 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Large Format / March 2008Zeiss Ikonta Shutter - Rapid and Synchro - both have flash?
(Asking here because of the great expertise here. I also posted to the MF group.) It was/is my understanding that the old Zeiss Super Ikonta 'flash' shutter was called a Synchro, and that the Rapid and other shutters had no flash terminal. However, on that big auction site a fellow has one with a Rapid shutter and claims that it has a flash terminal. He says it is just next to the shutter cocking lever. Is this atypical or am I just flat wrong? It's item #230226141947 On 2/27/2008 5:33 AM jjs spake thus: > (Asking here because of the great expertise here. I also posted to the MF > group.) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It's item #230226141947 I just uncased my Moskva-5, which is the Soviet copy of that camera, and sure enough, my Moment-24C shutter has a flash connection. Since the camera is pretty much a note-for-note copy of the Super Ikonta, I'd guess that the Zeiss shutter also had flash capability. By the way, don't know if you're bidding on that camera, but it's one of the cams I lust after. Someday ... (I'd also like to have a Voigtlander Bessa (the 6x9 rangefinder model), and a Kodak Medalist, and ...). > By the way, don't know if you're bidding on that camera, but it's one of > the cams I lust after. Someday ... (I'd also like to have a Voigtlander > Bessa (the 6x9 rangefinder model), and a Kodak Medalist, and ...). :) Nope. Not bidding. I check the site just to stay in touch with the market. I have a 645 and 6x9 Super Ikonta, each in EX condition. It took me only about forty years and several bad buys to find the good ones. :) No flash synch on mine. #40642xx. Where the ebay seller's camera has its flash synch, mine has a cable release socket. It looks entirely different. Richard mentioned that perhaps one version had a shutter that worked only on X. I can see how the shutter could have been made with a flash synch that replaced the cable release. But were there X (electronic) flashes back then? ASIDE: (I have a Russian device that adds a flash socket to these old cameras. It goes into the cable release socket and has a variable delay adjustment to synchcronize from X to M and longer. Very, very cool little thing. I came across it by pure luck.) > a shutter that worked only on X. But were there X (electronic) flashes > back then? Cough; isn't that a self-answering question? * * * X-only was common as X works with flashbulbs with a suitably slow shutter speed but electronic flash doesn't work with M/FP flashbulb synch. Switchable shutter synch was reserved for high-end gear - Exaktas came with X, M and FP synch and early Leicas had FP and X. Having flash synch was the luxury option. Mamiya Press Seiko shutters came with M and X - usually with the lever set to X and epoxied in place by the last user. Obviously, pre-WWII cameras were predominately bulb-only synch.  SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com >> a shutter that worked only on X. But were there X (electronic) flashes >> back then? > > Cough; isn't that a self-answering question? 1930-something? Silly me, I presumed that X meant Electronic flash. I was so wrong for so many years. I just looked at an old shutter here that has a red-faced switch for various flash delays. My old 70mm Graflex military range finder had a big switch for a 20ms delay. I use bulbs but always with long shutter speeds, often B. > Mamiya Press Seiko shutters came with M and X - > usually with the lever set to X and epoxied > in place by the last user. Had my 'blads CLAd and the fellow put a block in the M/X switch to keep it on X. Wish he had not done that. Hey, I have two of the monster Mazda flash bulbs left. Wanna do some night photography? :) > (Asking here because of the great expertise here. I also > posted to the MF group.) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > It's item #230226141947 Somewhere I found a site illustrating all the Deckel shutters with dates. Bookmarked on another machine and I can't find it now. It seem to me that a flash synch version of the Compur-Rapid was made but synched only for strobe (X) synch. The later Synchro-Compur synchs both M (Medium delay flash bulbs) and X. Some Rolleiflex cameras made just after WW-2 have the X synch type of shutter. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > Somewhere I found a site illustrating all the Deckel shutters with > dates. Deckel - that's a good lead. I will try to surf out the information. Mine has a Compur Rapid. Where the eBay camera has a flash synch, is exactly where the cable release is on mine. >> Somewhere I found a site illustrating all the Deckel >> shutters with dates. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Mine has a Compur Rapid. Where the eBay camera has a flash > synch, is exactly where the cable release is on mine. That may be a modified shutter. Its relatively easy to modify any of the old Compur or the Compound for X synch. The tech doing it may have decided it was simpler to sacrifice the cable release socket than to drill a new hole for the connector. Most shutters with built-in flash synch were made after 1945. Before that it was usual to use some form of solenoid. Most were mounted externally but some Ilex shutters had a second cable release socket for a screw-in solenoid. The first Compur shutters with built-in synch were X synch (flash is fired just as the shutter reaches maximum opening) because that is very easy to do. All one needs is a contact post mounted on the blade driving ring. For flashbulbs the shutter opening must be delayed long enough to allow the bulb to come up to maximum brightness. That is usually doen with a clock-work delay in the shutter, often a modified version of the time-delay mechanism (as it was in the Kodak Flash Supermatic). This is actually also how the solenoid works. The solenoid is energized when the bulb is flashed but the magnetic and mechanical delay is set so that the shutter tripping is delayed just enough to allow the bulb to get started. Ilex made the first shutters with built-in synch. Kodak and Ilex shutters required that the delay mechanism be cocked separately from the shutter, Compur and Wollensak cocked both from the same lever. Many people having Kodak Flash Supermatic shutters do not realize that they are also X synch. There are two sets of contacts in the shutter, one on the blade ring, the other operated when the shutter delay mechanism is tripped. For X synch the synchronizer is simply not cocked so the first set of contacts never closes. The X synch contact has a relatively high resistance in series with it so it can't fire flash bulbs. This is done so that bulbs won't be inadvertently fired when setting up. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > That may be a modified shutter. Its relatively easy to modify any of > the old Compur or the Compound for X synch. !! That is quite encouraging! I will look for someone who will do that. I actually use the 6x9 and a fill-flash would be wonderful. Recent picture made with it here: http://www.digoliardi.net/images/drake_m.jpg > [...] > Most shutters with built-in flash synch were made after 1945. Before > that it was usual to use some form of solenoid. [...] Those solenoids are ingenious things. An interesting application is to use one as an electric remote release. Just wire a two-cell flashlight case to it, press the on button. Trivia side: I have a Printex flashe. It uses no battery. It uses a magneto to fire the flash and a cam on the magneto's shaft trips a mechanical transfer to the shutter. Yup. I still use flashbulbs. Greatest things in the world for off-the-camera huge light. See it here: http://www.digoliardi.net/printex/batt-free-flash.html >> That may be a modified shutter. Its relatively easy to >> modify any of the old Compur or the Compound for X synch. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > the world for off-the-camera huge light. See it here: > http://www.digoliardi.net/printex/batt-free-flash.html Just never fire a bulb off in your face... YIKES!! I agree about using solenoids for remote tripping. Silent and no limit on distance. Some shutters, particularly the Kodak Supermatic and Flash Supermatic, will not trip at 1/400 with just two batteries and sometimes not with three. This was a problem in the old days and extra-high-voltage photoflash batteries were made for just this purpose. Its possible to find case extenders for Graflex flashguns to take an additional battery. This is usually enough to get the solenoid to trip reliably on 1/400th second and insure the voltage stays high enough to fire the bulb. Older Compur shutters, found on Speed Graphics, also have a high tripping pressure at the top speed (usually 1/200th) so will do better with an additonal battery. I have been trying to design an adaptor for getting smaller batteries in the Graflex case without modifying it. Four cells or even a 9volt battery would insure reliable tripping and synchronization. Espcially on Anniversary Graphics press photgraphers preferred to trip the shutter using the solenoid even when equipped with shutters with built-in synchronizers. This is because of the convenience of having the trip button on the case, which also works as a handle. Flash bulbs put out more light for the weight than any other source. They were replaced with strobe because of convenience and because bulbs were always rather expensive. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > Just never fire a bulb off in your face... YIKES!! > I agree about using solenoids for remote tripping. Silent and no limit > on distance. Some shutters, particularly the Kodak Supermatic and Flash > Supermatic, will not trip at 1/400 with just two batteries and sometimes > not with three. This was a problem in the old days and extra-high-voltage > photoflash batteries were made for just this purpose. Yup! I know. Radio-Shack, still offer the old 22.5V batteries that those units used. This link shows a camera that used the same. http://www.digoliardi.net/ks6/ I had that set since 1968, and later sold that for a bloody fortune. Sometimes life it good. :) >> Just never fire a bulb off in your face... YIKES!! >> I agree about using solenoids for remote tripping. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I had that set since 1968, and later sold that for a > bloody fortune. Sometimes life it good. :) The 22.5V batteries were used in several BC type flashguns including one of the Rolleiflash units. I don't think they were ever used for solenoid flash. The "high voltage" batteries I was talking about were standard Size-D cells with something special about the mix. They were enough higher than the standard 1.5V so that three of them in a standard flashgun would have enough extra oomph to deal with hard to trip shutters. I don't think these have been made for decades. I don't know what was done to them to increase the voltage but they had a reputation for having short life. When Wollensak came out with the Rapax shutter it was designed to eliminate this problem by having a constant and relatively low "trigger pull" at all speeds. Although Wollensak made some flakey lenses their shutters were always excellent. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com >>> Just never fire a bulb off in your face... YIKES!! >>> I agree about using solenoids for remote tripping. Silent and no [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > pull" at all speeds. Although Wollensak made some flakey lenses their > shutters were always excellent. Begging your pardon, Richard, but I think a solenoid would require high current (amperes), while a flash bulb would require votage. I'd venture to guess that a couple of old-style 1.5V dry cells (about 2" diameter and 6" high with screw cap connections, originally used as "talk batteries" in telephone systems) would pull in most solenoids. Generally with batteries, size/bulk equals current. The larger the cell, the more current it can source, generally. How big a solenoid would it take to trip the old wind-up focal plane shutters in the press cameras?! (The shutter curtain had four different size slits and the was a tension setting to control how fast the slit moved.) > How big a solenoid would it take to trip the old wind-up focal plane > shutters in the press cameras?! (The shutter curtain had four different > size slits and the was a tension setting to control how fast the slit > moved.) Hello, Ken. The solenoids in question are tiny things, about the size of the end of your little finger. It did not wind the FC shutter. It merely tripped the lens' leaf shutter. Here's a most excellent picture of one. Scroll down. http://www.xs4all.nl/~lommen9/GRAFLITE/index.html "Ken Hart" <kwhart1@verizon.net> > but I think a solenoid would require high current (amperes) It's not really current but 'ampere-turns' that are required. If you wrap twice as much wire around the coil you need 1/2 the current. However, when you lower the current requirement you also increase the inductance of the solenoid, and this makes it slow. To make the solenoid faster you can increase the voltage and decrease the wire size to limit the current. The whole thing becomes a 5-way trade-off and you can make a solenoid that works on any voltage and current you wish if you are willing to trade off speed, strength and/or stroke (and cost). > while a flash bulb would require votage. It's both voltage and current: volts * amps = power, and it is power that lights off the flash. The bulb can be designed for any voltage desired. Most flash bulbs will fire at 3 volts. The 22.5 V BC (battery & capacitor) flashes were more reliable as they had enough voltage to punch-through any dirt in the bulb contacts or poor contact between the spun wires in the bulb. Because the 22.5 batteries can't deliver much current, the battery charged a capacitor - the capacitor can deliver high current but only for a very short while, which is OK as it only takes a few milliseconds to get a flashbulb ignited. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > "Ken Hart" <kwhart1@verizon.net> > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > you are willing to trade off speed, strength and/or stroke > (and cost). A 5-way trade-off? I can deal with E=IR and "ELI the ICEman, but a five way trade? Would that be a pentratradic equation? >> while a flash bulb would require votage. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > any dirt in the bulb contacts or poor contact between > the spun wires in the bulb. Back in my college days, (Pennsylvania Governor's School for the Arts at Bucknell University), we used to sneak into a dorm room, remove the light bulb from the ceiling fixture and screw in a flashbulb (#5?). Then we waited for the occupant to return. 110V was plenty of voltage to fire those things! >> "Ken Hart" <kwhart1@verizon.net> Snipping here.... > Back in my college days, (Pennsylvania Governor's School > for the Arts at Bucknell University), we used to sneak > into a dorm room, remove the light bulb from the ceiling > fixture and screw in a flashbulb (#5?). Then we waited for > the occupant to return. 