3.25 x 4.25 Graflex

[Michael Cienfuegos]

I don't think so. What is your source? (The well-publicized Migrant Mother negatives are definitely 4x5.)

I'll have to look it up, but I have seen pictures of her holding the 5x7.


m

[Michael Cienfuegos]

Unless you want to do all of the reconfiguring of the camera (which is fine) it is *very* easy to cut 4x5 to 3.25x4.25...

1. You need a rototrimmer, a piece of mounting board a little bit of tape and the tim. You may want cotton gloves.

2. You are going to make two separate cuts with the rototrimmer. Your choice of long way first or short way. It doesn't matter.

3. Take the piece of mounting board and place it on the rototrimmer in such a way that it is a guide for your cut. You will be taking .75 off of two of the sides. Tape it down.

4. Make practice cuts with a note card cut to 4x5. Try your cut card in a holder to see if it is right. If you want confidence this will work in the dark, do a practice cut with the lights out.

5. Get going with the real film. I have cut all of the film to 3.25 x 5, put it all in the box and then do the 4.25 cut. Or, handle the film once and do both cuts. That is up to you. You must take care not to cut off the notches or you will cause yourself a problem knowing which side has the emulsion on it when you load them into holders. If you are worried about fingerprints, wear the cotton gloves.

6. There you go. An HP Combiplan daylight tank has a setting for 3.25x4.25 film, you and hunt for 3.25x4.25 hangers on eBay. At one time, I found a 3.25x4.25 negative holder for a Beseler 45.

You can devise a similar process for cutting 8x10 into 5x7. A little bit more involved but doable. (since you cut the film in half to cut from 10" to 5", you will have to cut one of the corners off of one of the halves to denote which side is the emulsion and you have to make sure you don't cut the notches off on the top piece.) There are lots of films that are available ready to go in 8x10 that are not available ready to go for 5x7.

It's your choice if you want to go with the Ilford Special Cut. Cutting is a little fussy but the end result will be the same and cheaper. Not sure how you would process E-6 or C-41 in the quarter plate size but it's no problem with B&W.

I have an 3.25x4.25 Speed I use frequently. It's a fun little trip into nostalgia land and the camera is smaller than 4x5 so it takes up less room. I have never used a bag-mag so can't comment on that.

Bag mags are a real trip! 12 sheets of film, but the danged thing is heavy. I have one for each size camera, 2x3, 3x4 and 4x5. I also have a couple of 3x4 Speeds. You are right, they are much easier to handle. I really like mine.


m

[EdSawyer]

I have converted a 3x4 RB SuperD to 4x5. It's not that bad. I have posted on it here before. It's reversible, at least the way I did it. I didn't have to cut anything except a small piece from the brass backing plate where the back mounts, but even that would be covered up and a non-issue if the original rotating back was put back on. It ends up covering about 4 x 4.25 or 4.5" negative format. I mounted mine vertically, using a slightly-cut-down magnesium Graflok back from a speed graphic/etc. There is only a little overhang, about 3/8" per side or less. Overall it's pretty slick and not too cobbled together looking.

btw, an Aero Ektar won't even come close to working on either of the RBs (3x4 SuperD or 4x5 SuperD/D) and focus to infinity. You would be limited to about 6' max focus distance, if that. The Pentac 8" f/2.9 works great however, and easily reaches infinity on both bodies.

-Ed

[Michael Cienfuegos]

I have converted a 3x4 RB SuperD to 4x5. It's not that bad. I have posted on it here before. It's reversible, at least the way I did it. I didn't have to cut anything except a small piece from the brass backing plate where the back mounts, but even that would be covered up and a non-issue if the original rotating back was put back on. It ends up covering about 4 x 4.25 or 4.5" negative format. I mounted mine vertically, using a slightly-cut-down magnesium Graflok back from a speed graphic/etc. There is only a little overhang, about 3/8" per side or less. Overall it's pretty slick and not too cobbled together looking.

btw, an Aero Ektar won't even come close to working on either of the RBs (3x4 SuperD or 4x5 SuperD/D) and focus to infinity. You would be limited to about 6' max focus distance, if that. The Pentac 8" f/2.9 works great however, and easily reaches infinity on both bodies.

-Ed

I guess I'll just leave the AE on my Side RF Pacemaker Speed.


m

[Tin Can]

I have converted a 3x4 RB SuperD to 4x5. It's not that bad. I have posted on it here before. It's reversible, at least the way I did it. I didn't have to cut anything except a small piece from the brass backing plate where the back mounts, but even that would be covered up and a non-issue if the original rotating back was put back on. It ends up covering about 4 x 4.25 or 4.5" negative format. I mounted mine vertically, using a slightly-cut-down magnesium Graflok back from a speed graphic/etc. There is only a little overhang, about 3/8" per side or less. Overall it's pretty slick and not too cobbled together looking.

btw, an Aero Ektar won't even come close to working on either of the RBs (3x4 SuperD or 4x5 SuperD/D) and focus to infinity. You would be limited to about 6' max focus distance, if that. The Pentac 8" f/2.9 works great however, and easily reaches infinity on both bodies.

-Ed

Do you have a pic of how a Pentac fits? I held one up and it seems I will need a sled to hold the weight on a 3X4 Graflex Tele.

[ridax]

Another great advantage is using a BagMag -- in my opinion a gift of the photo gods.

Bag mags are a real trip! 12 sheets of film, but the danged thing is heavy. I have one for each size camera, 2x3, 3x4 and 4x5.

How do they compare to Grafmatics? Weight (one 4x5 Bag Mag vs. two 4x5 Grafmatics - for 12 shots total)? Speed of operation? Any other considerations? I appreciate my Grafmatics but have never put my hands on a Bag Mag.... an option worth to consider in 4x5?

Thanks in advance.

[Bill_1856]

The best option of all was (IMHO) the film-pack.

[ridax]

The best option of all was (IMHO) the film-pack.

Yes I'd really like to purchase a slightly used time machine some day :) ....
But what about the options that not only were but still are?

[Randy]

I shoot 4X5 with a couple bagmags - I had my doubts when I first started using them but now it has become perfectly natural. Just make sure if you decide on a bagmag that the leather bag is pliable and soft, not dried out and brittle. A lot of sellers (on ebay) have no idea how important that is and they don't even list the condition of the bag in the description, or they may say it doesn't have any holes in it but then you receive it and the leather crumbles in your hands. I have two very usable mags with good leather, that's 24 shots that really don't take up anymore room than maybe 5-6 film holders.

[ridax]

I shoot 4X5 with a couple bagmags <...> that's 24 shots that really don't take up anymore room than maybe 5-6 film holders.

That's equal to 4 Grafmatics. So I've put mine next to my regular Fidelity Elite 4x5's, and the 4 Grafmatics were nearly as thick as 8 Fidelity holders (though I've seen posts claiming Grafmatics were only 1.5 times thicker then regular double film holders). Grafmatics were also longer due to the bigger handles. My kitchen scale says the 4 Grafmatics are about 1900 grams (without film). Looks like 2 Bag Mags are more compact. Maybe a bit lighter in weight, too.

And I'm also thinking about the speed of operation. The single movement of a lever in just one direction that the Bag Mag needs to change its septa is perhaps much faster then the two movements, each of them outwards and then back, of the Grafmatic. And the Bag Mag's lever single movement would probably make much less risk of driving the tripod-mounted camera out of alignment. Are my speculations correct?