nick_morris

Ya'sou Nikos, what camera are you using?

Hello Paula, I recently acquired a pretty cool device that may help you, if you can find one. Two were recently offered on ebay, but I haven't seen many over the years. It is a circular metal device about 4" in diameter with an adjustable steel iris. There are four mounting screw holes, and two knobs, one that adjusts the iris, and one that tightens the iris in place. It is intented to hold barrel mounted lenses, and though it won't hold a big old brass lens, it will hold a pretty wide variety of lenses. Mine came mounted on a 6" board, with a twin piston packard shutter, which has a 2 1/2" apeture.

John, I'm using an old Wollensak 13" Triple in a Betax #4. It was firing at the same speed when I got it, but Frank Marshman, of "Camera Wiz" in Harrisonburg, Va. got it working right. I haven't used it alot as of yet, but no problems. Hope this helps.

I would suggest: 1. Book on View Cameras - Either Jim Stone's or Steve Simmons, available in paperback, covers the basics, at most big city bookstores, or on-line- Amazon. 2. Camera - an old Calumet 4x5 monorail camera - the successor of the old Kodak Master View, typically available on ebay or reputable dealer (Midwest Photo Exchange is very good, check Shutterbug magazine or search the internet), $175 to $300. Look for one with a 17" to 20" rail, good bellows, and generally overall good condition. 3. Lens - Kodak 203 f 7.7 Ektar in Flash Sumermatic shutter, frequently on ebay, $200 to $300. 4. Film Holders - 4 to start, also availble on ebay, or dealer. 5. Dark cloth - any fabric shop, 4'x4' black cloth. 5. Light meter - incident/reflective/flash capibilities, large selection available new and used. I have a used Gossen Luna Pro SBC, which is a system meter, and allows for most anything you would want to do with a meter. 6. Cable release - most, if not all, photo shops. 8. Tripod, with 3-way head (nice to have levels) - needs to be sturdier than the typical non-pro 35mm type - available new or used, again ebay is a good source, $100 - $200. 8. Film - Kodak is a good choice. If you can get some out dated film to work through the "bonehead" mistakes of learning the system, should save you a little money.

The above package should cost in $600 to $1000 range, give or take.

Your 645 should be a good choice for hand held work, and less expensive than 6x6 or 6x7. Moderate telephoto lens (90mm or so)and a moderate wide (55mm or so) should handle most of your needs.

Without hesitation, I would recommend the Super or Super Speed Graphic. It is light, and compact, has a rotating Graflok back, and complete front movements. It has a metal rather than wood body, yet is still light, and tough. I have used one for about five or six years, and haven't found a reason to replace it. Good, relatively inexpensive camera for the field. Weaknesses include limited bellows draw (about 12") and lack of rear movements. Otherwise, an excellent camera.

David, Thank you. It looks like you put me on the right track.

What is the best tubing and the best bulbs for use with a packard

shutter, and where is the best place to find them? I tried an

Advanced Auto Parts Store. I'm planning on visiting the local

hardware and home improvement stores, but maybe you have a better

suggestion. Thank you.

Ray, I have been using a Super Graphic for 5 or 6 years, and like it very much. You ask for a comparison of the Crown, Speed, and Super. The Super is also known as the Super Speed Graphic, which I believe was the name of the Super when fitted with a lens in a 1000 shutter. The body of the Super and Super Speed are the same, and are made of metal, rather than wood that was used for the Speed and Crown Graphics. The Super/Super Speeds have rotating backs, and full, though somewhat limited, front movements and drop beds. They do not have rear movement, but the tripod is attached to the back, and some rear movements can be approximated by tilting the tripod, and adjusting the front. The camera folds up to a very compact and portable package. The bellows extension is limited to about 12 inches, which limits your range of long lenses. I've used the camera for some architectural, landscape, portrait, and table top still lifes. Its the only 4x5 I've used, but I have found it to be satisfactory. Be aware that I am not a professional, and photograph for my own enjoyment. A professional might require more flexibilty in a LF camera.

I am just beginning to work with 8x10, after using a 4x5 for about five years. I've bought 100 sheets of 8x10 film, and I plan to spend this year trying it on for size. I have never used a 5x7, but I like the format-aspect.

I've only used the 8x10 a little, less than 20 exposures. I like using the 8x10, but...8x10 is a lot more cumbersome than 4x5; and a lot more expensive in every way, cameras, lenses, film, use of chemicals (and I'm on a limited budget). An enlarger is out of the question (space as well as money the issue). My 135mm WF Ektar lens for my 4x5 cost me about $250, a comparable 250mm WF Ektar for my 8x10 seems to run about 2 1/2 to 3 times that. I have yet to make a good negative or print, but there is something about using the 8x10 that I can't really describe. The potential feels like its there. I get the sense that if I can manage to get the results, it will be my primary tool for photography.

Since I have a 4x5 enlarger, I have given some thought to a 5x7 with an additional 4x5 back. The 4x5 back will allow for 8x10, 11x14, and so on enlargements; the 5x7, more personal contact prints. I would have the choice aspects. But like I said, I've got 100 sheets of 8x10 film. Seems to me the only way to discover what I can do with it, and what it will do for me.

