brian_wallen
-
Posts
33 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by brian_wallen
-
-
I would second Vick's suggestion--a 135mm Optar (by Wollensak or Rodenstock for Graflex), 127 Ektar, or a 135mm Xenar were all lenses offered on 4 x 5 Graphics and are sharp even by today's standards. All were at single coated and reasonably well color-corrected. These will be better than most anything you could take out of a folder. All should be available for < $50.
-
If you are attracted to the 6 x 9 format and want to focus on groundglass, a reflex or magnifying viewer gives you about as clear and bright a view with the 6 x 9 as it does the 4 x 5 format. The reflex viewer also turns the image right side up. What others have said about focusing being cramped is true if you are trying to use a focusing loupe.
<p>
Although these add bulk, auxiliary backs that slide or rotate to allow you to switch between GG viewing and a rollholder really make using rollfilm more convenient in either format. For more:<br>
http://www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/BN_Photo/LFN/ReflexFinders1.html
<p>
Film is still available in the 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 size or if you are comfortable trimming film, you can get 4 of these sheets out of a single 5 x 7 sheet. In the longer term, 4 x 5 is likely to be more available.
<p>
If you want a technical back and full front movements in a 6 x 9, the Horseman VH and VH-R models give you the choice of a rangefinder/viewfinder or not. These are usually priced lower than the 6 x 9 Technikas. The VH weights about 3.7 pounds. A Horseman HD, a 4 x 5 without the technical rotating back, weighs the same, but is usually 50-100% more expensive. A Horseman FA, a 4 x 5 with full movements weighs about 4.5 lbs and will be $1000+. A 4 x 5 Super Graphic with RF/VF and a rotating, but not a technical back, but with good front movements would be about the same price as a Horseman VH. If you are interesting in these kinds of comparisons, there are more at:<br>
http://www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/BN_Photo/LFN/ViewNeedsEval1.htm
-
Denis,
You didn't mention which size Crown you have. They originally came in three sizes: 2 1/4 x 3 1/4, 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 and 4 x 5. The proportions of the image are different, so the existing finders may be showing you a frame that is not consistent with the 6 x 7 rollholder you are using. There were masks that could be inserted into the front of the optical finder on crowns that did the masking appropriately. You could make a mask as Charles suggests for the sports finder using the correct 6 x 7 proportions that might not be the proportions of the finder.
The clamps that hold the focus rail in place are held to the case with four screws that you can see by pulling the front standard and the bellows past the front of the focus rail, then upward. These may just be loose and can be tightened, or may be damaged as Charles suggests.
New ground glass is usually a good investment for cameras of this age if you actually prefer using GG focusing rather than a finder. A fresnel screen behind the GG will brighten the image. Sometimes these are installed on Crowns already, but if yours doesn't have one, it could help. Have you tried using a focusing loupe next to the GG for critical focusing?
The Crown is a nice Graphic to use with wide lenses, since the inner bed rails were articulated with the front part of the focusing rack. This lets you drop the bed to get it out of the field of view, but still use the focusing rack mechanism. You can even use all of the shift and a little rise while the front standard is still in the case.
-
Frank,
You might be interested in a page I just completed about reflex and magnifying viewers, including those for the Horseman VH/VH-R:
http://www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/BN_Photo/LFN/ReflexFinders1.html
Enjoy your little jewel.
-
Kodak's serial numbering convention, post about 1940, using the CAMEROSITY code for the year of manufacture is
generally thought to contain two letters/digits, so ER designates 1945. Occasionally I've seen three--e.g., EEI.
Anyone know what the extra character signifies?
-
From Lenses in Photography, Rudolf Kingslake, Director of Optical Design, Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, 1951,
p. 109-10.
...The possibility of this [reducing the surface reflectivity of glass] was recognized by H. Dennis Taylor in
1896 when he noticed that some old lenses having dark tarnished surfaces transmitted more light than a new lens
of the same kind, the reduction of surface reflectivity due to the tarnish actually causing an increase in the
lens transmittance. Subsequent attempts to produce this kind of tarnish artificially were irregular and
generally unsatisfactory, and the procedure was never attempted on a commercial scale. In 1936, Professor John
Strong* of California suggested that surface reflection could be reduced by depositing a thin layer of some
low-index material upon the surfaces of a lens. The material first proposed was calcium fluoride and the
deposition was done in a high vacuum by direct sublimation of the heated crystalline powder. As the thin layer
is gradually deposited in the vacuum chamber, it passes through the same range of colors that are seen on the
surface of iron when it is strongly heated, namely, light straw, darker straw, brown, magenta, blue, and finally
deep purple. The correct point to stop the deposition for normal photographic purposes is somewhere in the brown
stage.
