PDA

View Full Version : tell me about 2x3



BetterSense
16-Feb-2014, 18:24
I'm considering a century graphic or some other medium format view camera.

On trips I'm finding it hard dealing with sheet film, now that I travel with offspring. I have an RB67, and I like it, but the whole package is huge, and it has no movements. A century graphic will provide some movements, and I still have a sheet film option. I may also consider other view cameras but they are pricey.

What lens options are there for medium-format view cameras? Are the original century-graphic normal lenses sharp by modern standards with color film? I know 4x5 lenses are an option but most will be physically large. What do people do for wides?

I heard that the RB67 back is actually a 2x3 graflok. I think that means if I get a Century graphic, I can use my RB67 backs on it with only minor hacking. Thoughts on this?

Dan Fromm
16-Feb-2014, 20:12
I have a Century Graphic (2x3), a 2x3 Pacemaker Speed Graphic and two 2x3 Crown Graphics.

The only usable movement these cameras have among them is 19 mm of front rise. With short lenses that are used with the front standard on the inner bed rails (inside the box) front rise is more limited because the wire frame finder will hit the box before all 19 mm have been used. The cure is to take the standard apart and remove the frame finder. But then you'll have to do without it.

Their front standards do indeed tilt, but backwards only. This feature is there to allow use of wide angle lenses that focus to infinity with the front standard on the outer bed (front door) and that would include the bed in the frame if shot with the bed up. Drop the bed, tilt the standard all the way back so that it is parallel with the film plane, then use front rise to center the lens' axis on the gate.

Their front standards do indeed have a latch that, when released, permits a little shift. If, that is, the front standard is completely in front of the bed struts.

So, yes, the propaganda and lies spouted by enthusiasts are true but you'd be wise not to take it seriously. Century Graphics do allow movements. But only front rise is generally usable. Shift and tilt (backwards only, unless you do some surgery and reverse the front standard) are there but can be used only for a small set of focal lengths and focused distances.

Repeat after me: "A Graphic is not a view camera."

If you want what a view camera can do and to shoot 2x3, get a view camera. I have a couple of 2x3 Cambos. There are others. Read this board's FAQs, where a number of them are discussed. There are many 4x5 view cameras that will accept 2x3 roll holders.

Repeat after me: "I am not a rank beginner. I will not ask any more beginners questions before looking for answers myself."

Lenses? Read this http://www.galerie-photo.com/telechargement/dan-fromm-6x9-lenses-v2-2011-03-29.pdf and do not ask any more questions about lenses for 2x3.

RB backs have 6x7 gates. That's why Mamiya called the cameras RB67.

Repeat after me: "2x3 and 6x9 are the same. 6x7 and 6x9 are not the same."

Go back under your bridge and resume molesting goats.

djdister
16-Feb-2014, 20:25
You will have a very hard time finding a "medium format view camera," and if you do pick up medium format field or press camera, you will not find any savings in size over your RB67. I think it is pointless to think you might want to shoot medium format sheet film, so forget about that and if size is the problem, pick up a medium format rangefinder camera like the Mamiya 6 or Mamiya 7, or one of the Fujifilm rangefinders. The Mamiya 6/7 will have a greater range of lenses to pick from, if your wallet can handle it.

neil poulsen
16-Feb-2014, 22:19
It's nice having a medium format view camera. I just sold an Arca Swiss 6x9 older style view camera outfit, because I found a really good EBay auction that updated me to the current model. In addition to this camera, I have an RB67, and a Mamiya Universal Press with the G adaptor. As a result, I've been particularly interested in which backs fit which.

To obtain the most medium format area, I've decided on the 2 1/4" x 3 1/4" format. I may use less than this in printing, but at least I have the choice of either. I've been able to find knob advance 6x9 (8 exposure) backs that measure this full format, and they fit all the above cameras just fine. So, only one set of backs. Sweet! (Maybe.)

The only possible problem is that these knob advance backs don't have quite as sophisticated a pressure plate as more recent backs. They're spring loaded, but the spring action is a little weak. (Accurate focus is very important with medium format.) But, I've also encountered problems with more recent backs. The RB67 backs won't fit my view camera, but they will fit the Mamiya Press. Horseman and Arca Swiss (Horseman rebadged) medium format backs will fit neither the Mamiya Press nor the RB67. (I have a Wista on order to try that back.) And, I haven't yet found a lever advance "6x9" 8 exposure Graphic back that measures to a full 3 1/4" length. It's less, and as I recall, off center.

So, I'm still investigating possibilities. What would be nice is lever advance Graphic 6x9 backs that measure to a 3 1/4" length. If they exist, that might be a solution. Maybe the Wista 6x9? We'll see. Perhaps I can customize the knob advance backs to place greater pressure on the film? One thing, I sure don't want to have different sets of backs for different cameras.

Back to medium format view cameras, they offer advantages. Lenses are less expensive and lighter in weight. The cameras are also lighter in weight. Film is less expensive and more compact. And, one can still use the zone system by having different backs for each development time. The cameras and lenses also take up less room. Medium format cameras also don't need the heavy duty tripod that I use with larger formats.

As for wide-angles, there are options. For example, a 58mm Grandagon (less expensive) or 58mm Super Angulon XL (more expensive) corresponds to about a 90mm on 4x5. (Note that the former can be subject to lens separation.) There's also the 47mm Super Angulons that can be found, as well as the 65mm and 75mm versions. I would recommend the f5.6 Super Angulons, since they have larger image circles. With the right recessed board, all these lenses would work on either the older-style or current 6x9 Arcas.

It's true that medium format view cameras are either expensive, or they don't come along that often. The Linhof Technikardon is nice, but usually costs about $2000. One possibility is either a Linhof Technika III or IV clamshell camera. This camera plus three lenses (65mm Angulon, 100mm Zeiss Tessar, 180mm Tele-Arton) can sometimes be found for about $1000. I had one of these sets, and it was fun to use; it was also built like a tank. But, they don't offer a lot of movement for anything wider than 90mm. Horseman clamshell 6x9 cameras that offer movements can also be found for reasonable prices.

