6x9 120... the slow way

pixelrandy · Oct 13, 2014

GregW said:
Ya gotta get into the zen of it. think of it as a tea ceremony ; )
I completely sympathize. For me, remembering to switch from the bulb setting before you pull that dark slide on the holder has been a hard learned skill.

The "zen" bit is why I switched primarily from digital in the film in the place. I do enjoy the slow pace.

Perhaps this thread could have used a better preface.

I purchased this camera just over a week ago with the thought I'd probably just put it on the shelf and stare at it. I didn't haggle the price and they didn't bark at me when I offered them $40. The lens that was mounted originally doesn't work correctly (just trust me on this), but it had the lens you see on it now. It looks like the range finder is broken (I see loose parts inside, but I would need to investigate further).

The post was supposed to be humorous, but I think I lost a lot of you there. That's my fault. I'm not good at telling jokes.

I don't mind having to pull the 120 back off between shots. I don't mind the speed. I didn't buy the camera to take 6x9 shots. It was either going to go up on the shelf or I was (now am) shooting 4x5. It had a 120 back so I gave it a whirl. I'm used to shooting with a Pentax 67 which is fast. This was slow. It made me laugh. Ha ha ha ha... ha.... ha.

I realize if I wanted a faster setup, I'd just buy a camera body that shoots 6x9 natively. That was the entire point of the post.

Did I miss anything?

Why did the chicken cross the road?

Cheers,

Randy

Dan Fromm · Oct 13, 2014

pixelrandy said:
I realize if I wanted a faster setup, I'd just buy a camera body that shoots 6x9 natively. That was the entire point of the post.

Did I miss anything?

T'ain't funny, McGee. Work on your humor. When you have something to say, saying it clearly and directly will improve the chances that you'll be understood.

Yes, you missed something. There are 2x3 press, technical and view cameras. Native 2x3. Or 6x9 if you'd rather talk metric. None faster working than a 4x5 Speed Graphic.

pixelrandy · Oct 13, 2014

Dan - You clearly missed the point of my post. Maybe that's my fault, but maybe it's because you're looking to show off your conversion skills. *claps*

Thread title: Thread: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Seems like I was clear that there this was a slow way to shoot 6x9. That's all. Glad you found something more from it. Happy to hear that the Spd Graphic is the fastest way of shooting 6x9 on a 5x5 platform, which was not what I was trying to convey one way or the other.

Feeling trolled... hmmm

Bill Burk · Oct 13, 2014

pixelrandy,

I knew you were jesting but wonder... if it could be better would it make you happier?

I use a 4x5 folding camera with Grafmatic and have the routine down to a snap.

With practice, I think you can have a lot of fun with it. But a 120 folder is a great way to get practically large format in your "vest pocket" and it's not nearly as difficult as what you've got.

pdeeh · Oct 14, 2014

pixelrandy said:
Feeling trolled... hmmm

I truly don't think you're being trolled pixelrandy, but you have now discovered how amazingly easily posts can get treated with no sense of humour or proportion at APUG. I don't think it would have made much difference had you sprinkled smilies liberally all over the place in the OP, someone will almost always want to point out the shortcomings or inaccuracies in one's knowledge.

It's a shame because the reservoir of skill and experience of some individuals let alone the community as a whole is astounding. But by the same token, the same people who you might feel trolled by can also be amazingly helpful and accommodating on other occasions ...

Rick A · Oct 14, 2014

Pixelrandy,
I kind of understood sarcasm, but also sensed deep frustration with the method needed to use the set up. Hence, my response. You write in similar fashion to how I relate a story to illustrate my frustration with subjects that are humorless, but upon reflection can be. The response to my second post(not by you) left me shaking my head and wondering if somebody's Wheaties had been pissed in. Anyway, godd shooting and if I happen across a sweet 6x9 folder, I'll give you a shout out.

cheers pard, oh --and welcome to the asylum.

MattKing · Oct 14, 2014

pixelrandy:

I was entertained by your opening post, but I understand why some might not have taken it in the way it was intended.

