x4 is 100mm x 125mm or a ratio of 1:1.25, whereas the 23 back exposes 57mm x 83mm for a ratio of 1:1.45. However, I figure that there has to be a mask for the "23" back on the bigger camera but that brings us to the second problem: that mask would be, presumably, for use with the 135mm lens.

 

Now, the 101mm lens is, as near as I can see, exactly right for the diagonal of the "23" back but the 135mm lens would be 75% of the view, cutting off a quarter of the frame. It seems to me that a 50mm finder for the 35mm format would be closer at 86.4%.

 

If anyone can spot a flaw in my thinking, that would be good, as I quite like the idea of using the longer finder. In the meantime, if I can't find the correct mask, I suppose I could always try making one out of thin card. Anyone know the correct dimensions?

<p>H.P. - it really does work, and the masks are surprisingly accurate, at least for 2x3. The #2 mask, which is the one you want, is the "correct" one for lenses circa 95-105mm on 6x9 <i>regardless of which length of finder you use</i>. It's not a "4x5" viewfinder - it's a "universal" viewfinder for all three formats, just with a longer length (as used on the 2x3 Speed Graphic, which has a thicker body than the Century, due to the focal plane shutter.)</p>

 

<p>The masks *are* the wrong format for 5x4, but the tips of the arrows on the ends are a pretty close guide to where the edges of the frame are for that format (and also when using a 6x7 back from an RB67, which has a very similar ratio.)</p>

 

<p>Below, hopefully, is an image of one of my Century Graphics, with 23 back, quite elderly 118/4.8 Anastigmat Skopar, and long viewfinder, complete with #9 mask.</p><br>

<center><img src="http://frank.redpin.com/users/mike/century-bigfinder.jpg"></center>

 

It is, as you can see, remarkably more user-friendly with a rollfilm back than the shorter version. I just got some transparencies in the mail today, shot with this camera, of storm damage in the from a week or so ago...

Oh, and the masks are 23x29mm, and around 0.25mm thick. The #2 mask's opening is 14x19mm, centered (i.e. 4.5mm top and bottom border, 5mm side borders), exclusive of the centering arrows, which are 2mm long. Hope that helps...

Splendid, Michael. I've already put out feelers for a longer finder. The interior size I got was 23x30mm but I'll bet your figure is more accurate, so I'll use that. Are you saying that the masks are common to both finders? From the sizes, that sounds like the case.

 

Thanks for being so helpful!

HP...nice. Your first images take us back in time. No evidence of rationing, however.

 

Buried under Viewfinders>Various Masks this wonderful Graflex website specifies mask numbers for various focal lengths/film-sizes:

 

http://graflex.org/speed-graphic/

 

To be on the safe side, I think your 101mm lens wants a #2 mask (that's how they're specified), rather than #3. I'm using a 135mm Xenar on mine and the #10 is very good.

 

You did notice that your finder is parallax-compensated (if one remembers)?

 

My RH-8 make 6X8, not 6X9. "Ideal format" meant various things before it meant 6X7 (RH-10) :-)

 

If you can find one, Nikkor made a 6X9 sheet film holder for standard stainless 500cc tanks...worked beautifully. Hard to describe...with a pair of corrugated stainless, the laterally curved films slide in easily, spaced a few mm apart, parallel. Can't find mine, am making do with the adjustable Combi-Plan, which also works with 4X5...requires more chemistry.

The masks are common to both finders, as well as the earlier non-removable Speed Graphic finders from the 1930s and 1940s.

 

As has been noted a few times over in the graflex.org forums, that site's listing of viewfinder masks contains a number of inaccuracies, which is a shame.

Re: the masks. Because the horizontal width of the negative is the largest

dimension, i just match the view from the mask with the image on the ground

glass screen (at about 25 feet), knowing that the vertical field of view will be at

least as great as that shown by the mask. At 6x9 it is pretty exact, if 4x5 (6x7)

you will get a little extra at the top/bottom of the negative. It's the horizontal

field of view that matters.<P>PS, that's a great illustrative picture, Michael!

That little Nikkor sheet film holder is really nice if you can find one. I don't know whatever became of mine.

Thanks to Michael's measurements, I've made a temporary mask out of card. It isn't pretty but it works...<div></div>