As to medium format sheet film, I've decided to stick with roll film. The sheet film isn't as wide, and I hate to give up the real-estate. I can achieve the same benefits with multiple backs.

Another possibility is shooting medium format on a 4x5. Last year, I was easily able to customize a Mamiya Universal Press G adapter w/ground glass to the back of a 4x5. Of course, the Graphic 6x9 film backs that I have fit that outfit as well. Or, one can use the medium format backs that fit 4x5 cameras, and draw lines on the ground glass that correspond to medium format film.

Just some of the things that I've learned along the way. I enjoy medium format, and I enjoy view camera photography. There are things one can do to bring the two together.

David A. Goldfarb
16-Feb-2014, 23:20
I got a 2x3" Technika for exactly the same reason you are contemplating a medium format view camera now--with the car seat, the stroller, all the other extras, it was just too difficult at that time to travel with a 4x5" camera, unless I was really going minimalist. My 2x3" Tech V kit takes up half the space of my 4x5" Tech V kit with the same number of lenses, etc., and after using the 2x3" kit for a while, I've pared it down to three lenses on the theory that if I have room for more, I might as well carry a larger camera. The movements on the Tech V 23b are the same as on the 4x5" except for front swing, but the smaller camera is easier to turn on its side and use tilt as swing, as long as the tripod head supports it. The lenses I use are a 55/4.5 Apo-Grandagon, 105/2.8 Xenotar, and 180/5.6 Caltar II-S. If you find an older kit with 3 cammed lenses, they'll usually be more compact than that, but the 55 is a good lens that I also use for 4x5" on the same lensboard with the Linhof Wideangle Focusing Device.

I have Grafmatics for sheet film and rollfilm holders. Usually I shoot rollfilm, but if I'm traveling for a while, sometimes I'll bring both and use sheet film for B&W, rollfilm for color or maybe rollfilm for B&W when I'm making many exposures under relatively uniform light. I've gotten FP4+ in 2x3" sheets as part of Ilford's annual ULF/custom format offering. Be aware that per sheet, it's about the same cost as 4x5", which is available off the shelf. I've also used Efke/Adox 100 in 2x3" sheets.

With 2x3" I can carry a smaller tripod, so that's another plus. As hard as it can be to find rollfilm these days when traveling, it's easier than finding sheet film.

BetterSense
17-Feb-2014, 21:22
What I'm hearing is that most 2x3 users use 4x5-capable lenses (like 47mm Super Angulon) on 2x3. While I imagine this gives tons of room for movements, it's not going to be any more economical than buying 4x5 lenses; even less so due to the need for short focal lengths for 2x3. The capable cameras aren't vey cheap either. It's still an interesting proposition but I think I'm beginning to understand why these cameras are not more popular...a homemade camrea might be fun.

dsphotog
17-Feb-2014, 21:45
The lensboards on the 2x3 Graphics are likely too small for most 4x5 lenses.
For travel, you might also like one of the Fuji rangefinder cameras.

David A. Goldfarb
18-Feb-2014, 00:31
You can get older lenses mainly aimed at 2x3" users (though they may cover 4x5"). I used to have a 65/8 Super-Angulon and 135/5.6 Symmar that I used when I wanted an even more compact kit than the 55/105/180 setup, but after a while, I found I was using the larger, newer, brighter, 4x5" lenses anyway, so I sold off the smaller ones. There's also a 47/8 Super-Angulon for 2x3" and at the long end you could have a 180, 210, or even a 360 tele, most likely with an extended lensboard.

Mark Sawyer
18-Feb-2014, 00:51
With apologies, because this may be harsh, but realistic...


I may also consider other view cameras but they are pricey.

If your choices are based on price, you may want to reconsider your priorities. 4x5 equipment and film have never been cheaper. Yes, cost is a necessary fact of life, but in some things, a relatively small difference in price isn't everything...


What lens options are there for medium-format view cameras? Are the original century-graphic normal lenses sharp by modern standards with color film?

Lenses have been quite sharp since the Petzval of the early 1840's. High-end refractor telescopes are still made from the Petzval design because of its sharpness. Sharpness isn't that hard. Improvements in lens design have been in other areas. And color has nothing to do with it. Resolution is the same in monochrome or color.


What I'm hearing is...

...what you want to hear.

BetterSense
18-Feb-2014, 08:11
And color has nothing to do with it. Resolution is the same in monochrome or color.

Not really; I have plenty of cheap lenses that have too much chromatic abberation to be satisfactory with color film but provide fine results with a green or red filter on B&W.


If your choices are based on price, you may want to reconsider your priorities.

That is what I'm finding out. My original thought was 2x3 is not popular, so the cameras and lenses should be cheap. This is the case with 4x5 after all. It turns out the actual situation is quite different.


...what you want to hear.
Hardly...I want people to tell me that premium 2x3 view cameras are available for $50 (what I paid for my 4x5 monorail...), old 2x3 lenses are cheap, and people can't give away film holders, backs or lens boards. I'm not hearing what I want to hear at all!

evan clarke
18-Feb-2014, 13:28
I have a Century, An Arca 6x9, an Ebony 6x9, A Horseman 985 and a Horseman VH-R. The Arca is a monorail, the Ebony is a field camera, the Horsemans are technical cameras and the Century is a press camera. I use them all and get good results. The RB backs and Horseman backs can all be adapted.
Dan, why so mean?

DrTang
18-Feb-2014, 13:37
Get a Galvin

your RB67 backs will work with it..it's super light

and way cool

and am still sorry I sold mine

evan clarke
18-Feb-2014, 13:53
Get a Galvin

your RB67 backs will work with it..it's super light

and way cool

and am still sorry I sold mine

I have fetish for these little cameras and have been looking for a Galvin in mint condition.

Tin Can
18-Feb-2014, 14:05
I love this size sheet film. My pet camera is 2x3 Linhof Color monorail, and my new 2x3 Horseman Press was sighted in today for 2 lenses and infinity stops set.

