ronald_gratz

<p>According to "The Linhof Story" the technikaflex was not a separate camera but rather an attachment that could be fitted to the Super Technika V to turn it into a TLR. It could be used with either a 150 or 270 mm lens. They do not mention how many were made but do say that it was not a success since with modern films a 120 TLR proved more popular.<br>

At the time of the book's publication (1990) "A few units are still available at the Linhof works".<br>

Ron Gratz</p>

<p>John,<br>

From what I have read Zeiss invented lens coating in 1935 so a 1930/31 lens would not have it yet. But, your lens could have been secondarily coated after manufacture so it is possible. <br>

There is an email group that is followed by folks much more knowledgeable in such matters that I am. You could post your question there: <a href="mailto:ZICG@yahoogroups.com">ZICG@yahoogroups.com</a> <br>

Ron<br /></p>

<p>The Kodak 9x12 (different from 3-1/4 x 4-1/4) sheet film holders will fit the Maximar. As for Zeiss-Ikon, beware. They made several different sheet film holders for their plate cameras. You want those marked 665/7. Metal holders marked 726/7 are clip on rather than slide in and were made for the Ideal and Universal Juwel cameras. They will not fit the maximar. There are also wooden holders (teak) for their tropical cameras (tropen adoro and tropica) that will not fit the maximar.<br>

In addition to the holders you will also need 9x12 film sheaths for the Zeiss holders. I have some Kodak holders that were made for film rather than glass plates but right now they are buried somewhere and so I cannot give you specifics. Finally, there are reducers (marked 725/4) that will fit into the Zeiss 9x12 plate holders and allow use of 3-1/4 x 4-1/4 plates. You can combine these with Kodak 3-1/4 x 4-1/4 film sheaths to allow use of that film in the 9x12 plates. As if that were not enough, several companies made slide in ground glass spring backs that allow use of modern (eg Lisco) double sided 3-1/4 x 4-1/4 sheet film holders.<br>

You might want to consider looking for a RADA or SUYDAM 120 roll film back made for the 9x12 plate cameras (careful here too because they also made these for 6x9 and probably other sizes as well). This will allow use of any of the current 120 roll-films, your 135mm lens becoming a modest telephoto lens.<br>

Welcome to the wonderful (and confusing!) world of the old plate cameras! Once you get the hang of them they are still capable of first rate photography.<br>

Ron Gratz</p>

<p>My 1995 Sotheby's catalog of the sale of the estate of Man Ray includes the following cameras:<br>

Thornton-Pickard folding field camera<br>

Zeiss-Ikon Contaflex SLR - the photo looks like the Contaflex IV<br>

Zeiss-Ikon Ikoflex III TLR<br>

Voigtlander Avus 9x12<br>

Unidentified half-plate tailboard camera<br>

Ron Gratz</p>

<p>While the Brownie was strictly an amateur camera, it is significant that the 1954 Pulitzer Prize winning photograph was taken with a Kodak Brownie (model not specified). The photo is of a truck accident on a bridge with the cab dangling off the bridge. The driver is seen climbing to safety on a rope that had been lowered to him. My source is the book: " Moments - The Pulitzer Prize Photographs" by Sheryle and John Leekley, Crown Publishers, New York.</p>

<p>Ron Gratz</p>

<p>Here's the second photo.</p>

<p>Ron</p><div></div>

<p>I also have an old 1930 Zeiss, with film holders, that I cut 9x12 for. Didn't know an adapter existed. Would love to know more about the adapter you have from Lisco.. Could you give me some specified info or point me in the right direction, for such an 3x4 adapter?<br>

Peter,<br>

The adapter is a metal 3.24x4.25 back that slides into the grooves of old European style 9x12 folders. The one I have does not have a manufacturer's name on it. I bought it on ebay many years ago. Lisco is the name of the sheet film holders I have that fit this back. I am attaching 2 photos of the back, one showing it partially inserted into the grooves of my 9x12 Jewel. I have also used this on my 9x12 Zeiss-Ikon Maximar, Ideal and Trona. <br>

Ron<br>

</p><div></div>

<p>This format is clearly not dead but may be dying. I note that neither Freestyle nor B&H offer that film size anymore - they did a few years ago and fortunately I stocked up. <br>

I do still shoot it as an alternative to my larger 4x5 system using an ancient (1930's) Zeiss-Ikon Universal Jewel made for 9x12 cm film. I have an adapter that allows me to use modern (Lisco, etc) 3.25x4.25) sheet film holders. <br>

Ron Gratz</p>

<p>I have a 3.25 x 4.25 reducing back made by Burke & James and stamped Eastman 33A. The Eastman 33A was only made in 5x7 format. It is wood, in great cosmetic condition and fully functional (ie you can insert a 3.25x4.25 film holder with ease) and has a gridded ground glass. <br>