...
Commercial low-reflection coatings of this kind were first offered for sale in December 1938, and since that time
great strides have been made in improving the process. Calcium fluoride is very effective in reducing
reflection, but it yields a soft layer which is easily rubbed off. Consequently it was early replaced by other
fluorides, which together with improvements in the vacuum technique, have made possible coatings which are now as
hard and durable as the glass itself. The photographer is cautioned, however, against the use of
silicone-treated cloths as the silicone material changes the characteristics of a coated lens.
_______________
* J. Strong, "On a method of decreasing the reflection from non-metallic substances." Journ. Opt. Soc. Amer. 26,
73-74 (1936).
---------------------------------------------
Kingslake goes on to explain the effects that coating produces in highlight and shadow areas and in establishing
film speed indexes.
In his 1989 title, A History of the Photographic Lens, Kingslake notes that in 1936 A. Smakula of Zeiss invented
the process of vacuum deposition on glass elements. I don't have a private copy of this, so I can provide a page
reference.
In a 1998 post, Marc Small summarizes early Zeiss coatings:
Alexander Smakula combined the two elements necessary for successful lens coatings, fluoride compounds and
vacuum-depositing techniques. He began this while completing his doctorate in an internship at the small German
optical works of Pohl; afterward, he was hired by Zeiss, where he completed the process in 1935. Zeiss began the
commercial production of coated lenses in 1937.
-
According to information I've gleaned from Kodak reference material, advertising ca 1940-45 and a couple of
Rudolf Kingslakes books, all premium Ektars from 1940--Bantam Specials, Ektra Ektars and Medalists and Eastman
Ektars--were soft-coated with calcium fluoride on inner surfaces. Bantam Specials made before 1938 could not
have been coated since the materials used for the coating were not commercially available until then.
Hard coating with magnesium fluoride was not discussed in the 1946 Reference Handbook: Lenses. The common wisdom
from observing individual lenses from the 40s is that lenses made for the military are likely to have been hard
coated earlier in this decade. In general production, as dates approach 1946, the likelihood is greater.
Uncoated Ektars after 1946 seem to be exceptions. The circled L trademark began appearing on Kodak lenses in
1946 and was universal on Anaston (3/2), Anastar (4/3) and Ektar (4/3, 5/3, 4/4) lenses by 1948, with the
possible exception of late Ektra Ektars.
I have a Bantam 4.5 with an Anastigmat Special with an EY SN, so the CAMEROSITY scheme dated from at least 1940.
-
Personally I like the term "rotating" to describe back orientation that can be changed while the back is still attached to the camera--rotation is what a planet does on its axis. "Revolving" is what one body does in an orbit around another--the Earth around the Sun--and seem less appropriate to the action of a camera back. "Reversible" is often used to describe backs that have to be removed from the camera to be reoriented.
Alan's advice to not trust advertising terms will make you a more satisfied shopper.
-
After reading this I was curious about what the Wista 6x9 holder would fit, other than the shift back for the Wista 4x5 models. While it won't correctly attach to either my Crown Graphic 23 or my Graflex XLs, it does appear to work with my Horseman VH, though I haven't checked for light leaks.
The sliding backs that Bob mentions for the Wista 4x5s are a joy to use when compared to the normal operation of swapping in a 4x5 120 rollholder for the GG panel every time you compose or recompose a shot. Horseman made a rotating back for the VH? series that provides similar functionality; perhaps these rotating backs fit other Horseman models. In both cases to fit these special rollholder backs requires removal of the standard international G assembly (Wista 4x5, or Horseman 6x9) so field swapping is cumbersome. It is more practical to go out knowing you will be doing either 4x5 or 120 work.
-
In comparing the Graphic Views with Speeds and Crowns, the GV has a major advantage--the rear frame can be
reoriented.
Movements are very limited on the Pacemakers and the rise/drop only work in landscape orientation. The rigidity
and smoothness of Graphic Views seems to vary considerably with their condition. With a good one I've never had
a problem with the front being woobly, even with large Ektars in Acme shutters, but these are flat designs;
modern lenses with long front and back cell design might create more instability.
The problem with buying a Crown or Speed Graphic as a first LF camera is that you get such a limiited capability
to explore movements in what they can do to control perspective and focus. The GV is arguably one of the
least expensive/most available ways to become familiar with movements and what these can add to
compositional techniques. If you like what you find, it is easy to branch out from there or easy to recoup what
you've invested in the GV if you aren't satisified.