Freestyle sells 2x3 film and I keep stocking up, but I have also been known to cut X-Ray to fit.

Also, NOS in the box, 2x3 film holders pop up on eBay all the time. I have plenty...

It is a very affordable format. I also just bought a NOS enlarger I hope is 2x3, but my Beseler 2x3 II works great. I collect enlargers...

Yes 4x5 everyting is the same price, but requires a much larger film developing system. I do 2x3 in stainless reel cans, with a special 12 sheet holder.

2x3 Grafmatics are cheap and work fine.

Dan Fromm
18-Feb-2014, 14:07
Dan, why so mean?

Evan, that's a fair question. The OP has been around for a while (> 1k posts), persists in asking questions without having made any effort to answer them for itself. It seems to have a bad case of learned helplessness. This is a terrible affliction. Most people recover from it after their first year in college. The OP is, I understand, an engineer aged somewhere in the mid-30s. It has no excuses left. Perhaps we should all let it starve instead of trying to feed it.

Interesting that you like Galvins. When I decided to go 2x3 and before I settled on 2x3 Graphics I came across a 2x3 Linhof Color (not Kardon Color, just plain Color). This is essentially a Technika on a rail. It was heavy, its standards are high and so is the tripod mounting block. It frightened me badly. I also found a 2x3 Galvin, a much less threatening little camera, that seemed a little flimsy and inexact. Re inexact, IIRC, it had no detents for centering the standards. I've since learned that these aren't absolutely necessary but back then I didn't know enough and was easily overwhelmed. It wasn't until I got to play with a 2x3 Cambo (decades later) that I came to appreciate 2x3 view cameras.

Vaughn
18-Feb-2014, 14:21
I have a Century Graphic (2x3), a 2x3 Pacemaker Speed Graphic and two 2x3 Crown Graphics.

Their front standards do indeed tilt, but backwards only. This feature is there to allow use of wide angle lenses that focus to infinity with the front standard on the outer bed (front door) and that would include the bed in the frame if shot with the bed up. Drop the bed, tilt the standard all the way back so that it is parallel with the film plane, then use front rise to center the lens' axis on the gate....So, yes, the propaganda and lies spouted by enthusiasts are true but you'd be wise not to take it seriously. Century Graphics do allow movements. But only front rise is generally usable. Shift and tilt (backwards only, unless you do some surgery and reverse the front standard) are there but can be used only for a small set of focal lengths and focused distances.
...

But by dropping the front bed and tilting back the lens part way (and using a little rise to compensate for the dropping bed), you actually now have more than sufficient front (forward) tilt for any landscape work. Seriously! :D

Just about any lens in a Copal 0 shutter will be nice and small. A Caltar II-N 150/5.6 is nice to work with -- I have used it with a 6x7 rollback on my 4x5. A nice little Fuji W 125 or a 135 will be sweet, too.

Gum, New South Wales, Oz
6x7 roll back on a 4x5 PocketView (Caltar II-N 150/5.6)
Portra 160VC, printed, by me (RA4)

Dan Fromm
18-Feb-2014, 14:27
Vaughn, all that you say is true.

And yet, if you try to do what you recommend you'll find that it works for a limited range of focal lengths, tilts, and focused distances. It isn't generally useful.

Cheers,

Dan

hoffner
18-Feb-2014, 15:52
BetterSense,
My impression is that you very much underestimate the world of 2x3 view cameras .

In fact, in a certain way, a 2x3 view camera is the most versatile of all the view cameras. Not only weight-wise (as you have already discovered in the connection with travelling) but in many other aspects too. LF lenses have greater reserve of movements on this format than for any other one. You can use more lenses for this format than for any other format - short modern digital wide angles open a new world. Setting up time for a 2x3 camera can be a breeze with modern types like an Arca Swiss monorail (my favourite I use). You can practically pack this whole camera on its rail in a small package ready to use as quickly as you get it on a tripod . If you're into it, you can add your own special bells and whistles to such a camera (infinity stops, estimates focusing discs so that you don't need to take away the rollfilm holder for focusing) and many other things. It's a whole different world, in many aspects in its own category.

The best you said is this - "I may also consider other view cameras but they are pricey." Do that.

Brassai
20-Feb-2014, 18:48
What about the Fuji 680 system? Not cheap, but precision stuff.

David A. Goldfarb
20-Feb-2014, 19:05
The 680 GX SLR system? Great system, but I don't think it's going to save much space/bulk in comparison to 4x5", if that is what the original poster is after. It's a really big boxy camera that doesn't fold into a smaller package.

I think Fuji also made a 6x8 rangefinder, like their other medium format rangefinders, but that's another thing entirely.

Patrick13
20-Feb-2014, 21:01
I have great fun with my Century, but using its calibrated rangefinder I just treat it like a large P&S and in no way like a field camera. Of course that's mostly how I treat my Crown too... your mileage may vary :rolleyes:

Daniel Unkefer
23-Mar-2014, 14:21
I have interest in 2.25"x3.25" as my Plaubel Makiflexes (see my avatar) utilize a 2x3 Graphic Plaubel Makiflex back I picked up about last year. I do have a pile of Graphic holders in this size, and have been stocking up on Ilford FP4+ and HP5+, although I find this size hard to find. Freestyle has been a good resource for me so far. I have a Nikor 2.25"x3.25"/6x9cm tank which does the job for me.

Here's one of the Makiflexes with the Graphic 2x3" back. Getting all this going has been a challenge.

Tin Can
23-Mar-2014, 14:35
One day, not today or next month I will get a 2x3 Plaubel.

Looks very nice.

As before, I love all aspects of 2x3. I believe I have 30 boxes of 2x3 recent film in the freezer and buying more.

I shot cut up Ektascan this week and it looks great. That makes it about 15 cents a shot.



One other option is a Plaubel Peco Junior 2x3. It has all movements geared. If you are interested, I offer one on ebay here in Austria. I ship worldwide, so maybe it's worth to check it.
It's a very nice set, with two lenses, normal and wide angle bellows. Roll film and sheet film holder.

If you are interested or have questions, just PM me.

