Century Graphic compatible Roll Film Backs

[Donald Qualls]

the 645 back for the RB67 has been adapted by some people so it fits the Graflok system.

No adaptation necessary. All of my RB67 roll film holders mount directly to my Century with no issues. And all of my Graflex 22/23/RH10/RH20 roll film holders mount to my RB67 (with the caveat that dark slide and double exposure interlocks aren't enabled with these holders). I have a left hand grip on my Century that makes it no harder to rotate for format control than, say, my Moskva 5.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Mamiya sold a 6x4.5 back for the RB67 which works as well on a standard 2x3 Graflok mount as on the RB67 -- I have one and have used it on my Century.

Thanks

 

[Dan Fromm]

The thing that commends the Baby Speed or Century Graphics to me is the breadth of lenses available. Both the Mamiya and Graflex XL had very limited range of choices. In fairness, the Mamiya, at least, had much better options for long lenses give the limited bellows draw of the Baby Speed and Centuries.

Am there, do that. Please see my lenses diary:

https://www.galerie-photo.com/telechargement/dan-fromm-6x9-lenses-v2-2011-03-29.pdf

Century/2x3 Crown are great for short lenses, not so good for longer than 250 mm. 2x3 Pacemaker Speed is better for longer lenses and macro work. One really needs both. When the 2x3 Speed doesn't have enough extension, one can always cobble up a tandem Graphic.

My tandem 2x3 Graphic: https://www.galerie-photo.com/telechargement/dan-fromm-6x9-lenses-v2-2011-03-29.pdf

I never wrote an article about it. The picture shows it with a 480/9 ApoNikkor. I've used the rig to shoot birds in the Everglades.

What I've done with my little Graphics can be done with a 2x3 Technika and with 2x3 Horseman cameras. As you mentioned, Mamiya Press in all its manifestations, Graflex XL and Technika 70 embody a different concept and are much more limited.

 

[chuckroast]

No adaptation necessary. All of my RB67 roll film holders mount directly to my Century with no issues. And all of my Graflex 22/23/RH10/RH20 roll film holders mount to my RB67 (with the caveat that dark slide and double exposure interlocks aren't enabled with these holders). I have a left hand grip on my Century that makes it no harder to rotate for format control than, say, my Moskva 5.

OK noted. I have heard others suggest that the RB backs do not fit perfectly in a Graflok, but I'll take you first hand experience over internet rumors

Upon further research, I did find this:

Complete Guide to Graflok 23 Backs

Introduction: Graflex, Mamiya RB67, Horseman, Mercury No medium format removable back standard has been more influential than Graflok 23. It was the first medium format back protocol to gain suffic…

mercurycamera.com

 

[chuckroast]

Am there, do that. Please see my lenses diary:

https://www.galerie-photo.com/telechargement/dan-fromm-6x9-lenses-v2-2011-03-29.pdf

Century/2x3 Crown are great for short lenses, not so good for longer than 250 mm. 2x3 Pacemaker Speed is better for longer lenses and macro work. One really needs both. When the 2x3 Speed doesn't have enough extension, one can always cobble up a tandem Graphic.

My tandem 2x3 Graphic: https://www.galerie-photo.com/telechargement/dan-fromm-6x9-lenses-v2-2011-03-29.pdf

I never wrote an article about it. The picture shows it with a 480/9 ApoNikkor. I've used the rig to shoot birds in the Everglades.

What I've done with my little Graphics can be done with a 2x3 Technika and with 2x3 Horseman cameras. As you mentioned, Mamiya Press in all its manifestations, Graflex XL and Technika 70 embody a different concept and are much more limited.

Yeah, I consider the 2x3 Graphics sort of the hidden gems of almost-large-format. Although I have plenty of 4x5 at my disposal as well as MF cameras in various manifestations, I have hauled Baby Speed and Century Graphics around for years because of their versatility and range of optical choices.

Over time, I've mostly stopped using rollfilm backs though and primarily shoot sheet film.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've mostly stopped using rollfilm backs though and primarily shoot sheet film.

A 2x3 Grafmatic is significantly less than an RH10, fits both the Century and the RB67, holds six sheets in less than half the thickness of a roll film holder and is faster to use than a knob-wind, at least. Downside is, reloading in the field calls for a changing bag, at a minimum, and there are only four emulsions currently sold in 2x3 sheet size: Foma 100 and 400 (also rebranded as Arista .EDU Ultra), FP4+ and HP5+. Cost per sheet is barely less than 4x5 (production volume makes a big difference).

When I get my darkroom backlog caught up a bit, I need to get out with my Century and Grafmatics.

