robert_meyer3

<p>I use Diafine for several different types of Kodak scientific glass plates, and for Kodak Electron Image film. It's a 2-bath developer, and you develop all films for the same times, 3 minutes in each bath. I get good approximately-normal contrast negatives out of everything I develop with it.</p>

<p>I have an Ansco Memo. Mine came with the original wooden film cassettes. I loaded them with some bulk 35mm film, but never finished shooting the roll. It holds about 70 pictures as I recall (1/2 frame).</p>

<p>The easiest plate holders to use are those made by Graflex. You just move a slide and tabs come in from the side and cover the edge of the glass plate to keep it from falling out. The more convertional glass plate holder had a ledge that one end fits under. The other end has a spring-loaded ledge that must be pulled back to insert the plate, then released to hold the plate. The hard part is pulling the spring loaded part back in the dark and getting the plate out. I've always found it easiest to hold the plate holder up with the fixed ledge side on a table, and the spring-loaded sie up, release the plate, and let it gently rotate out into my hand. I much prefer the graflex holders when I can find them.</p>

<p>Does your shop have a web page?</p>

<p>I shoot glass plates often. I came into a large supply of Kodak scientific glass plates and I'm still working my way through them. I develop all of the different kinds in Diafine. The nice thing about Diafine is that every film or plate is developed the same, 3 minutes in each of the 2 baths.</p>

<p>I haven't used Ilford plates for photography, but I have used Kodak glass plates: type 33 in 5x7, Metalographic plates in 8x10, and Spectrographic plates in 4x5. I've managed to get good (i.e., normal contrast) prints out of all of them. I develop all of them in Diafine. I also develop Kodak Electron Image Film (3 1/4" x 4)" in Diafine. I have yet to find any film or plates that can't be used for pictorial photography, unless it's fogged.</p>

<p>I wouldn't use any of the above. The cleaner that would leave the least residue would probably be ether. You used to be able to buy it in a drug stote, but I don't think you can anymore. I asked a chemist friend of mine and he said that the starter fluid spray used to start cars in the winter is almost pure ether. I wouldn't blindly use that either, but would first spray in on a clean metal plate or something, and look to see it it left a residue. If it leaves a residue it will add to the problem, not cure it.</p>

<p>I recently brought a bulk roll of tech pan on Ebay from a guy in Israel and loaded a couple film cartridges with it. I developed it in Technidol (I had a few packs around). It appears fine, I don't notice any fogging.</p>

<p>Over the past 30 years I've sollected about 20 graflex SLR's. I use 2 1/4 x 3 1/4, 3 1/4 x 4 1/4, 4x5 and 5x7 Graflex SLR's. The models I have are RB Series B, RB Series D, RB Super D, Auto Graflex Jr., Auto Graflex, Revolving Back Auto Graflex, RB Auto Graflex, and RB Tele Graflex. I also have a non-working Compact Graflex and a couple non-working Press Graflexes. In general the easiest to use are the Super D's, if the have the Auto-diaphragm lens. These can be focused with the lenses wide open, and automatically stop down when the shutter is triggered. Next I like the RB Auto Graflexes. These are the ones where the front opens down and forms a track for a double-extension bellows. The ability to use longer lenses and do closeups is nice, but even nicer is the fact that the lens is out where you can see it easily to set the f-stop. That brings us to my third-favorite model, the RB Series B, which has a track that comes out through a little door, leaving the lens where you can easily see to set the aperture. Most of the other models have the lens enclosed in a box where it's harder to see the lens f-stop scale. This can sometimes be a problem on an old lens where the aperture scale isn't easy to see. I have fixed the shutters on many of my Graflex SLR's, or reset the shutter tension, using info in a little pamphlet sold by Ed Romney on fixing Graflex SLR's. Ed is dead now, and his website appears to be shut down. If you can find his pamphlet on Ebay, buy it. The models I would avoid at all costs are the Compact Graflexes, which have double-curtain shutters. I've never seen one that works. I use my Graflex SLR's a lot. However, it's harder to get a good focus with a Graflex SLR than it is with one of the Graphic models with a properly set rangefinder. When I use one of the SLR's I try to carry a lens with me mounted on a lensboard that will just sit in the top of the focusing hood and magnify the image on the ground glass so I can get the best focus possible. For about 3-4 years I did almost all of my photography with a 5x7 Auto Graflex (made in 1917-1918). In recent years I find that I've gone back to my 4x5 Super Graphic more because of the better focus that lets me make better enlargements. As far as I'm concerned there is no camera that's more fun to use than a Graflex SLR. However, you do have to work harder to get a good focus than with a rangefinder.</p>