You and john nanian would probably have something to talk about - over fresh roasted coffee, of course.

pixelrandy · Oct 15, 2014

I had a moment to checkout my 6x9 film roll holder, and it is the Graflex model:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelrandy/sets/72157648760351921/

I put together loading instructions, though it's pretty straight forward obviously.

I did get my 4x5 film holders last night and I have a 25-pack of HP5 400 Plus on the way. I shoot models, so I need a bit more speed.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelrandy/14919206724/

5 holders fit perfectly within the Speed Changer V2 by Think Tank too - Dead Link Removed

Sorry for the humorless post. *wink*

Randy

Vaughn · Oct 15, 2014

Actually the image on the 4x5 GG is upside down, but not backwards...now a Rolleiflex GG shows everything right-side up but backwards. Keeps us on our toes!

I liked using a rollback on my 4x5 (but it was a Calumet 6x7...6x9 is a lot of fun) for the few times I have used color films. The Speed Graphic does have all the front tilt you would ever need and a touch of rise/fall, so one gets to play with that with roll film. Don't think I used any tilt for this one -- Gums, Comboyne Plateau, Australia. Kodak Portra VC 160ASA I believe, printed on 8x10 Kodak paper (RA4).

Have fun!

Dan Fromm · Oct 15, 2014

Vaughn said:
The Speed Graphic does have all the front tilt you would ever need and a touch of rise/fall

Backwards tilt only, rise only. And don't tell us that dropping the bed and tilting the front standard backwards will give forwards tilt as desired. This works but only for a limited range of focal lengths and focused distances.

A truth that is not to be denied: If you need full movements a Speed Graphic is not the camera for you.

Vaughn · Oct 15, 2014

You can drop the bed, raise the lens and tilt it backwards to be straight up, then tilt forward as much as one needs.

A truth that is not to be denied: If you need full movements a Speed Graphic is not the camera for you.

True, but does the OP need full movements shooting models?

Hatchetman · Oct 15, 2014

Vaughn said:
True, but does the OP need full movements shooting models?

Maybe they have very long legs.

pixelrandy · Oct 15, 2014

Hatchetman said:
Maybe they have very long legs.

I like it when they do!

Nah, I really don't need the movement at all, but am looking forward to having it available.

DREW WILEY · Oct 15, 2014

I don't have time right now to read thru all the previous posts. Only my long trip last months I packed my Pentax 6x7 system for quickie setups from the highway, but my Ebony 4x5 for backpacking, along with 6x9 Horseman roll film holders. Why? Because I can get a way sharper shot
than using an ordinary MF system. I've got view camera movements for plane of focus (vs merely stopping way down). It's actually a lighter
wt system that balances well on a lighter tripod. .... but obviously slower to set up.

Dan Daniel · Oct 16, 2014

Vaughn said:
Actually the image on the 4x5 GG is upside down, but not backwards...

Did I miss a specific situation that this comments refers to? Maybe this is in reference to a camera that has a mirror in the system... For standard view camera ground glass, the image on the GG is both upside down and backwards. Just as it is on the film itself.

Bill Burk · Oct 16, 2014

Dan Daniel said:
Did I miss a specific situation that this comments refers to? Maybe this is in reference to a camera that has a mirror in the system... For standard view camera ground glass, the image on the GG is both upside down and backwards. Just as it is on the film itself.

I just aimed my view camera at an upside down carton with the words "WARDROBE" on it.

The image I saw on the ground glass is right-reading "WARDROBE". So... just upside down.

You might be thinking of what you would see looking at the surface. But with a ground glass, you are looking from behind.

Vaughn · Oct 16, 2014

Dan Daniel said:
Did I miss a specific situation that this comments refers to? Maybe this is in reference to a camera that has a mirror in the system... For standard view camera ground glass, the image on the GG is both upside down and backwards. Just as it is on the film itself.

The image is thrown upside down and backwards onto the GG. But since we view the GG from the back side, the image we see is not backwards.

Editted: Whoops -- what Bill said!

What is interesting is how one 'flips' the image over in one's head. Since I am interested in what the image will look like backwards (image is reversed when printing single transfer carbon), I mentally flip the image on the GG over on an imaginary horizontal line thru the image center. This gives me a right-side-up but reversed image. If one is printing with most other processes, one can just mentally rotate the image 180 degrees.

