erik_ryberg

John,

 

I have used a number of the tele-raptars and tele-optars in the ten and fifteen inch focal lengths. Most are astonishingly good. The ten inch will only just barely cover 4x5; the fifteen gives more movement that you can use (the image circle almost hits the edges of an 8x10 plate, though the image is terrible out there).

 

I have had some dogs though. Maybe their quality control wasn't so good. The fifteen inch lens is huge and heavy. (It's an f4.5). They are pricey in shutter owing to the size of the thing (generally an alphax #5) but if your camera has the focal plane shutter you can get one in barrel for a song.

 

By the way, the focal plane shutter is really nice for this work because along with cheap lenses you get a shutter speed of 1/1000. Very nice when hand-holding a 15 inch lens for candids.

 

Best,

Erik Ryberg

Thanks all. I lost the auctions for both helicoids and the dead 165 mm lens.

 

I actually didn't even know the helicoid existed, and have decided to buy one new; they aren't really that expensive (I mean, given the general rule of accessory prices . . . ). I'm getting some interesting results with single element lenses I buy surplus, and would love to hear if anyone else has done this. So far I haven't been able to focus them -- I just tape them to the extension tubes and move the camera to get the subject in focus. The helicoil will be a big improvement on that system.

 

Erik Ryberg

Hello,

 

I am seeking a dead lens of any focal length longer than the 55mm. It

doesn't need to have any glass in it, but it does have to be able to

mount on the camera and the helicoid focus needs to at least kind of

work. I'm willing to pay about 40 bucks plus shipping if anybody has

one they dropped on the pavement and couldn't bear to toss.

 

Thanks! Erik Ryberg, ryberg@seanet.com.

Thanks for your help. I played around with the tensioning spring and found that, lo and behold, I can now meter with the stop-down focusing. What a great improvement!

Hello,

 

I just obtained the three-piece extension tube set for my old P6x7.

My camera has the TTL meter on it, and (in the unlikely event this

matters) is the MLU version of the camera. But it's an old one.

 

My question is, is the meter supposed to work with the tubes on?

Because mine doesn't. If it isn't supposed to work, what do folks do

for metering? Do you do the math for the bellows factor compensation

each time you make an exposure? Is there a chart someplace? I've

looked around in the archives and it seems that in most instances

(this with other cameras) the meters work so there is no need to do

so. But I've seen nothing on the P67 directly.

 

Thanks.

 

Erik Ryberg

Just kidding.

Yeah I know. About three weeks ago I got a deardorff (misspelled as deardoff) with four Schneider lenses and a mint

condition Goerz Hypergon complete with the fan, along with

a Ries Tripod, 40 film holders and three backs for US $12.65 because it was in

the vintage remote control airplane category.

Tony,

 

Just to kind of echo the last response, I have an Orbit 375 mm f6.3 in a huge ilex shutter that looks exactly, I mean exactly,

like Caltar II lenses I've seen of the same focal length and in the same shutter on ebay. However, my Orbit says "Made in USA"

on it, so I've assumed it's some manufacturer like Wollensak or B&J or whatever.

 

It's a great lens, coated, very sharp, lots of coverage, but I expect it isn't worth much with the name "orbit."

Hi Brian,

 

A nice way to get to Hells Canyon is to drive the dirt road west out of Riggins up to the Seven Devils and walk there. It will take a couple of days, unfortunately, but boy, the view sure is nice. Good camping at Seven Devils campground, and a fair road up to it. Snowy peaks, mountain lakes, forested valleys. The usual.

 

Don't try to get to the same place via Cuprum and Black Lake unless you've got a tough vehicle with high clearance.

Hello everyone,

 

Okay, so I bought the second condensor. I assume they go with the convex sides together, like this: |)(|

 

I scrounged a ten inch Nikkor lens. Using the help above, and mocking it up in my living room with a 1000 watt studio light, I have a paper to lens distance of about 30 inches, lens to negative about 15 inches, negative to flat side of condensor about 2 inches.

 

The only problem is: when I set the lamp 17 inches from the condensor and find the point where it comes into focus, I get about 8 feet or so.

 

Is that right? I may need to put a hole in the ceiling . . . .

John,

 

You might take a look at the book Primitive Photography. Alan Greene, Primitive Photography (Boston: Focal Press) 2002.