<p>I have a CC-400. I use three lenses on it: a Schneider 90mm Super angulon, a 150mm Schneider Symmar (convertible to 265mm) and a Schneider 210mm Schneider Symmar (also convertible to 370mm). I've been happy with the results, but I don't use the convertible feature much.</p>

<p>For several years I used to take my Super Graphic Graflex 4x5 everywhere as my primary camera. Then I got sent to Japan a couple times for corproate meetings. I thought the Super was too big a kit to take to Japan, so I took a Kodak Medalist (I), together with a mess of 620 Verichrome Pan and some Kodacolor II. This is back in the day when I still had a big stash of 620 film in the freezer. I got a lot of good shotsof Tokyo, Mount Fuji, etc. I had people stop me on the streets of Tokyo to look at the camera. Several tried to buy it from me. I could have sold a dozen Medalists if I had them. This was in the day before Ebay, so if I sold my Medalist I probably couldn't have found another, so I didn't sell. The one I had I found in a local antique shop for $60. (I brought a Leica IIIc the same place, same day, same price).</p>

<p>I've only had this problem once. A friend came to me and asked me to develop 6 rolls of B&W film that had been shot about 50 years ago, put in a drawer, and left undeveloped. I tried various developers to minimize fog, but they all came out foggy to some extent. However, when I hung them up to dry I thought they were all printable. Life got busy and I didn't get back to them for about a week. When I looked the negatives were all completely fogged, no sign of the originally observable images. I posted here about that once before and was told that it was an indication that my fixer was old and gone bad. I don't think so, I think I used freshly-mixed Kodak Fixer. At any rate, let me further say that I got acceptable (barely) prints from all of the negatives. I used my point source head to get enough light through the fog, and used the highest contrast paper I had on hand (grade 4 or 5, I don't remember which) and found a tiny exposure window where I could get prints. Too long exposure and the paper went entirely black. Too short exposure and the paper was entirely white. However, there was a window where a print could be made showing the image that was there before the fog overlaid it. I was surprised by this result, but it's true.</p>

<p>Graflex also made focal plane shutter assemblies to fit on normal view cameras. I have one for my Century Universal 8x10. In addition, the were European cameras like the Mentor and the Anschutz that had focal plane shutters. </p>

<p>I like a 4x5 Graflex Super-D. The auto-diaphragm used on the 4x5 Super-D was designed by a professional photographer who specialized in doing portraits of children. The auto-diaphragm was nice because the viewing screen was bright enough that he could watch the child on a bright view screen and snap the picture when the child had a pleasant expression.</p>

<p>When I flew to California last December I was told by the TSA employees that film slower than ASA400 could go through the Xray machines without fogging. ASA400 and faster should be hand passed around the Xray machines for hand inspection. I had them hand inspect all my film, and wouldn't let them Xray any of it. They weren't pleased. I don't care.</p>

<p>I have a Bender 4x5 monorail kit camera. With the short rail it weighs around 3 1/2 pounds.</p>

<p>I have used two different single-roll tanks for 35mm and 120, as well as Paterson tanks for 2-, 5-, and 8-35mm rolls. I've never noticed any difference in the quality of the developed film from any of them.</p>

