Using a Range-Finder Polaroid converted to 4x5

<p > </p>

<p >What is it like to shoot with a Polaroid 110 converted to 4x5? What is it like to work with a large format range-finder camera (not a press Camera, TRechnica, Horseman etc.)?</p>

<p >Frankly, I would really like to hear from a few photographers who use any of these converted Polaroids ( 110 A or B , 900 just whatever)...without regard for the personality of the maker...whoever that might be. I would like to hear about what it is like to shoot this type of camera. How it is to travel with it. Is it more "packable" than light weight field cameras? What are the functional limitations or benefits (advantages) of this style of camera? What about supporting gear? What is in your shooting kit? </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Again: I don't care who made it, all that has been discussed. Please just .tell us where, what why and how you use it.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Cheers!</p>

 

<p>In my opinion, you will be hard pressed to find a better, cheaper, 4X5 combo than a Pacemaker Crown or Speed Graphic with a Grafmatic film holder. The speed is a little heavier, but both cameras were used by thousands of news reporters for about 40 years. The Grafmatic back gives consistent back spacing, unlike film holders, giving consistently sharp negatives when the ground glass distance is properly set. These cameras do require a learning curve and regimen not applicable to modern cameras, so don't think you will conquer their idiosyncrasies in one day.<br>

I know this is not the answer you wanted, but in my opinion, converting a Polaroid is like trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. I had looked into the purchase of one about 20 years ago, but decided it lacked the versatility of cameras you don't want to buy.<br>

It took years for me to realize what is contained in these two short paragraphs.</p>

 

<p>Thanks Kenneth: The Press Cameras are a known quantity. Their utility as hand-held cameras are well documented. The question is directed at the experience of people who have actually used one or more of the various Polaroid conversions.</p>

<p>Ask this question at <a href="http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/index.php">www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/index.php</a> ; there are several avid users of this type of camera there; if you've ever used an unconverted model you already have a pretty good idea of the converted camera's handling qualities.</p>

<p>Drew, much of the answer depends on what you want to do with the camera. Do you want to be able to shoot wide angle, extreme wide angle, normal and long lenses? Do you want to do close-ups?<br>

The converted Polaroid is like shooting with a Rolleiflex TLR. If what the normal lens can do what you want and you don't need the functionality of an interchangeable lens camera then go for it. But if you also want the performance of a high end modern lens like an Apo Sironar S then it may not even fit a converted Polaroid.</p>

<p><strong>Vick:</strong> Thank you for the suggestion. This question is currently posted here and also on both <a href="http://www.largeformatphotography">www.largeformatphotography</a> and <a href="http://www.texasphotoforum">www.texasphotoforum</a> as well.</p>

<p><strong>Bob:</strong> Thanks for the analysis. Are you a Polaroid conversion user? Iff you are, how do YOU use your camera?</p>

<p>Drew,</p>

<p>No I don't use a Polaroid conversion. When I shoot I prefer more flexibility. </p>

<p>Drew, I recently picked up a Polaroid 110 4x5 conversion. I have a Busch Pressman D, so I am familiar with the press camera. I originally got the Pressman with the idea of doing some street shooting with it. Even though it is compact, it was really too big for my idea of street shooting. I ended up using the Pressman as a field camera with a few additional lenses.<br>

I have only used Polaroid 4x5 conversion once on the street since I got it, (not enough time) it certainly is compact and I think it fits my concept. I can see it will take a bit to get used to using cut sheet holders on the street, (i'm used to shooting Tri-x in a Leica M3 for street). I took a small shoulder bag that just fit the camera and 8 cut sheet holders (16 sheets: 4 - HP5 and 4 - Kodak 400 NC).</p>

<p>Here are a few of my first handheld shots.<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3371/3644104584_a4db525857.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="392" /><br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2471/3643346365_30d128385c.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="400" /></p>

<p>Paul: Thanks. I have been using a 4x5 Zone VI and an 8x10 Kodak Eastman View 2-D. My work has been delibrative still lifes and I'm a little bit into a rut. I'd like to open up or free up my work a little. I'd like a lighter Kit too. Maybe this is the way to go.</p>

<p>Thanks for sharing your experience and images. Shoot more and show us please!</p>

<p>Drew. I think one of the biggest problems is finding one for sale. Dean (Razzeldog) does some nice ones, but I think there is probably more than a year wait. Conversions show up on the big auction site from time to time.</p>

 

<p>Once a month or so there is an ad for one of these on Bay Area Craigs List. You might want to post a WTB there is you are interested in purchasing one.<br>