Greets,
Andreas

HMG
23-Mar-2014, 18:10
Since you brought up the point of travel, here's a quick and dirty shot of my Century Graphic in a largish (discontinued) Photoflex bag that can be used over the shoulder or with it's waistbelt. It has room for the body, an extra lens or 2 (assuming one in the camera), 2 film backs, a Graphmatic, meter, roll film, and misc little stuff. I don't think it's feasible to duplicate, given weight and volume, with a RB or any 4x5. I'm not saying this is better in any respect other than weight and volume.



112684

Tin Can
23-Mar-2014, 18:29
Or go old school with a complete set, original case, flash, filters and 20 holders with room to spare in a Vulcanoid 8X10X17.

If that's overkill, I grab a small Gator case and as many as 12 holders and it looks like a man purse.

112687112688112689

BetterSense
5-May-2014, 18:54
Not truly 2x3, but I made a 6x7 camera out of model airplane plywood. It has an RB67 rotating back, full front movements and rear swing. I haven't used it in the field much yet, but I'm not real enthused about the tiny ground glass...I think I might make a similar camera in 4x5 or buy a tachihara or something in the future, but this was a fun project. The weight savings will really come from hauling 120 film instead of sheet film, and no holders to deal with. I'm traveling to a conference later this month and wouldn't consider bringing a 4x5 but this thing, 2 backs and a few pro-packs fits in my lunchbox.

jbenedict
5-May-2014, 19:39
Nice! Good job.

You might look at something like the magnifying hood that Toyo makes for their split back for the 54A. That would do a good job at containing the light and the magnification would make the GG look larger than it actually is.

Louis Pacilla
6-May-2014, 10:13
I know this is a little late to the party but This(the later version of the 2x3 RB Graflex Series B) is my favorite 2x3 camera & mostly because it limits me to two lenses when I head out. The 127mm f4.5 Ektar and the Tele-Raptar 10" f5.6 lens as the fit the same built in flange.
There is no way to use wide angle lenses and there are bellows length limitations but the camera is small, light & has the fast little focal plane shutter. Also the later version of the 2x3 Series B has the Ektilite fresnel. So the focus screen is super bright reflex viewing when compared to all my other Graflexs.

Nice little camera Bettersense and VERY light. I love idea going with the Mamiya RB 67 back assembly. Very cool.

Jim Noel
6-May-2014, 10:25
finally someone with knowledge gave the facts about Graphic cameras. Great for their designed purpose, but DEFINITELY NOT FIELD OR VIEW CAMERAS.;

Way to go Dan!

Jim


I have a Century Graphic (2x3), a 2x3 Pacemaker Speed Graphic and two 2x3 Crown Graphics.

The only usable movement these cameras have among them is 19 mm of front rise. With short lenses that are used with the front standard on the inner bed rails (inside the box) front rise is more limited because the wire frame finder will hit the box before all 19 mm have been used. The cure is to take the standard apart and remove the frame finder. But then you'll have to do without it.

Their front standards do indeed tilt, but backwards only. This feature is there to allow use of wide angle lenses that focus to infinity with the front standard on the outer bed (front door) and that would include the bed in the frame if shot with the bed up. Drop the bed, tilt the standard all the way back so that it is parallel with the film plane, then use front rise to center the lens' axis on the gate.

Their front standards do indeed have a latch that, when released, permits a little shift. If, that is, the front standard is completely in front of the bed struts.

So, yes, the propaganda and lies spouted by enthusiasts are true but you'd be wise not to take it seriously. Century Graphics do allow movements. But only front rise is generally usable. Shift and tilt (backwards only, unless you do some surgery and reverse the front standard) are there but can be used only for a small set of focal lengths and focused distances.

Repeat after me: "A Graphic is not a view camera."

If you want what a view camera can do and to shoot 2x3, get a view camera. I have a couple of 2x3 Cambos. There are others. Read this board's FAQs, where a number of them are discussed. There are many 4x5 view cameras that will accept 2x3 roll holders.

Repeat after me: "I am not a rank beginner. I will not ask any more beginners questions before looking for answers myself."

Lenses? Read this http://www.galerie-photo.com/telechargement/dan-fromm-6x9-lenses-v2-2011-03-29.pdf and do not ask any more questions about lenses for 2x3.

RB backs have 6x7 gates. That's why Mamiya called the cameras RB67.

Repeat after me: "2x3 and 6x9 are the same. 6x7 and 6x9 are not the same."

Go back under your bridge and resume molesting goats.

Bill_1856
6-May-2014, 10:56
FYI: The negative from 120 rollfilm is actually significantly larger than 2.25x3.25 sheet film.

Bob Salomon
6-May-2014, 11:21
FYI: The negative from 120 rollfilm is actually significantly larger than 2.25x3.25 sheet film.

That depends on the format you are shooting on 120 film. 6x7, 6x6 and 6x4.5cm are very popular roll film formats for 120 and none are as large as 2.25 x 3.25" sheet film. On the other hand 6 x 12 cm is larger and 6x9cm is about the same size. And the manufacturer of the back will also make a difference. Rollei 6x6 negs were quite a bit larger then Mamiya 6x6 negs. Linhof 6x12 negs are much larger then all of the other 6x12 manufacturer's negs.

Unless you mean that the imaging area of a full roll of 120 is greater then the imaging area of a 2 ¼ x 3 ¼" piece of sheet film.

Drew Wiley
6-May-2014, 11:29
A truly good rollfilm back will probably hold the film flatter - a more accurate film plane - than a small cut-sheet holder. But there are other factors. For one thing,
if the roll film back is unduly heavy for the construction of the camera itself, it might tug or warp the back at the time of shot. Shooting these little things is fussier
than shooting 4x5 in terms of focus and movements in general.

jbenedict
6-May-2014, 11:37
I'd go with the cut film holder if you are looking for flatness. Cut film is two or three times thicker than roll film.

Roll backs? Graflex lever backs only or RB67 backs. No Graflex knob backs. Horsesman and Linhof might be better but they cost more.