I've tried to explore many of the options available to those considering large format use at:
http://www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/BN_Photo/LFN/ViewNeedsEval1.htm
-
Using an original Graflex holder, I make it about 6mm from the pan of the sheath to the wooden frame, that is done sighting along the frame to a ruler sitting on the sheath. I wonder if Weston would have been intrigued by this idea?
-
John,
You've apparently made comparison between models. I tried this by comparing Shen-Hao web pages and think I have
at least a partial list:
- HZX has stainless steel fittings; TZ has aluminum
- HZX has rear shift; TZ has front shift.
- TZ has about 8mm more front rise.
- HZX has about twice the amount of rear swing
- TZ has only rear base tilt; HZX has both base tilt and center tilt
- TZ has about twice the front swing.
- TZ has slightly more rear rise.
- and while it seems inexplicable, bellows draw of the TZ is reported to be 110->360 compared to 50->360 for the HZX.
Have I missed for feature differences? Other factors in your choice?
-
Thanks for both responses. While Bob's brings unwelcome news, it is very helpful. I hadn't realized that the f8 SA had less coverage than the f5.6. Guess I should have done more research. It's still useful, since I often use roll holders and just bought a Horseman 6x9 VH.
I had planned on making a ring with a smaller mounting hole for the small shutter, though I would have mounted it with the hole physically centered. I have no idea if the flat lens boards I have are from Wista or are clones. From your explanation, should I assume that any boards that have physically centered holes are not mounting the lenses on their optical centers?
Seems like the recessed board might be better utilized for providing freer bellows movement for the 75mm 5.6 SA, since even with the 65mm Grandagon or 5.6 SA, movements will be very constrained for 4x5. The Wista manual, in tentative English, seems to claim that the VX will focus a 65mm lens with the pleated bellows. I'll set up the 65mm on a flat board with a correctly positioned hole and try some test shots.
Tim's idea for a Graphic type linkage might work, though several Graphics I've had seemed to have very sluggish body releases. I think the front element sits far enough forward so that anything mounted on the front part of the recessed board would not be visible to the lens. The Gepe cable release seems to be the simplest for this type shutter.
Tim, I assume that you are not trying to cover 4x5 with your 47mm SA. I remember these being mounted on Graphic XLs.
Brian Wallen
-
I am trying to mount a 65mm Super Angulon in a tiny Synchro Computer (43mm shutter body) on a Wista/Technika
recessed board. Even though the lens hole in the board is offset toward the bottom of the board and the board
has a special bracket with an offset pin to reach back into the recessed portion, I can't arrange it to make
contact with the cable release port. The port on this SC model is a threaded collar mounted at 90 degrees to the
wall of the shutter body. The offset bracket approaches the cable release port at the wrong angle.
=> O
My slightly later 75mm SA is in a Prontor that has the cable release port at a steeper angle that could be
connected to the board's offset mechanism.
\
..O
I've got several cable releases with offset connectors, but the mounting shanks are all too long to clear the
recessed well of the board. The shortest of these shanks is about 30mm. A cable release with a shorter shank
and pin travel
would work, since it does take much to trip the shutter release plate in the 65mm shutter.
Has anyone had and solved this problem?
I've also wondered why these recessed boards for WA lenses have holes drilled off-center toward the bottom of the
board. This provides more front movement, but at least on a Wista/Technika board that can only positioned one
way on the front standard, it only exaggarates front fall and limits front rise, which for me is
counter-productive, since I more often use rise than fall.
Thanks.
Brian Wallen
-
There are many posts in this forum on 6x12 and 6x17 RFBs for 4x5 Grafloks. I
am trying to get a fix on who makes the 6x12 versions. It is clear enough that
I can get a Shen-Hao back for $295 + shipping from Badger. These have now been
offered long enough to assume that they are basically what has been described
here, warts and all. Getting non-Chinese descriptions of the Guohoa product
seems more difficult.
http://www.guo-hua.com.cn/zhuji1.htm
On eBay, I find a seller 'cowy07' with a back for $189 + $40 shipping. Anyone
know which product this is? Have experience buying from this seller?
Brian Wallen
-
Yes, Murray, you have spotted a difference that I had never noticed. I have a Supermatic No 2 from a Medalist I, but not a working Medalist I. I frequently shoot with a Medalist II. The physical lever on the left side of the lens on the Supermatic No 2 is a self timer and on the Flash Supermatic #2 the same lever was changed into a synch delay. My last flash use of the Medalist was so long ago that I had to play with mine to see this. Cocking the shutter does not set up the synch delay; you must do that independently. I think this may have something to do with the way the shutter is cocked in this particular Supermatic or perhaps that this was an early X-synch project at Kodak.