 

He describes making film holders and cameras.

I've decided they are different lens designs, and the later design is quite a bit inferior. The rear lens group is slightly thicker on the new lens -- perhaps there is an air space in there? -- although swapping the lenses from camera body to camera body makes no difference in focus.

 

Also, as I replied in a personal email to Dan above, the bellows are good; I checked them with a light in my darkroom.

Hello,

 

This is a MF question, but I'm chiefly an LF guy and it's about

lenses, which are an obsession on this list. I have two old Mamiya

Six folders, one really old one with an uncoated f3.5 75mm lens, and

one "newer" one with a coated f3.5 75mm lens. The coated lens

delivers A LOT more flare than the uncoated lens, and I'm trying to

figure out why. What other than lens design causes flare? I am

pretty sure these lenses are the same design. They're the same

dimensions all the way around and from playing around with the

elements they appear to be the same.

 

Neither lens has anything bright and shiny in between the elements to

cause flare. Neither shows any separation, and the coated lens is

totally unscratched -- it looks perfect. Nice coating, too. But

there is no question about it -- the coated lens is delivering more

flare. It's unusable in any strong side-lit or back lit situation.

Thanks for all the responses. I see now my original question wasn't that clear: I mainly wanted to know if this enterprise was even theoretically possible before sinking another 100 dollars into it. As for the condensor/diffusion controversy, I am not prepared to spend 500$ on a diffusion head -- I just don't have the money for that. I didn't want to spend 200$ on condensors, either, but I suppose I can. I'll stew over it a little while longer. It looks like I don't have the room to use the single condensor. Maybe I can get the guy down to 50 bucks . . . .

Well, math and a few other things.

 

I've had a dream of making a simple box-style enlarger to enlarge

8x10 and 4x10 negatives to 16x20 and 8x20. The theory was to

dispense with the complicated stuff (moving lens plane, mainly) and

settle for a single enlargement size. I have a 15 inch process lens

and plenty of room. The problem of course is the light source.

 

I thought that problem was solved when I discovered on ebay a 10x10

condensor, taken apparently out of an old Durst Labrator Lacon 384

for eighty bucks. I bought it from psgys.com.

 

Boy was that ever a mistake. These shysters define "condensor" to be

ONE ELEMENT of the condensor: they sold me a single, useless element

of the condensor and of course in fifth-grade level english insist it

is non returnable, but they will happily sell me the other f*ing half

of it for $200.

 

I have, however, gotten them down to 80 bucks on the other half plus

22$ shipping. I have no interest in giving these con artists another

cent, but on the other hand I have a worthless boat anchor over here

right now. So I am debating: cut my losses or send more cash.

 

An interesting and informative web page at

http://216.87.164.59/specular_light.htm

discusses in a general manner the math regarding condensor lenses. I

am going to need to determine the distance from the light source to

the condensor, the condensor to the film plane, the film plane to the

lens, and the lens to the paper. The last two seem easy with trial

and error; the first two seems critical and possibly not so easily

determined.

 

Can anybody (Struan, you out there?) give me some insight on this

before I dump another hundred bucks into this probably useless

exercise?

 

Thanks very much.

 

Erik Ryberg

Well, for my typical opposing view on this issue you can see the archives, but in a nutshell: a great number of Crowns already have the front standard reversed. If it hasn't been reversed yet, a jeweler's screwdriver is all you need to do the job, it is very easy, and takes only a moment. Now you have all the front tilt you will ever be able to use. Rise is slightly limited compared to other field cameras. There are no back movements, but most landscape photographers don't use a lot of back movements. (I'll probably be screamed at by those who do, now.) For architecture you may want them, but then you probably don't want a field camera for architecture anyhow. There is no front swing or shift on a Crown, and this is a limitation for architecture. To use landscape format you must put the camera on its side as mentioned above, and this is another limitation because you lose the movements in portrait format.

 

You can get a bit more rise by drilling a lens board off center, though there isn't a whole lot of room to do that on those boards.

 

On the other hand, the cameras are cheap, light, and they do everything the average landscape photographer needs, most of the time. If it gets stolen or you drop it in the river it isn't the end of the world, which is a significant advantage in my view.