110V was plenty of voltage to fire > those things! Maybe either a General Electric No.50 or Wabash-Sylvania No.3. These were about the size of a No.2 photoflood and were meant to fit into standard studio reflectors. These lamps are listed as having six million peak lumens. The open flash guide number for ISO-100 film is around 780. These were the most powerful bulbs made. If more light was needed you had to use flash powder. The GE No.5 or Wabash/Sylvania Press-25 was a bayonet base bulb, very common for both press and small amateur cameras. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com >>>> Just never fire a bulb off in your face... YIKES!! >>>> I agree about using solenoids for remote tripping. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > curtain had four different size slits and the was a > tension setting to control how fast the slit moved.) Well, you are right that the solenoid draws some current and that minimum voltage is needed to reliably fire the bulb. The problem was that the batteries could not supply enough current for the solenoid when it was used with some hard to trip shutters. This would result in the synch delay being wrong, the shutter not tripping at all or the bulb not firing. What was needed was somewhat greater current capability rather than higher voltage but the pulling power of the electromagnet is the result of both current and voltage. If the supply voltage is increased the current drawn by the soleniod is greater and its pulling force is greater. A problem remains that the delay may shift for the highest speed where the solenoid must work harder to trip the shutter. Generally, I set up solenoids for the highest speed and then check at lower speeds to see if the synch is within the window. Large, high current, batteries, like the No.6 cells you mention might help but would be impractical due to size. Also, keep in mind that there were more than one kind of cell of this type. Telephone batteries were intended for long life where the current draw would be low. Similar batteries were made for ignition of model airplane motors, these were capable of higher current supply where high current but intermittant use was desired. There were also versions made for electric lanterns. I am not sure what a 22.5 volt battery would do to a synchronizer solenoid. If the battery supplies enough currrent it would probably burn it out. BTW, the method I use for setting up solenoids is to use an oscilloscope and watch the trace through the shutter without any lens in it. The scope is set for single sweep and triggered by the trip button, which is what would normally fire the bulb. I use a calibrated sweep and mark the scope face with something to indicate the right delay. I then adjust the solenoid plunger and overall position to give the right delay and strongest force on the trip lever. Two kinds of bulbs were used, Class-F, and Class-M. There were also Class-S bulbs but they were meant for use with open flash, not with synchronizers. Class-F bulbs need a 5 millisecond delay and Class-M bulbs need about a 20 ms delay. The actual delay may vary slightly from this since the ideal is to have the shutter just at its maximum opening when the bulb reaches peak light output. Solenoids were never used for focal plane shutters. There were external synchronizers available "aftermarket" for these. The ones I am familiar with are mechanical and fit over the winding knob on Speed Graphic or Graflex FP shutters. These provide a contact closure. Special, very long duration, bulbs were made for focal plane use, called Class-FP. The duration of the flash was long enough to use with short travel shutters on 35mm cameras but would work on a 4x5 Speed Graphic only at the highest speed (1/1000 second) where the slit travel time was minimum. Another arrangement is used on the Super-D Graflex. This has a built-in flash contact mounted on the shutter curtain. The system can be used with Class-FP bulbs at the highest speed (but has problems when the rotating back is set for "portrait", or, it can be used for strobe using what Graflex called "drop curtain" where the mirror is used as the opening part of the shutter, comes completely open, at which point the flash is fired, and then the FP shutter curtain caps the path. The system has an open time of a bit less than 1/10th second so some care must be used about ambient light. Again, this is completely manual, no solenoid involved. This system works, I've used it for portraiture especially for kids. Even though shutters with built-in synchronization became available around the late 1940's many press cameras still had solenoids installed. This was partly because the solenoid provides a convenient method of remote tripping and partly because its use doesn't require the second cocking operation required by the Kodak and Ilex synch shutters which were common on a lot of Speed Graphics. When I was first introduced to the Speed Graphic back in highschool I often used the solenoid strictly for tripping the shutter but connected the bulb through the shutter contacts. All of the late Graflex flashguns allow this arrangement. Press photographers may not be very welcome now but at least people don't have to deal with fried and broken flashbulbs all over the place. Pop, sizzle, crunch... Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix.netcom.com> > BTW, the method I use for setting up solenoids is to use an > oscilloscope and watch the trace through the shutter without any lens in > it. The scope is set for single sweep and triggered by the trip button, > which is what would normally fire the bulb. I use a calibrated sweep and > mark the scope face with something You can also used the delayed sweep/intensified and set the end of the intensified bit so it is where the shutter is to open. The synch is set when you can see just a little bit of the intensified sweep. > at least people don't have to deal with fried and broken flashbulbs all > over the place. Pop, sizzle, crunch... For me, the smell of cooked flashbulbs invokes nostalgia. I think I will go fire one ... though I don't know if I still have a flash attachment. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > For me, the smell of cooked flashbulbs invokes nostalgia. > I think I will go fire one ... though I don't know if I > still have a flash attachment. If you really like the smell of flashbulbs, I currently have on auction (on a well-known website) a device made by Konica. It mounts in a hot shoe, has a 22.5 volt battery, and holds a flashcube. I wonder if this device ever really sold in any quantity. Were flashcubes more economical than AG-1 bulbs? Obviously they were more convenient, but the AG-1 efficiency surely could have been better (depending on the flashgun) whereas the flashcube had such a small reflector. As for nostalgic smells, personally, RA-4 chemistry does it for me. That's why I built the bedroom directly above the darkroom! snip > Press photographers may not be very welcome now but at least people > don't have to deal with fried and broken flashbulbs all over the place. > Pop, sizzle, crunch... In one post, you have commented (correctly) on: 1. Electronics theory 2. Obscure cells 3. Voltage smoke-testing (!) 4. Electronics test procedures as related to camera repair/adjustment 5. Flash bulbs and the history thereof 6. Press cameras 7. Flash synchronization through the ages 8. Social acceptance of representatives of the print media. ("Press photographers may not be welcome...") You, sir, are a god! When I grow up, I want to be you-- ! > snip >> Press photographers may not be very welcome now but at [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > You, sir, are a god! When I grow up, I want to be you-- ! Not right now you don't... I have the flu from hell despite getting flu shots not long ago. I sure wish someone would come up with a real cure for this. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com >> snip >>> Press photographers may not be very welcome now but at [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > despite getting flu shots not long ago. I sure wish someone > would come up with a real cure for this. I agree with that wish! My wife came home with a "cold" in late January. My "cold" started on 7 Feb, a week later it became a "flu" with fever, a week after that i developed a sinus infection, all despite my having received a flu shot in November. Penicillin killed the sinus problem. I am in week four, and still have some symptoms. We live in Victoria, BC. This particular virus strain is a really nasty one, and widespread from the sounds of it. I know this is off topic, but i wanted to wish Richard K. a good recovery. I don't have large format camera, but a 20 year old Pentax 6x7 instead. Just had the foam light trap gaskets replaced last summer so that i can go out and take more shots without danger of getting the sticky old foam bits on the film pressure plate. Typical cost for such a job is CDN100. SignatureRegards / JCH Snipping here.... >>> You, sir, are a god! When I grow up, I want to be you-- >>> ! [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > film pressure plate. Typical cost for such a job is > CDN100. Well, go get yourelf a LF camera, there are lot of them on the used market right now. It will teach you patience. Whatever is going round now is nasty and seems to take forever to heal. I thought I was getting over this but it began to get worse again a couple of days ago. No fever, mostly lots of congestion and a bad cough, slight sore throat (new symptom). This doesn't have the symptoms of a bacterial infection. Both colds and flu are viruses so anti-biotics won't do a thing for them. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com >> I don't have large format camera, but a 20 year old Pentax 6x7 >> instead. Just had the foam light trap gaskets replaced last summer [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Well, go get yourself a LF camera, there are lot of them on the used > market right now. It will teach you patience. _____ Richard, Could you name three brands and formats i should look into? Back in 1982/3 i rented a 4x5 camera once to complete an assignment for a glossy magazine spread. I used Ektachrome sheet film if i recall correctly. My Durst enlarger can handle a maximum negative/positive size of 6cm x 9cm. I would need to get another enlarger. My darkroom (still to be rebuilt) is _very_ small. > Whatever is going round now is nasty and seems to take forever to > heal. I thought I was getting over this but it began to get worse > again a couple of days ago. No fever, mostly lots of congestion and a > bad cough, slight sore throat (new symptom). This doesn't have the > symptoms of a bacterial infection. Both colds and flu are viruses so > anti-biotics won't do a thing for them. _____ Quite correct. My GP gave me the anti-biotic to act as a preemptive measure in case the weakened immune system gave pneumonia or sinusitis a chance to develop. Some people up here actually did develop a pneumonia after this "cold/flu" combo virus. I don't know if the pneumonia was the viral or bacterial variety. SignatureRegards / JCH On 3/1/2008 11:22 PM jch spake thus: > >> I don't have large format camera, but a 20 year old Pentax 6x7 > >> instead. Just had the foam light trap gaskets replaced last summer [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 1982/3 i rented a 4x5 camera once to complete an assignment for a glossy > magazine spread. I used Ektachrome sheet film if i recall correctly. I can recommend one: get a nice used Crown Graphic (*not* a Speed Graphic), with the Kodak Ektar 127mm lens (one of the most common). Yes, it lacks movements (tilts, swings, etc.), but it'll get you started very nicely, and folds up into a nice compact package. > My Durst enlarger can handle a maximum negative/positive size of 6cm x > 9cm. I would need to get another enlarger. My darkroom (still to be > rebuilt) is _very_ small. Like LF cameras, used enlargers are now going very cheaply, either locally available or on a certain little web auction site. (If you're in an area served by Craigslist, check there.) A 4x5 enlarger doesn't take up that much more room than your present one. >> Could you name three brands and formats i should look into? Back in >> 1982/3 i rented a 4x5 camera once to complete an assignment for a glossy [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it lacks movements (tilts, swings, etc.), but it'll get you started very > nicely, and folds up into a nice compact package. _____ David, Thanks for this recommendation. Shall start visiting the various local photographic shops. >> My Durst enlarger can handle a maximum negative/positive size of 6cm x >> 9cm. I would need to get another enlarger. My darkroom (still to be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > A 4x5 enlarger doesn't take up that much more room than your present one. _____ Fair enough. Have you any recommendations for enlargers? I have _never_ looked at MF or LF enlargers. Are they mainly condenser types, or the diffusion types? For example, the condenser in the Durst is already pretty massive and heavy. I shall also have to design the enlarger base surface for multiple enlarger mounts. SignatureRegards / JCH >>> Could you name three brands and formats i should look >>> into? Back in [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > massive and heavy. I shall also have to design the > enlarger base surface for multiple enlarger mounts. The usual reason for rejecting the Speed Graphic is weight, the Crown is lighter and has a shallower box. However I do find the focal plane shutter to be useful especially for barrel type lenses. Also, Crown Graphics, originally the economy model, are often more expensive than the Speed Graphic on the used market. Either will give you a taste for LF although they have very limited movements and limited bellows draw. Graphic cameras were intended to be hand held and offer a way of getting a large negative for situations where a tripod can not be used. Older Graphics do not have some features of the later series but these may not be important to you. The Pacemaker Graphic has a front tilt which is not available in the earlier models and a body release. I would choose a camera on the basis of condition rather than model. Graphics made after about 1951 had the Graflok back as standard. However, the back could be refitted onto any Graphic so many earlier Graphics, including the Anniversary series, are found with the Graflok. This back is desirable because it allows using certain accessories like roll film adaptors but has no particular advantage for shooting sheet film in conventional holders. Make sure any Graflok back has the Ektalite field lens (Fresnel lens) installed. Some very early versions did not have the lens but later ones all did. The problem is that they are sometimes missing and replacements are hard to find. The presense of the lens is important in establishing the correct plane for the ground glass, that is, if the Fresnel is missing the ground glass will be in the wrong position. As for lenses, the best of the standard lenses were the Kodak Ektar f/4.7, 127mm and f/4.5 152mm (not often found). Next best are probably the Zeiss Tessars found on older models. I have not had good results from the Wollensak Optar series standard lenses although the telephoto lenses are very good. Unfortunately, Graflex went to the Wollensak lens as standard in the early 1950's. The Wollensak shutter was better suited for use with a flash synchronizing solenoid than the Kodak Supermatic and that may have been one reason. Both the Wollensak and Kodak shutters are excellent but many of the Wollensak lenses leave something to be desired. The Kodak Ektar can IMO hold its own against modern glass. There is a great deal more on these cameras at the Graflex org site at Http://www.graflex.org Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com On 3/2/2008 3:35 PM Richard Knoppow spake thus: > The usual reason for rejecting the Speed Graphic is > weight, the Crown is lighter and has a shallower box. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > getting a large negative for situations where a tripod can > not be used. (Like that famous picture of Jack Ruby shooting Oswald, where at least one handheld Graflex is visible.) Since we're on the subject, yes, I should have mentioned about the barrel lenses, though these are more rare than lenses with shutters. Questions: 1. I didn't know that Crowns go for more than Speeds. Is this because people like the former better, or for other reasons (see question #2)? 2. Do Speed Graphics typically have working focal-plane shutters? I would have thought that because of the complexity of this mechanism, it might be likely to fail in cameras of this age. (I've never even seen a Speed Graphic up close and personal.) > On 3/2/2008 3:35 PM Richard Knoppow spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > in cameras of this age. (I've never even seen a Speed > Graphic up close and personal.) I don't know what prices are like now but a few years ago Crown Graphics were going for more than Speed Graphics. One has to check the shutter, maybe even to make sure its still there (some idiots like to remove them). Actually, the Graflex shutter mechanism is very simple and not easily broken. The shutter curtain in the later cameras appears to be made of some synthetic with quite long life. Usually they need only to be lubricated. I don't remember if the Graflex site has a diagram of the shutter. If so it will make things obvious. The first shutter used by Folmer & Schwing on the Graflex SLR was a self capping shutter but it proved too elaborate and not reliable so, within some very short time, they came up with the simplified shutter used forever after. This consists of a rubberized cloth curtain with five slits of varying length on it. The curtain runs between two spring loaded rollers, quite similar to the rollers used for window shades. The lower roller has a spring which can be adjusted by winding it. This changes the travel time of the shutter. The upper roller has a fixed spring with enough tension to maintain the curtain taught. The speed is set by winding the curtain up to the upper roller to the slit desired. The spring on the lower roller is wound to the desired tension. There is a chart on the camera showing the shutter speeds resulting from each combination of slit width and spring tension. There is enough blank space between each slit and the next to cap the film. When the shutter is tripped the curtain winds down one slit and stops. You must then put the dark slide back in the holder because when the shutter is wound up again it pulls the slit back over the focal plane. If you trip the shutter a second time without winding it back the _next_ slit will go over the film. Because the curtain accelerates as it travels the speeds are not constant from top to bottom. The amount of change varies with the tension and slit size being greatest for the highest speeds where it can be nearly 2:1 over the travel. At one time F&S advertized this as an advantage for Graflex cameras because it would darken the sky in a landscape. The last of these shutters, the one used on 4x5 Pacemaker Speed Graphics, had a flywheel to control the speeds on the low range which resulted in considerably more uniform exposure. The _effective_ speed of a focal plane shutter is a function of the distance between the shutter slit and the film and the focal length of the lens. Actually the angle of the cone of light emitted by the lens so it varies with the focus. In the Graflex/Speed Graphic shutter the efficiency is not very high so there is considerable variation plus the higher speeds can not be directly measured with a shutter tester. The speeds will read low. The speed can be read more accurately by adjusting the intensity of the light at the tester so that its just one stop more than the point at which the tester stops counting. One then reads the light at the half intensity points. For Speed Graphics the measured speed of the highest speed, 1/1000 second will be only about 1/800th if this method is not used. I've found several SGs where the shutter tension adjustment had been wound very tight to get the top speed to read 1/1000 on a total open time tester. This, of course, will throw off all the speeds. The shutter in the Pacemaker Speed Graphic and the Super-D Graflex are pretty accurate, most of the 25 speeds listed on the charts for other Graphic and