glenn_thoreson

It very well could be correct, but the only way to be sure is mount it up and shoot a couple of shots. The lens, if I'm not mistaken, is a relative of the Aplanat, or Rapid Rectilinear. All are symmetrical design. Some are scary sharp, but usually only in the center of the image. Fall off of sharpness can be seen easily at the corners and edges. Still, if it turns out to be a functional lens, it will be fun to use. Don't put much faith in the shutter speeds being anywhere near accurate, though. Just have fun with it.

I have a Premo B that I use occasionally. I have had to change a lot of things on it, due to age and breakage. It now has a Polaroid bellows, and a 121mm Weitwinkel Anastigmat on it. It was nothing but a square blob of stinky mold when I got it. It's fun to use and weighs in at 36 ounces without a film holder. The Rapid Rectilinears that came on these things are quite sharp in the center and fall off pretty badly in the corners. Stop way down. Don't trust those old shutters unless you have a shutter tester to prove them consistent. Accuracy will be a joke. I just test and write down the actual speeds so I can work around them. Modern 4X5 holders work fine in my Premo B.

Bill, you're right. I have one with the Graflex back and I have a couple of bag mags for it. One is the standard old 12 shot and the other is the hard to find 18 shot. Jon, look up ebay seller canyonlandgraphics. They had some 3X4 Graflok backs, last time I looked.

I had Prinz 150 that was very good, if that tells you anything.

Which back do you have now? Grafloks for 3X4 are pretty scarce. Roll film holders to fit them are even scarcer. I have a camera with the base plate, but no focus panel. I have another camera on the way that I plan to use it's back to replace the Graflok. If you can use the base plate, let me know and we'll work something out.

It will be easier to focus with the 210. It's normal. Are you using any sort of focus magnifier? Personally, I'm not fond of fresnel screens. I find them distracting. It's the concentric rings. They bother me.

In order to use a rotating back, one must have square bellows. The Speed Graphic does not have square bellows.

Draping the camera with the dark cloth is the easy answer. If it's just tiny pinholes on the corners, I find black liquid electrical tape to be great. Just a drop applied with a tooth pick will do the trick. Carefully done, no one will notice. It's important to let the stuff cure for a couple of days before folding it up.

It's a process lens of questionable quality for general photography. A lot of folks question the APO designation, too. I would certainly never spend hundreds of dollars to have one of these put in a shutter. There are much better choices.

It should. There's no real tight clearance issues in these to worry about, that I'm aware of. You will get your ten shots, but it's up to you to watch the counter and stop, so you don't keep shooting blanks.

These are often given away to anyone who will haul it off. If you scroll down a few posts, there is someone looking for one of these.

There's a fresh post about one of these stands. It might do you some good.

No one has been able to contact Mark Kapono for quite some time. He seems to have fallen off the face of the earth.

Press cameras - I use 'em. I like 'em. I have lots of 'em, from 2X3 to 5X7. Graflex, Busch, Koni, Rex Labs (bet ya never heard of that one), you name it. They can do anything you're likely to need them to do. You just need to accept their limitations and learn to work around them. Many of the most famous photos ever taken were taken with the lowly Speed Graphic. They'll make a photogrrapher out of you, if anything will.

Many companies produced Rapid Rectilinear lenses. Some were small concerns that history has forgotten. Your lens is a pair of cemented doublets, indentical or nearly so, for the front and rear groups. These lenses tended to be very sharp in the central part of the image, and soft around the edges. The aperture numbers are probably the old US system. To convert to modern stops, f/16 is the same, and count up or down from there in modern progression. Some foks like to use these lenses for portraiture, wide open. The biting center sharpness falls off rapidly at large apertures. Fun to use.

It may help you to look up a hyperfocal chart for your lens. I find it helpful for landscapes and such with no particular central point of interest. Focused at the hyperfocal distance, the image will be acceptably sharp from one half the hyperfocal distance at a given aperture, to infinity.

The operating lever will be attached to the shaft either by a small bolt or allen screw. Loosen the screw and the lever is ready yo slide off the shaft. However, on some cameras, there is not much room to remove it at this point. Remove the rangefinder surround and flash bracket, if equipped. Next, remove the screws that hold the rangefinder cover in place and remove it, then remove the screws that hold the rangefinder body to the camera. Now, you can remove the rangefinder and the shaft should finish sliding out of the lever hub, allowing you to remove it, also. You're done.

I have a bunch of different Speed and Crown Graphics from 2X3 to 5X7. I like to use them, and do, for most every purpose. If you don't require a lot of perspective control, they make a good, cheap alternative. You can make a simple modification to an Anniversary model to get front tilt. Just install a Pacemaker front standard. Just the uprights. You would have to shift the front in order to close the camera, though. No big deal. A lens of telephoto design will give you more options for portraits, as 300mm at infinity is pushing the limit on bellows draw. Portraits with 300mm would be out of the question. 210 works good. Some of the world's most famous photos have been made with these things. To dismiss them out of hand is rather foolish.

My goal with these is to keep it looking old, while making it clean and to cover the bare spots. I don't try to "refinish", per se. I want it to look like a well loved original. I clean the grime off really well. Polish any metal that needs it, or can hold up to it. I then wipe on a thin coat of stain that matches the original as close as I can. I let it sit a few minutes and wipe it off. This blends in any areas of missing finish pretty well. I let the thing dry overnight, then go over the whole thing with Minwax Finishing Wax. One or more coats, to suit. It will still look old and used, but clean and nice. I just recently did an 8X10 Conley and it looks great. And original.

It's definitely not 2X3. It's a pre Anniversary model, probably 3X4. Film is available in limited B&W emulsions, or you can cut your own from 4X5. Or, you can stick a roll film back on it. This camera also has the seldom seen early Kalart accessory rangefinder. If the price is right, grab it.

The phonograph method has been around for over 60 years. There are lots of plans out there for using a sound card in your computer for testing. Personally, I much prefer my little Calumet shutter speed tester.

My method, assuming the lens has ample coverage capability: Focus far, tilt near. Keep doing it 'til I get what I want. That's all.

Chris, the C-3 is a very capable camera, with one fault - the shutter. They are rarely even close to accurate. Trust me, I have a number of these that I use, and many more that I have passed along to other folks. My recommendation, for what it's worth, is to test the shutter speeds and re-mark the dial with as many modern progression speeds as you can. Speeds will not fall on the existing marks, but wherever you can find them. I realize that getting access to a shutter speed tester may not be easy for you. I always use 100 speed film in these, and often use sunny 11 as my base exposure. I use f/16 on extremely bright things, like snow. Color negative film does not like under exposure. It makes it grainy and washed out. It tolerates over exposure quite well. Some of my best ever color negative photos were done with Kodak Max 800, accidentally exposed at 200. Have fun with your C-3. I certainly enjoy my current 7 or so of 'em.

I could fix it for you, but the shipping to and from Canada would make it cost prohibitive. Have you lubed any of the bearings? Depending on the model, there are two bearings on the left, as you look at the back of the camera. Early ones have an oil hole. Put one drop of light oil in each. On the early models there is a bearing near the winding key, with the end of the shaft exposed. Put one drop of oil on the end of the shaft, and excersize the shutter. See if this doesn't help it. Report back and let me know if it helps. Also, look at http://www.southbristolviews.com and look for a repair manual pdf. Shutter tension should not be changed until everything else has been ruled out.

Lynette, washing soda is sodium carbonate, commonly available as Arm & Hammer washing soda. I would be very careful if you use it. I have had it actually remove the emulsion from the paper. Possibly from a too strong mix. Hypo Eliminator is sodium sulfite and sodium sulfate, with possibly some added ingredients, depending on the brand. Safe for your prints when mixed according to directions. Will any of these remove the odor? It's a crap shoot. The safest thing you can do is wash your prints in plain water, at 70? F. As mentioned, soak them apart, do not try to pull them apart. Change water often. Dry as mentioned, then, place them on a flat surface, clean white paper between layers, and place a heavy, flat weight on top. Leave them for several days. If these are very old photos on fiber base paper, they may curl irreparably. I've had that happen. Good luck and let us know how you fare.