However, roll film is the way to go. Cut film is available as HP5 or FP4 at a huge price.

If someone is interested in a 2x3 Grafmatic, I have one in boss condition. Interested? PM me.

Tin Can
6-May-2014, 11:46
I find 2x3 sheet film is simply flatter both before and after developing. Yes, roll is faster and flat in camera, but not so after.

I shoot a 2x3 just about as fast as a 4x5. Which is as slow as 5x7...

BetterSense
6-May-2014, 11:52
I bought my sheet film (Arista EDU 100/Foma 100) from Freestyle. Price seemed reasonable for a niche item. The prices on the 2x3 HP5 and FP4+ also seemed reasonable, being about the same price as 4x5.

One of the issues I had was that when I hung the film up with clothespins, the clothespins were heavier than the film so it flipped "upside down" with the little sheet of film upward and the clothespin hanging down. I guess maybe I should get some of those miniature clothespins for this miniature film.

Tin Can
6-May-2014, 12:07
I am very happy 2x3 sheet film is still available. I also cut X-Ray to fit. Makes it a nickel a shot. I develop the sheets in a waffle holder in stainless roll film cans. Chem cost is nothing. I dry them while still in the waffle holder. Sheets scan and enlarge easier. I also shoot 3x4 Fuji FP 3000 B&W with VHR Horseman. My Honeywell Repronar is now set to shoot digital copies of 6x7, I need a little table extension to make it do full 6x9. That's on the list...


I bought my sheet film (Arista EDU 100/Foma 100) from Freestyle. Price seemed reasonable for a niche item. The prices on the 2x3 HP5 and FP4+ also seemed reasonable, being about the same price as 4x5.

One of the issues I had was that when I hung the film up with clothespins, the clothespins were heavier than the film so it flipped "upside down" with the little sheet of film upward and the clothespin hanging down. I guess maybe I should get some of those miniature clothespins for this miniature film.

BetterSense
6-May-2014, 12:15
I develop the sheets in a waffle holder in stainless roll film cans. Chem cost is nothing. I dry them while still in the waffle holder.

Is there any chance you could point me to a picture or link that would describe this "Waffle holder"? I've been developing my sheets 2 at a time (back-to-back) in standard tank for roll film, but I would like to be able to fit more.

Tin Can
6-May-2014, 12:27
I found these 2 NOS NIB for $5 on eBay. They hold 12 sheets, but I usually only put 6 per, as my fingers are very clumsy.

I don't know who made them or what they are called, so I call them waffle hangers.

I think they are beyond rare.

114935


Is there any chance you could point me to a picture or link that would describe this "Waffle holder"? I've been developing my sheets 2 at a time (back-to-back) in standard tank for roll film, but I would like to be able to fit more.

jbenedict
6-May-2014, 14:07
I bought my sheet film (Arista EDU 100/Foma 100) from Freestyle. Price seemed reasonable for a niche item. The prices on the 2x3 HP5 and FP4+ also seemed reasonable, being about the same price as 4x5.

The Arista is $30-100 and $33-400 for 50 sheets and Ilford is $35 for 25 sheets.

In 4x5, Arista is $33, $37 and $39 (100, 200, 400 x 50sh) and Ilford is $36 for HP5 or FP4 X 25sh

The Arista seems like a good value. Especially for someone just learning the view camera and sheet film dance. (It *is* kind of a dance that needs to be learned, isn't it?)

Tin Can
6-May-2014, 14:21
2x3 enlargers are noticeably smaller than 4x5 enlargers. Film costs are the same, but everything else is cheaper and smaller.

I usually jump right past 4x5 and shoot 5x7 as it is so close in film price, camera size and it's not so square.

rfesk
7-May-2014, 04:07
Since you brought up the point of travel, here's a quick and dirty shot of my Century Graphic in a largish (discontinued) Photoflex bag that can be used over the shoulder or with it's waistbelt. It has room for the body, an extra lens or 2 (assuming one in the camera), 2 film backs, a Graphmatic, meter, roll film, and misc little stuff. I don't think it's feasible to duplicate, given weight and volume, with a RB or any 4x5. I'm not saying this is better in any respect other than weight and volume.



112684

I carry my Miniature Graphic in a Tamrac bag similarly set up. And my Busch Pressman 4X5 in the larger Photo-Flex bag. One advantage is that you can work out of the bags without setting them on the ground. Very handy especially when under a darkcloth.

neil poulsen
8-May-2014, 06:43
What I'm hearing is that most 2x3 users use 4x5-capable lenses (like 47mm Super Angulon) on 2x3. While I imagine this gives tons of room for movements, it's not going to be any more economical than buying 4x5 lenses; even less so due to the need for short focal lengths for 2x3. The capable cameras aren't vey cheap either. It's still an interesting proposition but I think I'm beginning to understand why these cameras are not more popular...a homemade camrea might be fun.

Not entirely. For example, you can use a 100mm f5.6 with medium format that won't cover 4x5, or a 120mm f5.6 plasmat that barely covers 4x5. These are relatively inexpensive lenses. A 65mm f5.6 SW will probably give you about the same percentage of movement as a 90mm S.W. on 4x5. On the long end, you don't need to get a 355mm or 360mm that can be both heavy and expensive that would be needed on 4x5 for those levels of magnification. A 250mm f6.7 Fujinon is light and reasonably priced and offers about the same magnification on medium format. Or, a 240mm G Claron f9.

Yes, the cameras can be expensive, especially since some of them have been designed for digital backs. But every once and a while, an inexpensive 6x9 can show up on EBay, KEH, etc.

Drew Wiley
8-May-2014, 11:36
Well I do use my long 4x5 lenses with the 6x9 roll film back, which gives me much better performance than official telephoto MF lenses in three distinct manners:
optically, availability of view camera movements (and therefore the option to use more optimal f-stops for depth of field) and far greater portability - the bellows
does the work instead of some big heavy metal tube. And some of these lenses can be used on 6x9, 4x5, and 8x10 equally well, provided they are well shaded,
cause the image circles are big. And I'm using only the center of the field, which explains the superb optical performance (referring to modern top-end lenses, like
Fujinon A's, G-Clarons, Nikkor M's, etc.) But you need a camera with rock solid movements, tight focus, and a very accurate film plane. Now at the wider end of 6x9 lenses there's a bit of a vacuum. Current digital view lenses are an option, but expensive and kinda limited on movement. Older wide's for 6x9 or even very short 4x5 lenses often lack the extra resolution needed for the greater enlargement of 6x9 film, at least if you're comparing it to current 4x5 quality. The shortest
view lens I own for 6x9 is a Nikor M 100mm - relatively rare but superb.

Shootar401
8-May-2014, 12:42
I know this is a little late to the party but This(the later version of the 2x3 RB Graflex Series B) is my favorite 2x3 camera & mostly because it limits me to two lenses when I head out. The 127mm f4.5 Ektar and the Tele-Raptar 10" f5.6 lens as the fit the same built in flange.
There is no way to use wide angle lenses and there are bellows length limitations but the camera is small, light & has the fast little focal plane shutter. Also the later version of the 2x3 Series B has the Ektilite fresnel. So the focus screen is super bright reflex viewing when compared to all my other Graflexs.

Nice little camera Bettersense and VERY light. I love idea going with the Mamiya RB 67 back assembly. Very cool.

Sexy camera!

Jac@stafford.net
8-May-2014, 12:48
The very one thing I like about 2x3 is how very easy the negatives are to handle, especially as Parkinson's progresses.

I wish to interject here - just how large are presentations in which format size makes a real difference? What is most compelling, fidelity or content?

Tin Can
8-May-2014, 13:36
I don't have Parkinson's but I do have osteoarthritis and everything 2x3 is simply easier for fingers that barely work.

I enlarge 2x3 to 8x10 and it is much better than 35mm, and allows ample cropping.

When I really want economy I shoot 4x5 or 5x7 on a slider that yields 2 up.


The very one thing I like about 2x3 is how very easy the negatives are to handle, especially as Parkinson's progresses.

I wish to interject here - just how large are presentations in which format size makes a real difference? What is most compelling, fidelity or content?

Dan Fromm
8-May-2014, 14:18
Drew, I'm a little surprised that the 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon, 47 SA (f/5.6 and f/8), all those modern 65s and the ancient but still ok 80/6.3 WF Ektar aren't good enough for you on 2x3. I'll grant you that the 35 AG is very expensive and that 80 WF Ektars seem to be hard to find.

Jac, others may disagree, but I've found that sharpness is somewhat over-rated. More is better, but a somewhat soft but strong image will please most if not all viewers.

Brassai
8-May-2014, 14:44
I actually thought about buying this one for several days, but finally decided I'm involved with enough formats. Looks super cool though!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Graphic-2x3-Compact-View-Camera-by-S-K-Grimes-/231205185432?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item35d4e72798

Dan Fromm
8-May-2014, 15:24
Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

Looks very odd. I find it hard to believe that the ground glass, if that's what it is, at the very rear of the bail back can possibly be in register with a film holder's film plane.

If you want to go that way, consider a Century or 2x3 Crown Graphic. More extension, Graflok back (the Century's is integral, the Crown's was an option but many have one), better access to the rear (unless the bail back swings completely out of the way) for attaching lenses with large rear elements such as the 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon and 58/5.6 Grandagon and less expensive.

Ray Van Nes
9-May-2014, 12:27
I might as well add my 2 cents worth. I have 2x3 Century rig which I have hauled literally hauled around the world. It has been to Europe , China and even Tibet. No it does not have the movements of a view camera although that is the way I use it. I stripped it down to save weight. This is the one with the bakelite body and it is bulletproof and rigid. I have had it modified so it has tilt forward. It is a matter of filing a matching slot on the upright. I have several lenses, 65mm Super Angulon, 100mm 3.5 Zeiss, 180mm and 240 Tele-Artons. I occasionally use an old uncoated 135mm Zeiss. I also have a 240mm Mamiya Sekor modified to work as a single lens. I had a shutter release mounted so you can look through it to focus. I like it because it is compact and rugged. I have a Lowe daypack which I use as carryon when I fly.

Drew Wiley
9-May-2014, 13:05
Dan - all those lenses are obviously usable. My personal needs are a bit nitpicky, cause I'm trying to make a roll film shot pretend to be a sheet film shot, and in fact,
better than something I'd obtain with a even a very high-quality MF camera system. Mixing 6x9 shots into the same portfolio as prints enlarged from 8x10 film is risky
business. Maybe I'm just too severe a critic of my own work when it comes to that kind of thing. When I just want something casual and printed small, I shoot a Nikon. Anything bigger than 35mm, I expect to behave like a rottweiler, even if its actually a chihuahua.

Jac@stafford.net
12-May-2014, 10:34
Jac, others may disagree, but I've found that sharpness is somewhat over-rated. More is better, but a somewhat soft but strong image will please most if not all viewers.

I could not agree more.

Dan Fromm
12-May-2014, 11:58
Mixing 6x9 shots into the same portfolio as prints enlarged from 8x10 film is risky
business.

Maybe I'm just too severe a critic of my own work when it comes to that kind of thing.

Absolutely.

You're not too severe a critic, you recognize reality. I like my 2x3 gear but don't delude myself it will yield results competitive with well-done 8x10.

Jac@stafford.net
13-May-2014, 14:33
Absolutely.

You're not too severe a critic, you recognize reality. I like my 2x3 gear but don't delude myself it will yield results competitive with well-done 8x10.

Buck the trend. Print small.

Tin Can
13-May-2014, 15:47
We can't really print any bigger than now is normal, so as you say, buck mainstream. May that's spelled with an f.


Buck the trend. Print small.