 

[chuckroast]

A 2x3 Grafmatic is significantly less than an RH10, fits both the Century and the RB67, holds six sheets in less than half the thickness of a roll film holder and is faster to use than a knob-wind, at least. Downside is, reloading in the field calls for a changing bag, at a minimum, and there are only four emulsions currently sold in 2x3 sheet size: Foma 100 and 400 (also rebranded as Arista .EDU Ultra), FP4+ and HP5+. Cost per sheet is barely less than 4x5 (production volume makes a big difference).

When I get my darkroom backlog caught up a bit, I need to get out with my Century and Grafmatics.

I always found the Grafmatics too fiddly. If the plenums were even slightly out of true, they got grumpy trying to feed the next sheet.

I mourn the day Kodak stopped making film packs in 2 1/4 x 3 1/4. I have a couple of Tri-X in the freezer yet to be used.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Film packs in general, aye. Even the equipment to process the slightly larger sheets is hard to find now, even if you find some film that isn't age fogged beyond use.

I still can't believe those couldn't be stuffed by a machine, but I can easily believe there isn't enough market to resurrect them...

 

[chuckroast]

Film packs in general, aye. Even the equipment to process the slightly larger sheets is hard to find now, even if you find some film that isn't age fogged beyond use.

I still can't believe those couldn't be stuffed by a machine, but I can easily believe there isn't enough market to resurrect them...

I have developed film as old as 1961 Super-XX, with good results and films from the 1970s and beyond with very good results. While there is some fog, it is reasonably well managed using very long semi-standing type development in Pyrocat-HD. The only real problem I ran into with the film from 1961 was that it was mechanically compromised even though the box had not been opened until I got to it. Some of the sheets stuck together and caused emulsion damage, but the negatives were otherwise quit comfortably printable.

Unless the level is obnoxiously high, fog mostly has the effect of reducing contrast somewhat and can be well overcome with a combination of exposure control and post processing/printing magick.

 

[Chuckwade87]

I don't know which of the lenses fitted to various models of the Pathfinder you have. Please tell us. I'm suspicious of Tessar type Raptars (that's what was on 110 and 110A Pathfinders) because many years ago in a discussion of the merits of them and Tessar type Ektars the most authoritative person in the discussion (not me) remarked that Raptars were two stops behind equivalent Ektars. I know nothing about R'stock's Ysarex lenses, also Tessar clones.

The lens is the Wollensak 127mm f4.5 with the rapax shutter.

 

[Dan Fromm]

The lens is the Wollensak 127mm f4.5 with the rapax shutter.

Thanks. Use it, and if it doesn't please and you like the focal length replace it with, e.g., a 127/4.7 Ektar.

The normal focal length for 2x3 is 4" (100 mm). The 101/4.5 Ektar would be a good choice if you want a tessar type. 105/5.6 Fujis (several models, all good) are a relatively economical plasmat type alternative. But first try your 127 Raptar.

 

[Chuckwade87]

Mamiya RB67 6x4.5 on the Century Graphic, the only thing that I've noticed mounting is the dark slide pops out about 1-2mm, nearly imperceptible, I don't believe this will effect anything, as long as when I take off I push it the rest of the way in...

 

[ivan35mm]

glad you pulled the trigger on getting one, and circling back here (with pictures!)

 

[F4U]

See what I mean about the roll back making it harder to get your eyeball up to the finder. Of course you can do it when way the newspaper guys do in the old movies. Hold the camera out half an arms length and focus your Kalart and use the frame finder for framing. Your eye doesn't have to necessarily close to the Kalart to focus. Nice looking rig.

 

[Chuckwade87]

Yes it definitely requires a different way to hold the camera. I loaded a roll of Portra 160 in the Mamiya back last night.

Unfortunately, I don't have a kalart for it, I would like one...I wonder if one of those focuspot attachments would make it a little easier to get your eye on it or if it would get in the way of the film backs.

So for now, it's the tripod and ground glass focusing, until I can pick one up.

Thanks, I'm very impressed with the camera too.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Your eye doesn't have to necessarily close to the Kalart to focus.

No Kalart on this example.

And no, you shouldn't see a problem with that amount of dark slide retraction. I haven't seen that on my 645 back on my Century, but I've only mounted it there once and my 645 back is a Pro version (no dark slide or double exposure interlocks to the RB67 body).

 

[Donald Qualls]

So for now, it's the tripod and ground glass focusing, until I can pick one up.

It's worth checking the focus scale on the bed against the ground glass -- if the lens on the camera has been there long enough (or is the same focal length as the original), the focus scale might have been selected to match -- and at f/8 or smaller, scale focusing isn't so critical as to be a waste of film.

 

[Chuckwade87]

The focus scale actually is fairly accurate, and I could in a jam probably get away with f8. But I'm too picky to do that...