Graflex camera options/decisions

[Johnny Dilks]

Hi Everyone!!

I am new on here, and have mainly been a hobbiest photographer shooting 35mm and 120 film for the past 15 years on and off. Many of my friends have moved into the digital realm and have almost abandoned film altogether it seems.
I however have (after lots of thought) decided to go the opposite direction. I am not a fan of sitting in front of a computer for hours, so I have decided to purchase a vintage 4x5 camera. I remember when I was a freshman in college, an exgirlfriend had a Crown Graphic 4x5 and really dug the camera and it's general layout. That was my first introduction to the 4x5 and was amazed with the detail /clarity that, that camera and the 4x5 was able to produce. I also really dug that (like a digital) you were able to see the image on the ground glass (even if it is upside down and backwards) before firing.
So with all of that said I have decided to purchase an old Graflex...my question is which one will best serve my needs. I shoot everything from historic interiors (which often require the use of wide angle lenses) to sports like surfing and shooting which require a fast shutter speed. I originally set out to but an early 50's Speed Graphic with the Graflock back but after researching them I discovered that the widest angle I could use was a 80 to 90mm lens which would be limiting. The plus is that the focal shutter speeds are ideal for shooting sports/action and it opens up a whole bunch of lens options.
The Crown has the wide angle advantage which I am definitely attracted to and my paying photography job is shooting historic interiors so this would pay for itself eventually.
The other camera that interests me is the Graflex Super D. I have never seen one in person and was wondering what the advantages and disadvantages of this camera are.
I'm not sure but I think the later ones come with the Graflok back.
Any help or opionions would greatly help my decision making process at this point.

Thanks in advance,

JD

[lindy]

I have a Crown Graphic and love it. Most of these old press cameras you come accross are going to most likely have a 135 or 127mm lens which will give you little to no movement, not that the Graflex has much movement anyway but there you are. I've been thinking about putting a 150mm on mine just to be able to use what little movement the camera has (mine has the 127mm so no movement). You can check out http://www.graflex.org/ it might help you sort out which model suits you best.

[banjo]

Now I have minty Graflex // Graphic
if I know then what I know NOW I would have only 1 or 2
a Speedgraphic is ok for some things
so to is the Crown Graphic
BUT the Superspeed or the Supergraphic I like the best as it has
Revolving Back V to H

[Johnny Dilks]

Thanks for your responses Banjo and Lindy,

I have been studying Graflex.org for the specs etc. I decided to post on here because I am looking for unbiased opinions of the older cameras by guys who use them regularly (like you guys). As far as the Super Speed Graphic goes it does seem like a much larger investment but not so if it can infact do the work of an older Crown and Speed Graphic put together. For my needs I will need the wide angle as well as the faster shutter speeds, which would mean buying one of each (Crown as well as a Speed).
Banjo; you said "if I know NOW what I knew then.." please enlighten me. This is excatly the info I'm looking for.

Thanks again!!

JD

[Dan Fromm]

Johnny, the place to ask for advice on Graphics is www.graflex.org. When you ask y'r question there, be clear about whether you are interested in a Graphic (this is a press camera) or a Graflex (SLR). The nomenclature developed by Graflex Inc. and predecessors is extremely confusing, forces people who talk about Graflex Inc and prececessors' products to be as clear as possible.

To help you think about which Graphic, the key dimension that limits which wide angle lenses can be used on which model is the camera's minimum flange-to-film distance. For 4x5 Pacemaker Speed Graphics (the ones with focal plane shutter and thicker body) it is 66.7 mm. For Pacemaker Crown Graphics (no focal plane shutter, thinner body) it is 52.4 mm. If the lens' flange-to-film distance at infinity is longer than the body's, all's well. Relatively short modern w/a lenses can be used on a 4x5 Crown.

banjo's advice is mischievous. And that's being polite. He's focused on what matters to him, not on what you said matters to you, viz., wide angle lenses.

He's right, the Super Graphic has a rotating back and the Pacemakers don't. He didn't tell you that the Pacemakers have linked inner and outer bed rails and the Super doesn't. Practical significance, with the Super it is a real pain to focus a lens that makes infinity on the inner rails, very easy with either of the Pacemakers.

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. You posted while I was replying. If 1/400 won't do and you really need 1/1000 then you need a Speed. If a Speed's too thick for the w/a lens of your dreams then you need a Crown too.

FWIW, I use a 2x3 Speed and a 2x3 Century Graphic (plastic-bodied Crown without the infernal body shutter release). The Century for short lenses and the Speed for longer lenses and lens without shutters. The shortest lens I have that will cover 2x3 and focus to infinity on my Speed is a 58/5.6 Grandagon, the shortest etc. on the Century is a 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon. The news for you is that if you want to use a lens shorter than 90 mm for interiors you can. Paying for a modern w/a lens is another matter entirely.