David R Munson
13-May-2014, 21:32
I'm in the process of setting up for 6x9. I have a Horseman 6x9 holder and a mounted Fujinon 65mm lens now and will purchase the Shen Hao TFC69 next month probably. Will add a 105mm Fujinon and hopefully something like a 45mm APO Grandagon eventually. If it works out well for me, will eventually upgrade the camera to something like an Arca. It looks like the best solution for my current situation in terms of shooting and processing, and will be nice for travel as well. Most of my work is medium format anyway, so it's not like I don't know what to expect quality-wise. I don't print big, so it's never been a problem.

andreios
14-May-2014, 00:01
David, just FIY - have look at european versions of the big auction site - I've seen 6x9 arcas going by for a price very similar to the 6x9 shen hao...

Sal Santamaura
14-May-2014, 09:33
...Looks very odd. I find it hard to believe that the ground glass, if that's what it is, at the very rear of the bail back can possibly be in register with a film holder's film plane...I visited the link. That is a piece of ground glass; the entire back is from a Galvin camera. Its bail opens wide enough to accept Mamiya roll film holders. Emulsion / ground surface register was excellent when I had one.

In fact I had two. The first was purchased new directly from Jim Galvin in the early 1980s. I sold it some time later after moving up to 4x5. Then, more than a decade later, after relocating and no longer having room for the 4x5 enlarger, I bought another Galvin used. Time had dimmed my memory of how imprecise they were. I sold the second one too and bought a Phillips 8x10. Making contact prints take even less space than a 6x9 enlarger. :D

Dan Fromm
14-May-2014, 09:48
Sal, thanks for the info. Are you sure that your Galvin back's GG was on the outside? Inside will work, but at the very rear still seems odd.

Sal Santamaura
14-May-2014, 10:03
...Are you sure that your Galvin back's GG was on the outside? Inside will work, but at the very rear still seems odd.I'm not sure what you mean by "on the outside." The Galvin ground glass sits in a well just like such screens do in other view camera backs. If you look closely at the picture in that listing, you can see the well's ledge upon which the glass rests on all four of its edges. The particular piece of glass used may be thicker than typical, thus protruding from the well a bit, but its ground surface is seated appropriately.

Dan Fromm
15-May-2014, 07:51
Sal, please take another look at the ebay listing. I just did and am pretty sure that the GG is not recessed in the panel (sorry, I don't know what it is called) that the film holder slips under (in front of). I don't see how it can possibly be in register with the film plane.

I understand your explanation of Galvin's bail backs, I have a little Cambo bail back, and with them in mind the bail back in the listing seems wrong.

Sal Santamaura
15-May-2014, 09:32
Sal, please take another look at the ebay listing...OK, looked at it for the third time. :D


...I just did and am pretty sure that the GG is not recessed in the panel (sorry, I don't know what it is called) that the film holder slips under (in front of)...I've attached the image to this post for closer scrutiny. This camera's ground glass is definitely recessed in its "ground glass frame" exactly as they were on the two Galvins I owned. Again, look at the ledge on all four edges of the frame's well upon which the glass rests and against which the white retainers hold it. You can see the ledge through the glass.


...I don't see how it can possibly be in register with the film plane...Jim designed this back specifically to match Graflex and Mamiya RB67 roll film holders. Except for inevitable bulging toward the lens with such reverse-curl holders, the glass' ground surface was in perfect register with film emulsion in my Mamiya holder. If one followed the "every other frame" routine to avoid having acetate base take a "set" on the reverse roller, register was absolutely perfect across the frame.

BetterSense
15-May-2014, 10:09
What is the "every other frame" routine?

Sal Santamaura
15-May-2014, 11:11
What is the "every other frame" routine?In reverse-curl roll film backs, the acetate base takes a "set" while sitting on a reversing feed roller. Therefore, after an exposure is made and the film advanced one frame, that portion of the next frame which was on the feed roller moves to the gate and bulges toward the lens.

If, after making an exposure, one advances two frames (leaving the one that was on a reversing roller blank), there's no time for the acetate to take a set and no bulging. Perfectly flat film.

If you perform a Google search using my name and the terms 120 roll film holder, many matches from this and other forums will result. Here's one old post I made here that addresses bulges:


http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?1228-Film-plane-alignment&p=5813&viewfull=1#post5813

Tin Can
15-May-2014, 11:23
The only question now is, who is buying it?

I want it, but my budget says no.

:(

Sal Santamaura
15-May-2014, 20:21
...I've attached the image to this post for closer scrutiny. This camera's ground glass is definitely recessed in its "ground glass frame" exactly as they were on the two Galvins I owned...With some difficulty, one can see small shadows at the upper left, lower left and lower right corners where the well is slightly larger (and more square) than the glass. Also, this image in John Schneider's current 4x5 Galvin FS thread


http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=115395&d=1400178343

shows the well more clearly.

Actually, assuming Jim had dimensioned his ground glass frame casting properly, there's no reason other than structural that things couldn't be in register even if the glass weren't in a well. But it is. :D

Dan Fromm
16-May-2014, 07:30
Sal, thanks for your patience.

BetterSense
16-May-2014, 07:43
In reverse-curl roll film backs, the acetate base takes a "set" while sitting on a reversing feed roller. Therefore, after an exposure is made and the film advanced one frame, that portion of the next frame which was on the feed roller moves to the gate and bulges toward the lens.

If, after making an exposure, one advances two frames (leaving the one that was on a reversing roller blank), there's no time for the acetate to take a set and no bulging. Perfectly flat film.

If you perform a Google search using my name and the terms 120 roll film holder, many matches from this and other forums will result. Here's one old post I made here that addresses bulges:


http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?1228-Film-plane-alignment&p=5813&viewfull=1#post5813

I read the post you made about the reverse-roller issue. How long does it take for the film to "take a set"? If one was doing fairly quick bracketing shots, would this be an issue, or if you took 5 minutes on each shot; 20 minutes...?

Sal Santamaura
16-May-2014, 08:08
I read the post you made about the reverse-roller issue. How long does it take for the film to "take a set"?...It varies with ambient temperature and humidity. Under the conditions typical here in coastal southern California, I've observed it happening in as little as 15 seconds. YMMV. How critical this phenomenon is will depend on focal length and exposing aperture of taking lens, degree of magnification when printing and the individual photographer's needs. Everyone should test for their own purposes.

