[rollei_list] Re: 4x5
- From: Thor Legvold <tlegvold@xxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 23:55:59 +0100
Thanks guys.
I’ve brought the ‘Graphic back up from the basement along with the roll film
back and will familiarize myself with them soon.
Anyone have any good references to start with? I have figured out how to open
it, but am not sure how far out to pull the front standard/lens assembly, and
note that the rangefinder on the side (Kalart?), is not only dim, but seems not
to be calibrated at all.
As far as I can tell this is a Century Graphic (2x3” model) with graflok back,
and a “Singer” RH 10 rollfilm back, with a large blue winding lever and a
darkslide on it. The film gate aperture looks like 6x7cm to me.
The camera’s serial number is: 518316, it’s fitted with a Graphlex Optar 101mm
f/4.5 (made by Wollensack), the shutter goes up to 1/400 second.
Thanks,
Thor
On 2. jan. 2015, at 22:33, Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I would agree, especially your observations on tonality/tonal
> rendition. but think the real breaking point is 6 7 or 6 9 unless you
> print square
>
> If you don't print square the different between 66 and 67/69 on
> enlargement is obvious to my eye
>
> Eric Goldstein
>
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>> Just in general: 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 seems to be the break point on quality.
>> I discovered long ago that going from 35mm negs to 2-1/4 x 2-1/4, provided
>> one did not crop much, made a very noticable difference in _tonal
>> rendition_, not just detail. The closest I ever go to larger negatives with
>> 35mm was T-Max 100 developed in Perceptol (Microdol-X would have done as
>> well). This began to have some smoothness. I used Technical Pan and
>> Technidol too but even though it was extremely fine grain it always looked
>> strange, perhaps because of the Type-C pan response.
>> Going from 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 to 4x5 can make a difference in large prints but
>> its not nearly as noticable as the difference from 35mm. I've shot up to
>> 8x10 but the large negs were contact printed and don't really look much
>> different than the smaller ones enlarged. I am sure on larger prints it
>> _would_ make a difference. I have toyed with making an adaptor so that I
>> could use my 8x10 Agfa view camera as an enlarger but have never done
>> anything practical about it. I suspect one could make a very efficient light
>> source from LEDs.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard Knoppow
>> Los Angeles
>> WB6KBL
>> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> ---
>> Rollei List
>>
>> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the
>> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>
>> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the
>> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>
>> - Online, searchable archives are available at
>> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