 

You can get a good body for a hundred bucks US if you look around, twice that if you don't feel like looking around. I can't figure out a reason for getting a mint one unless you are going to keep it on a shelf; leave those for the collectors. You want one you can bang around a little. It's just a well-designed box, after all.

 

Also, Crowns have some things their fancy-pants cousins do not, like for example rangefinders. (Okay, the real blue bloods like Linhof come with rangefinders.) It's fun to be able to use your 4x5 camera as a snapshot camera once in awhile. And, you can get a flash and use flashbulbs, which will practically illuminate the moon.

 

You can also try out large format photography inexpensively. And nothing says you can't buy other lenses and put them on the camera.

 

I think the price is more or less fair, particularly given it is at a shop where you can go inspect it and not deal with the hassle and risk of ebay (though I've had nearly uniform good luck with ebay, I should say). Do check the bellows, but they are generally not the failure point on these cameras, at least if it is a "newer" one. Also, try to get one with the grafloc back unless you are looking to save money.

 

Come to think of it, I don't know what the failure point is. Mine are all still going strong.

 

There are lots of archives on these fine cameras, and also www.graflex.org will tell you all you need to know. Good luck with your pictures.

"The problem with the Ries tripods is that they are neither ideal field tripods, nor good studio tripods -- they are a little of each.

And I've been told the spike feet are really Mickey Mouse. "

 

Were you also told they were neither ideal field tripods, nor good studio tripods? Ries tripods are great for what they were designed to do: hold a gigantic camera steady on just about any surface. I find the Ries to be an ideal field tripod, until I have to carry it. But I also find my Deardorff to be an ideal camera, until I have to carry it. So, they work very well together.

 

If you don't have something to say about a product that is more than "I heard from somebody that it sucks, so you should buy my product instead" you should expect to hear some grousing from the folks on this forum.

Your camera may already be cammed to a 135 mm lens, of course, in which case you won't have to do anything. Both my Graphics came cammed this way, as they used the Graphic Optar 135 lenses originally.

I've shot quite a few cameras from airplanes and I think the P67 is the best. I've used a Rollei TLR with the sportsfinder and it's true it worked, but it isn't ideal. Worked better than the 4x5 speed graphic though. I've shot about two frames with a Mamiya 7 (it wasn't mine) and that seemed fine, but the SLR is pretty nice in these cases. Plus the thing is so heavy I think it may dampen the vibration in a plane some -- I don't know that, but it seems like it.

 

The ability to use 220 film is nice in airplanes, too. (Which both the Mamiya and Pentax can.)

 

The 165 f2.8 lens is awesome for "informal outdoor portraits." There is nothing like a 2.8 lens at that focal length to separate the subject from the foliage etc. in the surroundings. The lens also has great bokeh, in my view.

 

Also, this camera is way cheaper than the Mamiya 7 and has a lot more stuff available used.

 

On the other hand, those Mamiyas sure are beautiful cameras. Very light weight, much, much, much quieter than the P67, and nobody beats their optics. Either one will produce outstanding images.

If your camera only has back tilt, which is kind of a pain, you can reverse the standard to get front tilt. All you need is a jeweler's screwdriver. With this modification you have front rise and front tilt, the two movements most people use most frequently.

Or better still, the 15" f5.6. You can get very tight headshots with this lens, and these things are all over ebay. They are great lenses, too. The ones in shutter are more expensive than the barrel ones, which you need a Speed Graphic for.

 

The one problem you may have with these lenses is your sync; you may need the two-pronged cord.

 

I second the opinion that a standard 240 is going to be too long to focus properly on your Crown.

The fstop is the focal length over the diameter of the aperture. A 300 mm lens with a 25mm aperture is at f12. You'll be able to get close enough with a ruler.

Let's just say photo-flo is not an acceptable substitute for selenium toner.

And if you use both flashbulbs and electronic flash and are a moron, like I am, you need a mnemonic to remember which is which or you'll forget. So "M" is for "mechanical." You know, old stuff is mechanical, new stuff is electronic; phonographs are mechanical, steam engines are mechanical. And new stuff always used to have an "X" involved in it somewhere. The "X-1 Supersonic Airplane" and so forth.

Kelly,

 

Do you have something against the period and the complete sentence?