Note that there are some roll film holders, such as the Rollie 6008's (especially 645), which place the bulge between frames, so it's never an issue. That's not applicable to large format, however. :)

Drew Wiley
16-May-2014, 08:55
I wonder exactly when Jim Galvin passed away? He was such a nice guy, and a talented photographer too.

Sal Santamaura
16-May-2014, 15:10
Sal, thanks for your patience.You're very welcome. More/better pictures right before the bottom of this page:


http://www.glennview.com/vcam.htm

Sal Santamaura
16-May-2014, 15:14
I wonder exactly when Jim Galvin passed away? He was such a nice guy, and a talented photographer too.View Camera magazine never indexed its content effectively and I'm too lazy to manually go through the entire shelf of them on my bookcase. An article about Jim was published in 1989; my guess is he died in the early to mid 1990s.

Drew Wiley
16-May-2014, 15:37
Well, I conversed with Jim several times after that article was written, and he machined a couple things for me after that, and he was even trying to repair some
slab damage to his shop from tree roots, as I recall. He was another person who kept the cult of pyro alive until its more modern reincarnations.

Daniel Unkefer
26-May-2014, 14:51
I have one of those complete units, made by Honeywell Nikor. I use them for 6x6cm and 6x9 sheet film.



I found these 2 NOS NIB for $5 on eBay. They hold 12 sheets, but I usually only put 6 per, as my fingers are very clumsy.

I don't know who made them or what they are called, so I call them waffle hangers.

I think they are beyond rare.

114935

BetterSense
26-May-2014, 18:09
How are people filing their 2x3 negatives? I haven't seen PrintFiles for them.

Dan Fromm
26-May-2014, 18:36
BS, think a little. You're supposed to be able to do basic arithmetic.

How many 6x6 negs (one, strip of 2, strip of 3, ...) will fit in a one row of a PrintFile?

Emmanuel BIGLER
27-May-2014, 00:58
How are people filing their 2x3 negatives? I haven't seen PrintFiles for them.

Regarding 2x3" images shot on 120 rollfilm (70 mm cine film is another issue), the length of 2 images of size 56 x [82 - to - 84 mm] plus inter-image spacing is equivalent to about three 6x6 [56x56 or 54 x 54 mm] images.

Hence for 6x9 I'm simply using sheets with 4 rows designed for three 6x6 images per row.
The Print File reference is 120-4UB for 4 rows of 2 6x9 images
And for 3 columns of 4 6x6 images [not really suitable for 6x9] the reference is 120-3HB. (http://www.printfile.com/120-negative-pages.aspx)
I use both (as well as other brands of protective sleeves) according to the mood of the day and the kind of camera I'm using.

Reminder of the strict guidelines of this LF forum "medium format discussions are allowed only if related to rollfim backs mounted ona LF camera".

Believe me or not, there exist 120 / 6x6 rollfilm backs to mount on LF cameras ;) hence 6x6 is not off-topic here provided that you never disclose that you are actually using a R... or a H...

Andrew Plume
27-May-2014, 04:16
View Camera magazine never indexed its content effectively and I'm too lazy to manually go through the entire shelf of them on my bookcase. An article about Jim was published in 1989; my guess is he died in the early to mid 1990s.

Sal

I also have that edition, it included a very appropriate and decent piece from Steve Simmons regarding Jim

regards

andrew

BetterSense
27-May-2014, 07:57
BS, think a little. You're supposed to be able to do basic arithmetic.

How many 6x6 negs (one, strip of 2, strip of 3, ...) will fit in a one row of a PrintFile?

I was talking about 2x3 sheet film rather than roll film. Those little sheets almost, but not quite fit into a business-card file. Right now I don't have a storage solution for them.

Tin Can
27-May-2014, 08:48
They are very handy. Almost as fast as roll film.



I have one of those complete units, made by Honeywell Nikor. I use them for 6x6cm and 6x9 sheet film.

Tin Can
27-May-2014, 09:02
I use glassine, like these. http://www.ebay.com/itm/100-NEW-Cenveo-or-JBM-or-Westvaco-2-Glassine-Envelopes-2-5-16-x-3-5-8-/281346953899?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item418195d2ab

Then I put that in NOS Print Saver Vue-All plastics that fit nine 6x9 sheets nicely in a 3 ring binder.




I was talking about 2x3 sheet film rather than roll film. Those little sheets almost, but not quite fit into a business-card file. Right now I don't have a storage solution for them.

Oren Grad
27-May-2014, 10:35
I was talking about 2x3 sheet film rather than roll film. Those little sheets almost, but not quite fit into a business-card file. Right now I don't have a storage solution for them.

I use the same 4x5" polypropylene sleeves for 4x5, 3.25 x 4.25 and 2.25x3.25 sheet film negatives. My shooting volume isn't high enough to justify trying to find an exact fit for each size.

David A. Goldfarb
27-May-2014, 12:34
I do the same as Oren, since I shoot both 4x5 and 2x3 and would prefer to be able to file them all in the same boxes.

Emmanuel BIGLER
28-May-2014, 01:44
I was talking about 2x3 sheet film

- US size 2" 1/4 x 3" 1/4 = 57x82 mm will easily fit inside any filing system designed for 120 rolls.
With sleeves like Print File 120-4UB you can push one sheet of film on each side of the sleeve.

- EU size 6,5x9 cm = 2" 1/2 x 3" 1/2 = 63.5 x 88.9 mm does fit into some glassine sheets designed for 120 rolls, but I'm not sure that they will easily slide into a Print File plastic sleeve (to be checked!).
The width of a 120 roll is 61 mm, hence it depends on how tight the sleeves are designed, since EU 2x3" sheet film requires 63.5 mm wide.
70 mm film definitely does not fit inside any sleeve designed for 120 rolls.

Using the same filing system for 2x3" (either US or EU size) and for 4x5" is certainly one of the best solutions, but if you use the smaller 2x3" sheet film together with 120 rolls, you'll be able to share the same sleeves for both films as well.