<p>I thought a panoramic shot was one that had a wide angle of view. Kodak Panoram cameras shoot somewhere from 110 degree to 150 degree wide views in the long direction (depending on the model). Similarly for the Widelux 35mm cameras. What you're doing here is just getting the normal angular width of the camer lens, and then truncating the shot in the other direction. You get a high aspect ratio print (like a panoramic camera would give), but it's not a panoramic view.</p>

<p>I would guess that the forum would have been largely devoted to a few of the classic European cameras: Leica, Exakta, Contax, Rolleiflex, plus a lot of the old Kodak classic cameras, especially those in 620, 127, 828, and 122. There would have been a lot of Kodak Medalists, Chevrons, etc. I know in the early 1980's I was was sent to Japan on a couple business trips. My camera of choice was a Kodak Medalist, I took both Kodacolor and Verichrome 620 film with me, and shot a lot of it. I had a lot of folks stop me on the streets of Tokyo and ask to see the camera, and several offers to buy it. I know in those days, when Kodak discontinued a film we brought bricks of it to freeze so we could keep using our favorites for the forseeable future. I still have some (maybe half a brick) 620 Verichrome left from bricks I brought then.</p>

<p>This type of camera is known alternately as a falling plate camera or as a cyclone camera. I have one in 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 format. They were apparenly popular in the 1890's. See <a href="http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Cyclone">http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Cyclone</a></p>

 

<p>I have tried a slightly different approach to an 8x10 handheld camera. I have a Century Universal 8x10 with a working Graflex focal plane shutter attachment that will give shutter speeds to 1/1000 sec. With this I can use any barrel lens with a focal length greater than about 180mm (the minimum lens to film distance). I have put a Saltzman diaphragm lens holder on the lens board so I can change lenses easily. I have tried hand holding a 210mm/ f9 Repromaster lens, as well as with a 300mm/f5.6 Schneider Componon. It will work. In effect this is an 8x10 Speed Graphic, though with no rangefinder or any good means of composing the photo. Remember that long focal length lenses have a shorter depth of focus than shorter lenses at the same f-stop. In order to get the same depth of focus as you would have with a 135mm lens on a 4x5 Speed Graphic you need to close the diaphragm down more, leading to longer exposures. In order to make hand-holding 8x10 work you need to use as short focal length lens as you can that will cover the format. I think a better approach is to find a 5x7 Speed Graphic. I have one and it is much more practical for hand-holding than the 8x10 discussed above. The only problem with the 5x7 Speed Graphic is that the lensboard isn't very big. I have used mine with both a 210mm/f5.6 Schneider Componon and with a Zeiss B&L Protar (I don't remember the focal length). To come back to your initial question, you might try a 240mm/f5.6 Schneider Symmar. I think that might cover 8x10. I also have a Schneider 270mm Xenar that I've used on my 8x10. The focus is a little soft in the corners, but well illuminated. Try your 360mm Tele-Xenar. I would think it would cover 8x10. I have a 15" (378mm) Tele-Optar intended for 4x5 that covers 8x10.</p>

<p>Both lenses are probably more appropriate in an 8x10 kit, although they will work on a 4x5 if the camera will take that big a lensboard. The 12" Commercial Ektar is a normal focal length for an 8x10, while the 190mm is a wide angle for 8x10.</p>

<p>I have a similar lens, a Kodak Process Ektar, 30", that weighs 7.5 pounds (3.4 Kg). I use it on an 11x14 view camera. It makes great prints, if you're willing to carry it.</p>

<p>Sorry, make that a Revolving Back Series B 2 1/4 x 3 1/4.</p>

<p>The problems using a rollfilm back are unique to the design of the Auto Graflex Jr. The problems come about from the hump on the back for the shutter curtain. I have a 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 Series A with a Graflex 2x3 rollfilm back that work fine together.</p>