Graflex cameras have a good deal of wishful thinking in them. Like 35mm rangefinder cameras its possible to burn a hole in the focal plane shutter by pointing the camera at the sun with the shutter wound. Note also that careful adjustment of the stops for the shutter is necessary to avoid shutter bounce at the end of travel. This can lead to a strip of double exposure at the bottom of the negative. It is a more difficult problem in Graflex cameras with rotating backs because of the about 20% longer shutter travel needed to cover the film lengthwise. Once a Graphic or Graflex FP shutter is set up and lubed correctly it won't need attention for many years. There have been more elaborate FP shutters on 4x5 cameras. One is the shutter found on some Busch Pressman cameras. These, I think were intended to meet the military spec for the Speed Graphic. These are self-capping shutters cut out the light when they are re-wound) and have more accurate and uniform speeds. I've never seen a drawing of the mechanism and have, in fact, only ever seen one camera with this shutter. They were advertized along around the mid 1950's. The other elaborate shutter is the one used on the ICA, later Zeiss-Ikon Mirroflex. This is a gear train regulated shutter with some resemblance to the shutter in the Contax camera. Also self-capping and quite accurate. The main problem with these is rubber rot necessitating replacement of the shutter curtains. I am quite sure this is much more than anyone ever wanted to know about these shutters. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com On 3/2/2008 11:39 AM jch spake thus: >> Like LF cameras, used enlargers are now going very cheaply, either >> locally available or on a certain little web auction site. (If you're in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > already pretty massive and heavy. I shall also have to design the > enlarger base surface for multiple enlarger mounts. The usual: Omega (D2), Beseler, etc. Shoot: I just saw a Beseler 4x5 enlarger, at the Oakland Museum White Elephant sale, going for about $25 (no lens, but otherwise looked complete). These are all condenser types. In the event that you need parts (which is likely, since many enlargers will come without needed parts, like negative carriers, lensboards, etc.), you can find these on that small little on-line auction site. Likewise, lenses (including really good ones, like Componons, Nikkors and Rodenstocks) are going for cheap. Hint: get the next-size-up lens for your format if you don't need to make big enlargements; for instance, get a 165 mm instead of a 135 mm lens for 4x5. This will give you better corner-to-corner sharpness. Older enlargers, like the Elwoods (mostly found in 5x7 size like mine) are diffusion types. The baseboards are a little larger than your Durst, but not by much. > On 3/2/2008 11:39 AM jch spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > The baseboards are a little larger than your Durst, but not by much. The Elwood lamp is a strange mixture. Its not really diffusing because it concentrates the light using a polished parabolic reflector. The lamp itself is diffuse, a large size opal lamp, so the source is not specular. In addition, there is a rough, sandblasted, ground glass light equalizer to even out the center to edge illumination. This glass has surface which is nearly clear at the edges and becomes progressively more diffuse toward the center. I am not sure how this compares with the sort of partially diffusing condenser lamphouse found on enlargers such as the Omega, but its probably similar. There are enlargers with true diffusion sources. Most cold light sources are very diffuse as are most color head types which have light integrator boxes, essentially diffusers. Few enlargers have truly specular sources. A few point source lamps were supplied for special purposes such as making very large prints or printing from microfilm where the highest possible resolution and edge sharpness is necessary. For the most part these sources are impractical for general use because they exaggerate flaws in the film so much. Practical lamphouses vary about one paper grade overall for black and white film with silver images. The amount of variation in effective density with the relative diffusion of the light source depends on the particle size of the image. Coarse grain silver images have the most and dye images have the least. This is known as Callier effect. For color films and chromogenic B&W films the effect is nearly nil. -- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > (Asking here because of the great expertise here. I also posted to the MF > group.) [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > ` > end In one of my replies to this thread I mentioned a web site I could not find that had historical information about shutters on it. I've now found it. http://www.kamera-geschichte.de/files/verschluss1_d.htm This has a time line of both Deckel and Gauthier (Pronto, Prontor, etc) shutters with illustrations. It should help answer this question. Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.