Butch,

You are an inspiration. Awesome? Spectacular? I do not know what word, or words would best describe you and your work. Your mastery of vision and process are evident. Thank you for sharing this with us.

My best wishes to you. And again, many thanks.

A happy new year to you.

Meant to say coverage rather than movement, ran out of coverage with the 100mm pushing the rise - most of the time the coverage is adaquate for my purposes. Thank you.

Steve, I have and use 100mm and 135mm WF Ektars in Supermatic shutters (also a 203 Ektar in a Supermatic). My camera is a Super Graphic, and does have some front movements, but probabably not as much as most 4x5s. I LOVE my WFs. That said, I have run out of movement with the 100mm, but I was really pushing the rise. Most of the time the movements are adaquate for my use. I haven't had any problem with the 135mm in the movement area (or other problems) on my camera.

The supermatic shutters on my lenses are great. I have had Frank Marshman, the "Camera Wiz" in Harrisonburg VA work on them, and he gets them running right, humming like a Copal. Frank is an excellent technican, and a great person. I highly recommend him for camera and lens work. I believe he works on Sally Mann's stuff, as well as a number of other well known photgrahers. Good examples of the image quality of WF Ektars are Joel Myerowitz's "Cape Light" and Ansel Adams' "Examples". Adams discusses 40 photographs in his book, some of which were shot with a 250mm WF Ektar. I believe Myerowitz uses a 250mm WF for all the photos in his book. I have found the image quality of the smaller WFs to be the same as the 250mm, as would be expected - since they have the same lens design. And the image quality, or probably more correct, the image "character", the combination or sharpness and contrast, is my favorite, based on my limited experience with different lenses (to my eyes, different lens designs produce different "looks" that I think of as as image character). They are great for color as well. Good luck, and best wishes for the holiday season.

For what's its worth, I've been following Dagor aka Andrew Glover, for several years, and have communicated with him several times; and bought from him. As far as I'm concerned, he is great. Always replies to communications, is friendly, bright, witty, and really has some incredible stuff to sell. (I believe he is from Scotland)

Stephen, I have found the comments already given to be good advise. I would like to relate my experience with a a real mess of a lens. It is an old Wollensak Series IV Velosigmat 6.3/9 1/2" in an Optimo shutter. It came with the Eastman 2D 8x10 I bought. This lense has scratches on both front and rear elements, some "grunge" around the outside of the front element, and a chip at the edge of the rear element. But, you know what, it doesn't take bad pictures. A bit on the soft side, particularly in low contrast situations, but reasonably sharp, if a bit unpredictable. It sort of confirms what I'd heard years ago about 8x10s, that you could shoot through the bottom of a Coke bottle, and still get a good image.

Not that I would suggest such a lens for professional work, or where good quality, dependable results are required. But alot a people seem to be buying older, messey lenses to experiment with (a la Sally Mann), and they can be fun, if they can be acquired for a reasonable price.

Darrell, I have to cast my vote for the Wide Field Ektar. I very much like the quality of the image I get with the ones I have. I use 100mm and 135mm versions on my 4x5, and would love to get a 250mm for my 8x10 (these are typically much more expensive). They are not as sharp and contrasty as my 203 Ektar, and probably not as sharp and contrasty as modern multicoated lens (I haven't used modern lens, so I can't compare), but they are sharp, have good contrast, and make good color images as well. I've found that different lenses (of different design)have a different "character" or "personality" that affect the image you get, and you apply a particular lens character to the image you want to create. Anyway, that's what I tell myself to justify buying a new lens. Good luck.

Yes.

I recently bought a 2D as well. I'm finding that I like it alot. I had to separately buy an extension rail, and it has the pins (or dowels) as well as a brass disk that holds down the rear catch and allows the rear standard to move back on to the extension rails.

I also had to buy separately a sliding tripod mounting block that allows the camera to be placed at different points over the tripod head. Mine didn't come with one, and I have found it to be very important for my use of the camera. Enjoy.

Bill,

I am also a fan of the Super Graphic. I bought mine as an entry to 4x5, and haven't found a good reason to buy anything else. It's compact, light, and sturdy. I use 100mm and 135mm wide field ektars, a 203 ektar, and a 250mm tel-optar. I primarily shoot city and landscapes, portraits, and table top still life. The rotating back is a big advantage over earlier graphics. The front movements have been enough for my purposes. I've experimented with rear movements, by combining the the tripod head tilt with the drop bed, and front movements, but haven't found a reason to use it. I think you will find you can do alot with one, once you get familiar with it. And once you start using 4x5, it will be hard to be satified with a smaller format.

I use a 33mm slip-on series VI adapter on my 203 ektar, with a step-up for series VII filters.

Jeff, I use a 135mm Wide Field Ektar on my Super Graphic, and like it very much. I've pushed the camera's movements to the limit with no problems. I only use the ground glass for focus, so cams are not a problem. I also use 100mm W. F. Ektar (movements limited), and 203mm Ektar, all good lenses for my taste.

Anyone have a sliding tripod mount(not sure what its called)for an

Eastman 2D 8x10, or suggestions where to find one? Thank you.