Bill Poole</p>

<p>Using an old 110 version for 4x5 was once done wehn one could not afford a Chrown or Speed graphic. This was a late1950's thing to do; or early 1960's. One had old Polaroids worth about what a 486 computer is worth; ie a doorstop. One afixed a 4x5 back of a broken 4x5 to make a poor man's 4x5. It ws done because it was a cheap hobbyist thing to do. Using an old Polaroid for 4x5 is like using a Briggs for a go-cart or mini-bike; each "newcomer" thinks that it is a new thing; even one to patent even. Today my take in why one would buy an expensive 4x5 Polaroid conversion is for compactness. The L camera cost about what on dozen 4x5 Speed Graphics with 127mm Ektars cost on the used market; Deans is way less.</p>

<p>K<br>

Kelly: Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this subject.<br>

<br>

Using an "old" camera is not a problem for me...many of the images on my website was created with the Kodak "2-D" on the front page. I have enjoyed using compact folding cameras taking 120mm film in several medium formats. All were made before 1950. I always thought that Leica should make a medium format M-4 ...and Mamya pretty much did. <br>

<br>

I am looking to generate a creative renewal and, re-define or regenerate the look of my work: A break from the deliberate, contemplative style of my previous imaging. Yet I would like to continue to use large format film. I have used press cameras (also "old") and like them, but they have more mass and bulk than my current 4x5; a dainty single extension Zone VI. I am exploring the idea of using a collapsing range finder 4x5 to reduce the bulk and complexity of my field kit. No loupe, no extra lenses, only one Grafmatic holder etc.</p>

<p > <br>

<br>

The purpose of this inquiry is to ask those who are using a converted Polaroid, regardless of the maker, just what they like about it (or not).</p>

 

<p>Drew- Last summer using instructions from Dean Jones the "razzle dog" I created my own conversion from a polaroid 900. Unlike most conversions I used the 135mm 1000 lens off of a super speed graphic. I wanted a lens and shutter assembly with something faster then 1/500th sec. for faster film. Anyway, it took a long time but when I was finished i had a really awesome camera. I like using it and I find it more intutive then the speed graphic. I also have never had a speed which had its rangefinder properly adjusted for long. The advantage of the polaroid is that it uses a cam, sort of like the last models of the super speed. They hold adjustment very well and also are easy to readjust. Using the camera is a bit clunky, but I think any camera that size is a bit awkward. I used a spring back from a pre-anniversary speed graphic on the back and use the typical double 4x5 film holders. Recently though I have converted a 4x5 bag mag which holds 12 shots! I am testing it now and making sure my convertion has been successful in getting the film in proper position at the focal plane. I think it will work though. I highly recommend buying one or having Razzle convert one for you.</p>

<p>Drew, I don`t own a converted polaroid. But going by your post, that you are looking for a portable large rangefinder. Have you considered a Fuji 6x9 rangefinder, have a look at 6x9 online resouces, it be what you are after.</p>

<p>I put a converted Polaroid 900 to the test recently during the Artists of Montsalvat exhibition. I decided to see how it would handle the tough job of shooting all fourteen artists in their own studios doing their own thing. I used mainly double darks as I have suffered problems previously using Grafmatics, but out of eight I found two that were satisfactory, so used them as well.<br>

<br /> I shot around 6-8 shots of each subject, at times only having minutes to prepare the lighting, as many were just passing through! The whole process took two months and the camera never gave me an once of trouble. It was a challenging exercise, but it was most rewarding. In the past I have done the occasional model shoot using this type of camera.... whilst all others used their DSLR's.<br /> I have used Speed and Crown Graphics previously , but found them quite unwieldy and clumsy, but I guess that's a personal preference thing.<br>

<br /> I also think that some criticism of the rangefinder's wandering and the plastic top cover being weak is nonsense. My rangefinder never wandered once during the time the camera was used, whilst being bumped around considerably. If the rangefinder ever does wander, it takes under 60 seconds to adjust it....try that with a Speed. The plastic top is still as tough as it was in 1960 and can take quite a pounding without damage. We're not talking war zone in Iraq here.....Any DSLR has plastic in its construction too.<br /> Some are getting excellent use from their converted Polaroids, just ask Chris Usher...he covered the aftermath of Katrina with such a camera.<br>

<br /> I guess I'm rather used to handling these cameras and know exactly what they can do...for me it's the ideal 4x5. Nice and small, very lightweight at just over three pounds and extremely maneuverable when compared to most other 4x5's.<br>

<br /> Age has nothing to do with it either, as these cameras were engineered back in 1960, when metal was metal and no expense was spared in their manufacture. Now with a sexy colour scheme and over two pounds of metal removed during the conversion process, the camera can easily outperform most others, especially when it comes to fast portrait work or street photography. It is designed especially for hand held use and does not belong on a tripod.<br>

<br /> It doesn't bother me who engineers the conversion, as long as the finished product is dependable, lightweight and cost effective.<br /> Just look here if you have any concerns about rangefinder accuracy or camera dependability:<br /> http://www.pbase.com/razzledog/razzle_900</p>

<p>I agree with everything Dean said. He's the man and I wouldn't have been able to do my conversion without his info CD. You just can't beat the polaroid conversions for price, useability and weight.<br>

JW</p>

<p>What puzzles me is the fact that using a 'Speed' requires one to look through a ridiculously small and dark Kalart rangefinder window, then after sharp focus has been achieved, quickly look into another rather vague window in order to compose the shot...now where's the 'speed' in that?<br /> I much prefer to have a big brightline, all in one finder window that gives me distance, parallax compensation and framing all at once. I won't even mention the weight difference.....<br>

I realise you can use alternative lenses of various focal lengths, but then this just adds more uncertainty to the equation...can you be sure that the finder is exactly calibrated for all? so now you're carrying around excess gear in a bag that weighs more than your dog....<br>

<br /> I prefer to shoot with a single lens, so I'm familiar it's performance, capabities and shortcomings.<br /> There's no way a 'Speed' Graphic can be as sexy as a converted Polar and no way it could shoot faster.<br /> I walked up to Soph and pulled off this shot as quickly as if I were using my DSLR.....<br /> If you want lens focal lengths of 90, 127, 135, 150mm as well as a close focusing 150mm, why not just get five cameras......as they're certainly cheap enough.</p><div></div>

<p>In the Speed Graphics glory days one had film pack to allow shooting quicker; it was still sold by Kodak even 30 years ago. One also had the typical press situation where a #50 bulb was used; one had goobs of light; and alot of DOF thus focusing was not so critical.<br>

<br /> One also did NOT purposely try to fill the frame with a press shot; one had margin; more area if the framing was off abit.<br /> <br /> The speed is a slow camera today becuase they are not used for press usage; one has folks using them for something different.<br /> <br /> A decent RF on a chrown or speed doesnt require frequent adjusting unless it has something loose; worn or broken. Here I have a several speed graphics; four of them.<br /> <br /> One 3x4 and model 4x5 model bought used 2 decades required no adjustments on the RF.<br /> <br /> The 3x4 model went under salt water in Katrina; the focal plane shutter still works at all speeds; it required only some oil on the roller pivots. The 127mm Black WW2 Kodak shutter only works on Bulb and 1/30th; but the iris still works; even after going under salt water. The camera looks like total hell and still and shoots an image; it is still light tight. Thus in a war area or at sea these cameras held up to alot of abuse and still often worked OK ; enough to shoot a shot.<br /> <br /> In RF's on speeds that "wander"; they cameras were ebay cameras; ones fiddled with too much; often forced. Sometimes the RF is all messed up; folks got the infinity OK; but close range it is off; and set screws and mirrors loose.</p>

<p>Dean, i agree with what your saying about the 'speed graphic'. However i think the 'speed' in speed graphic as opposed to just a crown graphic refers to the built in-body focal plane shutter with many different shutter 'speeds', and not a reference to the speedy use of the camera.<br>

Oh P.S. Dean, im the guy that asked if you have a front standard laying arround for an 800. You said youde look around. Did you find one ? I e-mailed Noah and asked him since he is 2 states from me but never got a response.</p>

<p>Email or PM me with an address and I'll ship you one...Are you absolutely sure you want a front standard for an 800? They're identical to a 150. There must be millions of them littered all over the US!<br>

Why don't you just fit a 110A/B bed and bellows? Then you'd have a much updated shutter and lens assembly.<br>

Cheers.</p>

<p>I happen to be lucky enough to own 2 Polaroid 110 conversions. One is a 4x5 110 conversion which Dean Jones (Razzledog) did for me. The other is a 110b converted for polaroid pack film back by Four Designs. Years ago I owned a Rolleiflex and a Leica M2, both of which were fantastic machines. Years later I began to use 4x5 and then was delighted with the Super Graphic I bought. As time went on, I wanted the simplicity of handholding, but did not want to go back to 35mm or even 6x6 negs. For very specific types of work I use my handheld 110s, while for the rest of my photography I use a Sony DSC-R1, a 1940s 6x9 folder and occassionally my wife's Minolta X-700. I happen to love shooting with the Polaroid 110, as it can be used much like my old Leica could be used. For me, its a happy compromise that works for specific types of photography. fwiw I still have lots of pack film Polaroid for the Four Designs, and have a few boxes of Tri-X and TMax left for the 4x5. The Razzle is a lot faster than my old Crown Graphic and the Super Graphic that replaced it. I have the old 4x5 Razzle back which does not accept a POL back or Grafmatic back, but I really don't need them, and Dean said he could fix that for me anyway.</p>