I've used quite a few Ektars and the 100mm on the Medalist is one of the sharpest. It holds its own against the 100mm Planar I use in my Graphic XL. The Medalist seems to me pretty revolutionary for a 1940 design. By those standards, it has a brilliant viewfinder and a clever independent rangefinder design. While the Chevron has a good four element lens, its viewfinder was abysmal for a 1950s premium design. I find the Medalist still very usable. It isn't much larger or heavier than some of the early metered Nikon SLRs. Apart from the knob winding, I like it for street photography.
-
As a followup, I checked my collection of Kodak Data Books and the original Kodak Reference Manual Lens & Shutters section.
Anastons and Anastars were the coated versions of Kodak Anastigmats and Kodak Anastigmat Specials. The Anastons appear to have all been triplets. The Anastars were in general Tessars, with some exceptions.
- A four element air spaced 80mm f/3.5 on the Kodak Reflex
- A triplet 44mm f/3.9 on the Pony II
- A triplet 44mm f/3.9 on the Pony IV
My data books extend through 1958. It is possible that Kodak used these names beyond that time.
-
Mike, the hole for your #1 Flash Supermatic should be 1.5" (38.1mm). You can find out other information that Kodak published about your Ektar here:
http://www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/BN_Photo/KodakEktarsIndex.htm
-
Andy, just to clarify, I assume you are referring to a Graphic View II.
These are 4x4 lens boards. The originals have a cast light trap rib on the back about 1/4 inch in from the edge. They should be available on eBay; there is currently a recessed board available.
I have made flat boards without the light trap rib and used them without problems with light leaks. I've used 90 mil aluminum sheet stock (available at hardware stores, enough for two boards, about $5). You can cut this on a table saw with a carbide tipped blade or a band saw with a metal blade, clean up the edges with a belt sander and cut the lens hole with a basic drill press and a hole cutter used for mounting door knobs. It's a good idea to paint the back side flat black. If that seems like too much trouble, a metal shop would probably make one for $15-20 and give a discount for multiple boards.
I think the hole size for a #0 is 34.8mm or 1 3/8 inches.
Brian Wallen
-
Sorry for being so late to this game, but here are some tracks for equally late readers...
According to Kodak Reference Manuals and later Data Books, the Wide Field Ektar in this range was 100mm. Kodak's claim for coverage was "Circle of good definition @ f /16: 165.6mm"
Specs: http://www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/BN_Photo/KodakEktarsDB1.htm
The 100mm WFE allows more movements on 4 x 5 than the 90mm Angulon. The Perez/Thalmann resolution tests show lots of variation in performance of different examples of the Angulon so you might find that other performance parameters of this model vary as well.
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez///testing.html
The son of a Kodak employee offered prototypes from his father's estate which did include what appeared to be a 107mm f/11 Wide Field Ektar, so it is possible that there are other non-standard models floating around.
http://www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/BN_Photo/KodakEktarAnomoliesGall.htm
-
Sometimes I see a brass spacer ring between the shutter body and front or rear cell, but mostly not. Over a large design batch, I can see that mounts might have been changed making interchangability possible within a batch, but not across batches. I removed the front and back cells from four Ektars, a Raptar and an Angulon. None had spacer rings either within the group or group to shutter. From this, can we deduce that among the best postwar manufacturers quality control in grinding had reached a point that the manufacturer treated elements within a design batch as interchangeable?
-
Jeff, I have reproduced some of the original Kodak data books that show lens formulas and specifications. These go back to about 1940 when Rudolf Kingslake took over the Kodak optics department. Your lens may predate that, but the data book information should be generally relevant.
http://www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/BN_Photo/KodakEktarsIndex.htm
-
Kelly, what is your source for the assertion that there were Xenars posing as pre WW II Ektars? I've never been able to find any published information about Ektars that appeared on Retinas. I assumed, maybe wrongly, that these early Retina/Ektar combinations were a result of WW II vagaries and that Kodak had imported the bodies, then mounted domestic Ektars on them.
There were prewar European Kodak models from the Nagel factory--like the Regents--that had Xenars and Tessars.
-
Michael, thanks again for your intuition about what I was aiming at.
Ultimately, I am interested in the answers to practical questions like, should I replace my 100mm Wide Field Ektar with something newer for $800 or would that money be better spent on an additional week in the Four Corners area. I can't really know that without making at least one $800 purchase and then comparing. It would be nice to know that whatever tests I did in comparing performance were at least reasonably reliable.
And yes, I do have a Kodak site with several Ektar pages, which only goes to show that it is possible to collect a lot of information about a subject and still have major gaps in understanding it.
Best lens for a Crown Graphic
in Large Format
Posted