john_lehman2

They are great, and keep the film flatter than regular holders.

Here's the manual:

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

Ed, FWIW for PMK I expose it at EI 100 and develop for 7.5 minutes at

70 degrees. Based on a couple of zone tests, that gives a nice ten

zone range with proper exposure for zone 1

In 4x5, the shape of the H&D curve is different (4x5 Tri-X is TXP,

not TX), so the films do produce different results. HP5+ is actually

closer to regular medium format and 35mm Tri-X (TX) as opposed to Tri-

X Pro (TXP).

<p>

Part of the confusion is that there are two very different films

called "Tri-X." This dates back to before WWII when the original Tri-

X was a sheet film, and smaller formats used Double-X as their

highest speed film. When Kodak discontinued 35mm Double-X in the

early 1950's, they called its replacement "Tri-X" but it wan't the

same film as the sheet film version.

<p>

TXP (the sheet film version) is formulated for studio portrait use

with hot lights. This is one reason why there is so much nostalgia

among zone system types for the old double-X sheet film, which had a

long straight line section of the H&D curve.

<p>

IMHO (as a TX user since the late 1950's), HP5+ is much better suited

for landscape use than TXP. Of course, that's just another way of

saying it behaves more like TX :-)

In response to Bill, I have tried a 44b filter, and it does work.

OTOH, it costs two or three stops and is available only as a fairly

expensive and fragile wratten gel, so when mine died from

environmental stress, I switched to the new Ilford ortho+ film.

I have used Ilford 4x5 ortho film quite a bit for landscapes and have

been happy with the results. FWIW I use an EI of 40 and develop in

PMK.

One of the advantages of a 4x5 camera is that you don't have to use the whole negative. There is no rule which says you can't shoot a portrait with your 210 from a distance which gives good perspective, and then enlarge the section of the negative you want. Of course, if you already have a 6x7 rollfilm back, that is easier to develop.

<p>

210 is about twice the focal length of the "normal" lens for 6x7 (which can be anything between 80mm and 105mm), so it is fine for portraits. It also may make a perfectly good portrait lens for 4x5 in spite of "rules" to the contrary -- try it and see if you like the results.

In the days before computer lens design, designers generally did not try to optimize MTF's :-) Many of the classic lens designs work best stopped down about three stops (I have crudely checked this for some of the ones I own against a USAF lens test chart). For Typical press Tessar designs, this means between f/8 and f/11. A 150mm Kodakf/4.5 Ektar is a good example.

<p>

Two non-Tessar designs which perform well at larger aperatures are the 203 Kodak f/7.7 Ektar, which performs best wide open, and of course the f/2.5 Aero Ektar (about 180mm if I remember correctly -- I have one, but it is in my closet in Alaska and I am in Asia at the moment and so can't check).

The "washed out" look of color with uncoated lenses is due to internal flare which reduces contrasts; in black and white one compensates for it by slight overdevelopment. For color where you have no control over the development, you can either use a more contrasty film or change the lighting. Actually, since most outdoor scenes are too contrasty for color films, the "fault" may even help -- not however for controlled studio light.

<p>

Use of a good (i.e. deep) lens hood will solve most of the flare problem from uncoated lenses unless you are shooting into the light. I have some great side-lite snow scenes shot in very bright weather using an uncoated Tessar which print very well on normal grade paper in spite of the blinding glare.

Alaskan Photo Repair 551 2nd Ave Suite 221 Fairbanks AK 99701 (907)

452-8819 has repaired several of these backs for me.

To test the mechanism, with the unti out of the shell, advance the

film counter by twisting it to just past the "S". At that point you

should be able to pull the advance lever and watch the takeup roller

advance and the counter increment. There is a catch you need to puch

just to the left of the lever to release the mechanism each time you

wind. After the counter passes 8, it should wind freely.

<p>

To use, insert the roll "upside down" in the left hand side so that

it will unroll counter-clockwise. Bring the paper around the front

black side out, and attach it to the takeup roller (right side).

advance the film until the arrows on the roll are just about to

unwind. Put the shell back on and advance the counter to "S" as

above. Wind on until the counter is at 1, and you are ready to go

A double layer of unexposed developed slide film (e.g. the ends of a

roll) taped over the flash makes a very effective (and cheap) IR

filter for invisible flash -- the two flash units I have tried both

yield a guide number of about half the ISO 100 guide number with

Kodak HIE.

The Crown is actually wood -- the only Graphics which is all metal is

the Supergraphics.

<p>

That said, if you do mostly landscape, a Crown will work fine. It

can be mounted on its side for vertical alignment, and there are easy

modifications to give it full front tilt and swing (rise and shift

are built in).

Based on a series of lens resolution tests I ran with medium format

equipment about 2 years ago, the APX-25 has significantly higher

resolution (APX-25 in Rodinol; Pan-F in PMK).

Bill has a good point -- the right to hand inspection exists only

in the US. Even if you get one, the probability that any inspector

will agree not to look in the film can for infrared is very close

to zero. Fortunately, airport lighting is generally deficient in

infrared, and so exposing the cassette to interior light will

probably not fog your film. In my experience, hand inspection

is not granted in Great Britain, Brussels, and Frankfurt (and most

of Russia). Carrying a few rolls in ones pockets sometimes works,

but in Europe I have had them insist on my running my sportcoat

thru the X-ray as well.

Unfortunately Kodak "ortho" aka Kodalith is high-contrast only;

Ilford Ortho is a wonderful pictorial film and may be available

in 5x7 by special order; otherwise you could cut down 8x10.

<p>

Most traditional camera repair shops should be able to work on

the shutter, which is very simple.

The above advice is all good; if you want a starting point for

experimentation, add 10-15% to increase contrast n+1; double it for

n+2. Decrease by the same percent for n-x.

<p>

My experience with sheet film is that you should be able to get

N+/-2 with FP4+ and N+3/-2 with HP5+

It depends on the contrast of the scenes which you are shooting.

If contrast is less than "normal" (e.g. less than 8 stops from

darkest gray to lightest textured white), you can shoot at 640

and extend development time by 10-15% and the results will be about

like what you get at 320 with normal development. If you are

shooting high contrast scenes (like night-time available light),

extending development or switching to something like Acufine will

increase the contrast at the same time it builds up shadow detail.

Developing normally will lose detail in the darker areas. There is,

unfortunately, no way to "push" film without increasing the contrast

(altho you will probably get lots of advice that using magic developer

"X" will do so).

220 film will not work. 70mm bulk films available include Kodak

Vericolor, Tri-X and alot of aero films (including high speed

infrared); Ilford sells HP5+ and FP4+, and I believe Agfa sells

at least one. B&H stocks Vericolor and Tri-X and will order

any of the other Kodak films (I got a roll of high speed Infrared

from them); they ship internationally

I use have used Neopan off and on since I studied in Asia

in the early 1970's. IMHO, Neopan-X is about the same as Plus-X

or FP4+, Neopan 400 is about the same as Tri-X or HP5+. Neopan 1600

is an excellent film with less obtrusive grain than TMZ (I haven't

got around to trying Delta-3200 in 35mm yet). I use it alot in my

Tessina and Minox for low-light candids.

<p>

In short, Neopan films (except for the 1600) are OK, but nothing

special. I buy them when they are easier to get than other B&W

films (e.g. in much of Asia) and prefer them to Tmax, but would

not go out of my way for them.

The green color is normal. I have been using Kodak Rapid Fix without

part B hardener with pyro for years; the photographers' formulary

fixer works a bit faster, but does not seem to produce different

results.

I have a 4x5 graflarger back; it works (even with variable

contrast paper, altho the contrast values are different).

In years of looking, I have never seen a 2x3 graflok polaroid back

Brooklyn Camera has one on sale now it their new arrivals.

http://www.brooklyncam.com/buy.html

12 minutes at 70 degrees for both HP5+ and Delta 400 at EI 400.

This is for 4x5 and 120 size respectively to produce a just

perceivable lightening above base + fog at zone I with a condenser

enlarger.