Bill Burk · Oct 16, 2014

But, Dan Daniel isn't entirely wrong... If you move the camera to the right, the image will move to the left... So aiming it left-for-right takes as much getting used to as a Twin-Lens Reflex

Dan Fromm · Oct 16, 2014

Vaughn said:
You can drop the bed, raise the lens and tilt it backwards to be straight up, then tilt forward as much as one needs.

Vaughn, just for you I tried the experiment again. I got the same results I got decades ago. You'd think that getting older would change everything. Not so.

And don't tell us that dropping the bed and tilting the front standard backwards will give forwards tilt as desired. This works but only for a limited range of focal lengths and focused distances.

If the lens doesn't make infinity with the bed in normal position and the front standard a bit in front of the hinge -- dropping the bed reduces extension -- the trick can't be used at all.

The trick works only for normal lenses -- just barely for a 105/3.7 Ektar on a 2x3 Crown Graphic, not at all for the same lens on a 2x3 Pacemaker Speed Graphic 'cos on that camera the lens makes infinity too close to the hinge -- at infinity.

With longer lenses or with the subject fairly close there's no way to eliminate front fall. There isn't enough front rise.

Go try the experiment yourself.

Vaughn · Oct 16, 2014

Nah...I am a normal person...don't have short or long lenses for my Speed (4x5 -- I have never handled a smaller Speedy). I'll take your word that it does not work on a 2x3 Speed with odd ( non-normal ) lenses.

Dan Fromm · Oct 16, 2014

Vaughn said:
I'll take your word that it does not work on a 2x3 Speed with odd ( non-normal ) lenses.

The little ones are scaled-down big ones. What's true of one size is almost always true of the others.

I'm surprised that you use only the one lens on your Speed. They're really very useful cameras. Graflex offered a full range of lenses for all sizes.

Vaughn · Oct 16, 2014

I rarely use the Speed (being just 4x5) -- and I have a Gowland PocketView I use for such tiny pieces of film because I do like more movements than offered by the Graphic press cameras (and the Gowland is much lighter).

With 4x5 I have always used just a 150mm for the past 30 years. Thought I did use a magnifying lens with the Speed (pre-anniversary with the larger lensboard) a few times. The focal plane shutter is nice! I have used primarily 8x10 since 1996 -- and only a 300mm lens for the first half of that time period. Now the 300mm and a 250mm, and occasionally a 19" and 24".

Speedy, magnifying glass lens, Type 55 negs, contact prints:

DREW WILEY · Oct 16, 2014

The nice thing about a 6x9 back on a 4x5 camera is that you've also got a 4x5 camera at a moment's notice, as long as you have 4x5 holders
with you too. But focus with the smaller 6x9 image is more finicky. You also have to be aware that not all roll-film holders are truly precise, some of them are unduly heavy for the camera involved and might weight or tug the film plane off a bit, the slide-in kind won't fit very many cameras
at all, and lots of older film cameras don't have an especially accurate film plane to begin with. So compared to ordinary MF cameras you might
get either distinctly superior results using a roll film back or rather disappointing results. But with reference to portability, my 300mm Pentax
6x7 telephoto lens is like a small cannon barrel and requires as much support as my 8x10 camera, while my 300mm Nikkor M view camera lens weighs very little (since the bellows comprise its extension), require relatively little tripod support (not only lightwt but no big Ker-lunk
mirror which even mirror lockup won't completely tame) and a has a big image circle suitable for 4x5 film too. Alternatives.

6x9 120... the slow way

pixelrandy

Dan Fromm

pixelrandy

Bill Burk

pdeeh

Rick A

MattKing

Moderator

pixelrandy

Vaughn

Attachments

Dan Fromm

Vaughn

Hatchetman

pixelrandy

DREW WILEY

Dan Daniel

Bill Burk

Vaughn

Bill Burk

Dan Fromm

Vaughn

Dan Fromm

Vaughn

Attachments

DREW WILEY

6x9 120... the slow way

Moderator

Attachments

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency