converting graflex rb super 3 1/4" x 4 1/4" to 4" x 5"

[E. von Hoegh]

hi pablogustav

see if you can contact the person who posted the photographs of his 3x4 to 4x5 conversion here
http://photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/00OQrN
he said it took him 20 mins and it was not difficult

good luck !
john

Putting a 4x5 back on the 3x4 will allow you to use 4x5 film. It will not cover the entire sheet of film though.
In my opinion it butchers the 3x4, while not functioning properly.

 

[mhcfires]

I still have three boxes of Efke 3x4 film in the freezer. I have some Ilford 3x4 film from their special order last year also in the fridge. When this stuff is gone I may start cutting x-ray film and using it. The stuff is dirt cheap, works quite well and I have been using it in my 5x7 Kodak 2D. I am tempted to put a graflok back on one of my 3x4 Series-D cameras (Not Super-D), this thread gives me some inspiration. Rawhead, let us know if Bert is still making those adapter plates.

m

 

[removed account4]

Putting a 4x5 back on the 3x4 will allow you to use 4x5 film. It will not cover the entire sheet of film though.
In my opinion it butchers the 3x4, while not functioning properly.

yeah, i know ... but at least the camera's being used ?
rather than being a "shelf diva" ...

it's too bad the OP's lab-guy doesn't just make quick and dirty contact prints ( he is in a photo lab ?)
and make numericalizations of the prints instead of the films ... it seems the OP's main reason for wanting to "upgrade" his camera
is to accommodate his lab-guy's not wanting to deal 3x4 film because it doesn't fit in the negative holder correctly.
heck, he could just put the film in a contact printing frame, leave it out in the sun for a few hours and scan the
ephemeral sun prints ( or make cyanotypes that last forever ) ... much easier and cheaper than frankenstiening a camera ...

 

[k_jupiter]

yeah, i know ... but at least the camera's being used ?
rather than being a "shelf diva" ...

it's too bad the OP's lab-guy doesn't just make quick and dirty contact prints ( he is in a photo lab ?)
and make numericalizations of the prints instead of the films ... it seems the OP's main reason for wanting to "upgrade" his camera
is to accommodate his lab-guy's not wanting to deal 3x4 film because it doesn't fit in the negative holder correctly.
heck, he could just put the film in a contact printing frame, leave it out in the sun for a few hours and scan the
ephemeral sun prints ( or make cyanotypes that last forever ) ... much easier and cheaper than frankenstiening a camera ...

So what would a 6x9 Graphics roll film holder for a 3x4 rb be worth? My daughter goes to college next year....

 

[mopar_guy]

My solution:

Got a Beseler 45 MX II enlarger off of eBay: Cost $17
Got a 3x4 film holder off of eBay: Cost $30
Got a Schneider 135mm Componon-S enlarging lens: cost $50

I just print the 3x4 film myself. Setup cost was less than $100.

 

[EdSawyer]

I am working on this conversion right now. 3x4 Super D fitted with a 4x5 Graflok back. I have the back on already, and trimmed down so it's not that much bigger. Need to adjust the focus ground glass and compare with the ground glass back, to make sure they are in agreement. I built a new front standard lensboard and quick-change lensboard system to allow interchangable lenses faster and larger than the original. I rigged a prism on it too, so it will be ideal for handheld shooting. It's much lighter than the 4x5 RB, although to save space and weight, I mounted mine with the back vertical (e.g. no longer rotates). All the conversion so far is 100% reversible, with only a minor modifcation to the rotating baseplate piece, which would not hurt or impede any function if someone wanted to switch it back to 3x4. (not that I feel bad about modifying one of these at all, nor should anyone really - they are not uber rare nor in any sort of real demand.) I believe it will cover about 4x4.25 or 4x4.5", give or take. I'll fit mine initially with a 8" pentac f/2.9 but also plan to try an aero ektar on it, and perhaps other lenses. There's a limited focal length range that will work with this camera, depending on the size of the lens. Probably somewhere around 150mm - 210mm or so. I'll post pics and details once I get it finished. I was inspired by Minnicks work, but didn't want to pay his prices plus I enjoy the DIY aspect of it.