I assume (but cannot guarantee) that a skilled craftsman could modify this to fit a wooden 4x5 camera or perhaps even a metal camera. Again, no guarantees.<br>

Since I do not own a 33A and doubt I ever will this is of no use to me. I am willing to give it away for a $20 donation to our local Habitat for Humanity affiliate. <br>

If anyone is interested please contact me. I can send photos if you wish to see it.<br>

Ron Gratz (rkgratz@mtu.edu)</p>

<p>I have several old cameras that use 122 film (my favorite is an old Zeiss-Ikon Nixe ) and through ebay was able to accumulate a fair number of rolls of 122 Kodak Verichrome Pan over the years, still usable even though there is some fog on some of the rolls. I was also able to purchase a Nikkor 122 developing tank and reel with loading flange. I have processed ~ 20 rolls of 122 VP over the past few years.<br>

Despite having the proper developing tank with the reel and a loading flange, I find that the rolls of VP have too much curl to load reliably. The film jumps out of the reel grooves and sticks together. I did sacrifice one of my rolls and practiced loading in daylight to try to get the technique down but cannot get past the inherent curl of the film. As a result I have come to prefer the old "dip-and-dunk" method (John Wiegerink's description) for developing the film. I have not lost a roll doing it this way. It is also cheaper than buying a 122 tank (if you can find one) or trying to make a reel. By the way, I get very printable negatives and have exhibited 11x14 prints made from these negatives. I have used primarily D-76 but have also tried Rodinal. I have been intending to try HC-110 but my results with the other developers are good enough so this has not been a priority.<br>

As for times, my 1970 Kopak Darkroom Dataguide says to process rollfilm verichrome pan in D-76 develop for 7 minutes, HC-110 Dilution A requires 4 minutes and HC-110 Dilution B requires 8 minutes. Whichever you use I recommend you process for 1 - 2 minutes longer to increase contrast. I have not tried anti-fog since I am getting good results without it. <br>

Good Luck!<br>

Ron Gratz</p>

<p>The boards for the 6x9 Technika III and IV are identical in dimensions. However, for the Technika IV Linhof added a small pin at the bottom of the facing where the lensboard sits. To accommodate this the IV boards have a notch cut at the bottom. I suppose this gives the board greater stability though I have not noticed any difference. The upshot is that Technika IV boards can be used on the Technika III. A board for the III can be used on the Technika IV if you cut a notch into the board with a hacksaw. I have done this and it works just fine as long as you take care to position the notch correctly.<br>

None of my boards have parts numbers on them so I cannot address which boards I have.<br>

Ron Gratz</p>

<p>I cringe at the thought of disagreeing with Bob on anything Linhof related but I own both a 6x9 Technika III and a 6x9 Technika IV. The clearance between the standards for both is 75mm. I have tried to mount a Copal 0 shutter on the Tech IV and it barely fits. You have to position it just right to be able to get at the preview lever, cock the shutter and mount a cable release. It is such a pain to use that I gave up and am sticking with lenses in compur shutters. The Copal 1 shutter requires 85 - 90 mm of clearance and will not fit unless you have a special lensboard that extends forward past the standards. I dont know if such a board exists.</p>

<p>Ron Gratz</p>

<p>I own a large number of older Zeiss-Ikon folding plate cameras. The "better" models, eg Ideal, Universal Juwel, used a proprietary bayonet mount (there were several variations). I can't tell from the photo but this may be one. In some versions the lens had a flange that meshed with the mount on the lens board and that flange was held on by a retaining ring. If your lens has a retaining ring unscrew it and see if the silver tabs come off. It appears from the photo that they may be screwed on in which case you can remove the tabs by removing the screws. If there is a retaining ring you can use it to mount the lens to any lens board with the proper diameter opening. If there is no retaining ring but there are threads for one you could have a machine shop make one. SK Grimes offers this service (<a href="http://www.skgrimes.com/home">http://www.skgrimes.com/home</a>).<br>

Ron Gratz</p>

<p><strong>I have run into the same problem and bought a Gepe wide angle cable adapter for each of my lenses. At $19.95 each they are not cheap but they do solve the problem. The only difficulty I have had with them (Schneider lenses on Linhof boards) is that they can come unscrewed from the lens when you remove the cable release from the adapter. This is just a matter of being careful. They are available from Midwest camera exchange: <a href="http://www.mpex.com/browse.cfm/4,2223.html">http://www.mpex.com/browse.cfm/4,2223.html</a>.</strong><br>

<strong>Ron Gratz</strong></p>