The longest original issue lens for 4x5 Graphics is the 15"/5.6 TeleRaptar, sold by Graflex as the TeleOptar. It will make infinity on 4x5 Crown and Speed, will focus closer on a Speed. Was offered in shutter (for both) and in barrel (for the Speed). There are roughly equivalent tele lenses from Rodenstock and Schneider.

I don't think I have a tele lens for my little Graphics. The longest lens I use on one is a 305/9 Apo Nikkor that attaches to a #1 shutter on my Speed with the help of an adapter and a couple of inches of extension tube.

Aiming a long lens well require focusing through the lens. That is, on the ground glass. If you want to shoot surfers with a long lens you'll have to shoot from tripod and prefocus. Not fun, possible.

[Michael Roberts]

Johnny, I'm assuming you understand that a 90mm on 4x5 is equivalent to 30mm on 35mm--right? You can find 75mm w/a lenses to use on a Crown--equal to 25mm on 35mm film. Surely that's not too limiting for you--is it?

[Johnny Dilks]

Dan,
You answered a lot for me!! The flange to film distance info was really helpful!! Also great info on lenses. It sounds like I will eventually want to have both a Crown and a Speed to meet my needs. I am going to start off with a Crown because of the w/a lens options and put it to work on a paying job I have coming up.

As for the Speed Graphic, I'll be patient and eventually find a clean one. I can see where aiming a long lens on the ground glass will be difficult especially on a fast moving target. But again I really appreciate your input!!

As for the older stlye Graflex cameras, I am still curious about the Super D, the reflector top view seems interesting to me. Have you or anyone on here used one??

[Filmnut]

I've shot with a Speed Graphic since the 70's, and I really like it for the type of shooting I do. The widest I use is a 75 SA, and it works fine, but that's likely the limit, however its' plenty wide for me, and I don't think I will go for anything wider.
A friend uses a Crown, and really likes it as he carries it around a lot as its' a bit lighter.
If I was to buy one for starters, I'd be temped to go for the Crown, as I haven't used the focal plane shutter for about 25 yrs, otherwise I'd be interested in the Super Graphic for the extra movements it affords.
Get one and enjoy!
Keith

[Jack Dahlgren]

If you are going to get two cameras I think that a speed and a field camera make a better pair than a speed and a crown. The movements on both of the graphics are limited and all that the crown buys you is lighter weight and ability to use slightly shorter lenses. A field camera can do both of those things AND give you movements etc.

[Jim Jones]

If you are going to get two cameras I think that a speed and a field camera make a better pair than a speed and a crown. The movements on both of the graphics are limited and all that the crown buys you is lighter weight and ability to use slightly shorter lenses. A field camera can do both of those things AND give you movements etc.

I agree. The high shutter speeds of a Speed Graphic may not give you the results you want. Remember the photographs of race cars taken a hundred years ago with the wheels slanting forward? That's the result of shooting with large focal plane shutters. Modern smaller format cameras have reduced this to an acceptable minimum. Back in the days of iron photographers and wooden cameras, sports were done with 4x5 and 5x7 cameras. We can do better now with modern cameras. If you need shutter speeds higher than 1/400 second, or if you need really long focal lengths, medium format or 35mm may be more practical. This would free you to select a large format camera that is ideal for interiors and scenics.

[Sirius Glass]

I agree. The high shutter speeds of a Speed Graphic may not give you the results you want. Remember the photographs of race cars taken a hundred years ago with the wheels slanting forward? That's the result of shooting with large focal plane shutters.

I have been working on reproducing the slanted wheel effect with my Speed Graphic and my Graflex. Evidentially, 1/30 second is not slow enough. Has anyone one else worked on this?

Steve

[aduncanson]

I have been working on reproducing the slanted wheel effect with my Speed Graphic and my Graflex. Evidentially, 1/30 second is not slow enough. Has anyone one else worked on this?

Steve

Many years ago, with moderate success, photographing muscle cars in a hill climb. Those cars were not moving too terribly fast. The key then (and the difficulty today) might have been getting close enough with my 135mm lens so that the wheel, top to bottom, covered a substantial fraction of the shutter's travel. If the wheel only covers 10% of the shutter travel then your 1/30 second is effectively 1/300 second, in terms of the amount of distortion.

[Sirius Glass]

Many years ago, with moderate success, photographing muscle cars in a hill climb. Those cars were not moving too terribly fast. The key then (and the difficulty today) might have been getting close enough with my 135mm lens so that the wheel, top to bottom, covered a substantial fraction of the shutter's travel. If the wheel only covers 10% of the shutter travel then your 1/30 second is effectively 1/300 second, in terms of the amount of distortion.

See photo: http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/full/lartigue/lartigue_car_trip.jpg
The original title of this photo is “Car Trip, Papa at 80 kilometers an hour”.

I was working on a road with 55 mph traffic [original taken at 80 km/hr ~ 50 mph], since I suspect that: The key then (and the difficulty today) might have been getting close enough with my 135mm lens so that the wheel, top to bottom, covered a substantial fraction of the shutter's travel. is the key to success. I should probably concentrate working with the Graflex with the 7 1/2" lens and panning slower than the car's movement.


However, if you ever get a chance to see it, there is a TREMENDOUS action photo of a ca. 1910 automobile race made by Jacques Henri Lartigue and a camera with a focal plane shutter. He panned the race cars as they sped past his camera, but he panned a little too slowly and the cars moved past the camera. This resulted in the circular wheels being recorded as ovals leaning forward!!! Not only that, telephone poles and spectators in the background were recoded as leaning in the opposite direction as he quickly panned the camera across the scene. It looked as if the wind created by the fast-moving cars had blown them over!!! He did not intend to do this, it just happened as he panned the photo. -- http://www.mail-archive.com/sporrs@itchy.transcrypt.com/msg00005.html

I also found http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=31903
The original title of this photo is “Car Trip, Papa at 80 kilometers an hour”.


Lartigue used an ICA box camera with a focal-plane shutter. As he panned with the car and exposed the plate, the shutter - a narrow slit which moved up across the plate - captured the image at an estimated 1/5sec. But because the shutter was a slit rather than a "curtain", it exposed the bottom of the image first and the top of the image last, meaning by the time it exposed the driver of the car, he'd moved several metres. Not only did this create the dramatic "Wacky Racers" distortion effect; it also would have taken a level of skill and deft handling of a heavy camera that modern motorsport photographers can only marvel at.-- http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=73959

Steve

[Brian C. Miller]

I have been working on reproducing the slanted wheel effect with my Speed Graphic and my Graflex. Evidentially, 1/30 second is not slow enough. Has anyone one else worked on this?

Steve

According to Lartigue, he deliberately slowed down the shutter on his camera first. He knew the effect he wanted, and how to get it. When asked later about it, he of course claimed that it just happened that way, rather like the "spontaneous" Weegee photo of "The Critic."

(Arthur Fellig and a friend of his went to a bar and got a lady drunk. Then they brought her to the societal gathering. Fellig positioned himself, and when the moment was right, his friend gave the drunk lady a bit of a shove in the right direction. Then Fellig fired off his Graflex as fast has he could. "It just happened that way..." Yeah, right, that's what they all say.)

If you want to reproduce that effect, how about making a simple guillotine shutter? Then you won't need to mess with your shutter.

[Jim Jones]

I have been working on reproducing the slanted wheel effect with my Speed Graphic and my Graflex. Evidentially, 1/30 second is not slow enough. Has anyone one else worked on this?

Steve

The slanted effect should be strongest with the lowest spring tension, and least with the highest spring tension. My Anniversary model is rated at 1/500 second with the lowest (no. 1) tension and the D slit. The Pacemaker series, with a minimum of 1/30 second, may have a faster moving curtain and thus less of a slant in moving subjects. Ah, the price of progress!

[joselsgil]

Have any of you guys using a Speed Graphic actually checked to see if the focal plane shutter is accurate?

When I used the focal plane shutter on my Mini Speed Graphic, I found the exposures way off. I'm not sure if there is a good way to check the accuracy on the shutter. I find the camera more of a novelty than a camera I would rely on for a paying job.
I like my 4X5 Crown, but it is very limited compared to a 4X5 field camera or a mono rail 4X5. If I was going to shoot interiors, I would opt for a mono rail 4X5 view camera with the greater amount of adjustments to correct for distortion with a wide angle lens.

As for shooting sports, such as racing cars or motorcycles. You really do not need a very fast shutter speed. On cars, if you shoot anything faster than 125 of a second, the car's wheels will be completely stopped making the car appear as if it was parked. I have photographed Top Fuel Dragsters and Funny Cars, that are very quick and fast (300 mph +). On motorcycles anything faster than 250 of a second, will stop the wheels and again, it will look like it is not moving. I used to freelance and photograph road racing motorcycles many years ago.

As for using a Graphic for photographing surfers. You will need a very big lens, unless you don't mind getting the camera wet. This would depend on where you are taking the photos from, boat, jet ski, shoreline. If you are shooting from the shoreline. How far away are the waves are breaking from the shore?

Thats just my .02 cents worth. :)