 

[k_jupiter]

My solution:

Got a Beseler 45 MX II enlarger off of eBay: Cost $17
Got a 3x4 film holder off of eBay: Cost $30
Got a Schneider 135mm Componon-S enlarging lens: cost $50

I just print the 3x4 film myself. Setup cost was less than $100.

You forgot the Patterson System 4 tank (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=40338&Q=&is=REG&A=details) with the homemade nylon screen rolls to make film tacos out of. 40 bucks.

tim in san jose

 

[mopar_guy]

To process the film I am currently using an old FR (Fink-Roselieve) Model DT-500 Cut-Film-Pack Developing Tank. It was free in another camera deal. Yes, I know that these things have an evil reputation, but I kind of like the thing.

 

[removed account4]

tim and dave

you are preaching to the choir
i couldn't agree with you more ...

- john

 

[mopar_guy]

So what would a 6x9 Graphics roll film holder for a 3x4 rb be worth? My daughter goes to college next year....

The Graflex back 3x4 rollholders usually run $80 and up. I've found them on eBay before. If you are interested, I might be willing to part with a 12 exposure back (2 inch square). By the way, all of these for 3x4 cameras are the knob wind variety but you should be able to use other inserts in the shell.

 

[removed account4]

dave

that's cheap !

several years ago i bought a 3x4 series b it was beautiful
and belonged to a press photographer back in the day ...
i eventually sold it because i was never able to find a roll film holder
that was in my budget ... and i didn't want to take a skill saw to the 4x5 holder i already had ...

now you 2 are making me want to get a 3x4 graflex small and easy to use
and roll holders a'plenty ...

 

[mopar_guy]

dave

that's cheap !

several years ago i bought a 3x4 series b it was beautiful
and belonged to a press photographer back in the day ...
i eventually sold it because i was never able to find a roll film holder
that was in my budget ... and i didn't want to take a skill saw to the 4x5 holder i already had ...

now you 2 are making me want to get a 3x4 graflex small and easy to use
and roll holders a'plenty ...

The roll holders are quite hard to source for 3-1/4x4-1/4 cameras. There is one for a 3-1/4x4-1/4 Graphic back camera on eBay right now.

 

[rawhead]

I guess it's all a matter of preference, I guess. Some people think it's blasphemous to modify a camera to do something beyond what the original designers intended. Some people think it's a bigger sin to let a perfectly capable equipment sit & rot on a shelf, even if 'rot' meant keeping it pristine and polished.

Some people consider a fraction of the 4x5 film not being utilized is a 'waste'. Some people, like me, consider putting a roll film back (even 6x9) behind a lens with a larger coverage is a waste of the image circle

 

[k_jupiter]

I guess it's all a matter of preference, I guess. Some people think it's blasphemous to modify a camera to do something beyond what the original designers intended. Some people think it's a bigger sin to let a perfectly capable equipment sit & rot on a shelf, even if 'rot' meant keeping it pristine and polished.

Some people consider a fraction of the 4x5 film not being utilized is a 'waste'. Some people, like me, consider putting a roll film back (even 6x9) behind a lens with a larger coverage is a waste of the image circle

All those photons giving their lives in vain.

 

[yronnen]

The simplest solution is to replace the 3x4 Graflex back with a 4x5 Graflex back not a 4x5 Graflok

I have just fitted a 4x5 Graflex back to a camera that had previously for reasons that escape my understanding a previous owner had fitted a 3x4 Graflok.

It was just stuck on to the rotating plate. It fell off . Actually very little difference between the registration distances on the 3x4 Graflex and 3x4 Graflok. So sticking it on was not such a bad idea if better glue had been used. The backs are both about 3mm thick as is a 4x5 Graflock. A 4x5 Graflex is about 6mm thick hence the need for a conversion plate when when converting from 4x5 Graflex (approx 6mm thick) to 4x5 Graflok (3mm thick).That is the plate Bert Saunders supplies. You need to shim the back as it is impossible to to lower the reflex ground glass though you can of course raise it. If doing the conversion the other way.

If you convert a 3x4 Graflex backed Super D You just screw or use machine screws as I did the 4x5 Graflex back to the rotating plate.

If you rotate the back through 45 degrees you will find 4 very convenient screw holes in the metal rotating plate you can use to assist you..
The ground glass on the back is then 3mm or so further back than it was previously. You need to shim the reflex ground glass further up to compensate for this difference

If you remove the hood and the springs securing the ground glass you can remove the ground glass. You will find that supporting the front edge of the ground glass are two little brackets. Unscrew these. To the rear the ground glass is supported by a wooden shelf.
Cut a little strip of wood 3mm thick and stick using whatever you like the 3mm strip of wood to the shelf. Stick a 3mm thick sliver of wood to each of the brackets I used super glue. Reassemble.

The Graflex back only overhangs the body of the camera by less than 1/2 inch on each side it really is a rather compact back unlike the 4x5 Graflock which is huge and needs to be hacked about to make it fit. The 4x5 Graflex back is actually smaller than a 3x4 Graflok.

When Polaroid was available to use with 4x5 Graflok backs their was an advantage to some people of fitting them. Now Polaroid has gone the advantage has flipped the other way with the ability to use bag mags etc with a Graflex that you do not have with a Graflok.

It took a long while for the penny to drop for me that this was the way to go. I like the format I also have another 3x4 Graflex backed Super D, a 3x4 Graflex backed Speed Graphic and I have converted a quarter plate Sanderson Field camera to 3x4 Graflex back too mainly because I could not find a roll film holder to fit it. I like being able to use the roll film holders and bag mags between my cameras but Efke has now gone leaving only Wephoto or the Ilford special order run and quarter plate FP4 + is twice the price of 4x5 here in UK.


Roger

 

[mopar_guy]

The simplest solution is to replace the 3x4 Graflex back with a 4x5 Graflex back not a 4x5 Graflok

I like being able to use the roll film holders and bag mags between my cameras but Efke has now gone leaving only Wephoto or the Ilford special order run and quarter plate FP4 + is twice the price of 4x5 here in UK.


Roger

For me, I just loaded up some film holders and made some exposures. I didn't need to find a 4x5 Graflex Back. For my first shots I just bought some 8x10 sheet film and cut five pieces of 3-1/4x4-1/4 and viola, I had t-max 400 to use the camera. Quite simple. If you cannot make a 3-1/4x4-1/4 camera work as is, you aren't trying very hard.

 

[k_jupiter]

As a result of this conversation, went and picked up the 3x4 rb from the bookshelf in my living room. It's beautiful. A timeless design. The predecessor of the rb67.

Never, never, never will I butcher this tool to make something more 'useful'. It has its original leather hood, the 150mm Tessar lens; I have the Graphics 69 on the back (and a boatload of Graflex film holders).

Butcher your cameras, as someone pointed out; they are not that rare. I'll keep mine as a tribute to Weston, and a hell of a fine camera in its original form. And... it's older than my parents (May they rest in a long deserved peace).

tim in san jose

 

[fotch]

It is so much easier to cut the film to size, why go through all the effort to re-invent the .......?

 

[rawhead]

It is so much easier to cut the film to size, why go through all the effort to re-invent the .......?

I don't know if you've read everything in the thread, but it is *not* "so much easier to cut the film to size."

1. The conversion takes 20 minutes, as per one of the links above suggested: How many 3x4s can you cut from an 8x10 in a darkroom that some of us don't have or a dark bag where you can barely squeeze in a paper cutter in 20 minutes?

2. The conversion is semi-permanent: once you do it, you're set. You can use 4x5 film or 3x4 instant, or any of the roll film backs up to 6x12 to your heart's content; cutting film to size has to be done every single time you want to shoot, for the rest of your life

3. The 4x5 that comes out of your converted back can be easily developed at your developers (at least any of them that do 4x5); like the OP says, not always the case with 3x4

4. The 4x5 that comes out of your converted back can be easily scanned on your Epson flatbed (or Imacon) scanners with 4x5 holders; with 3x4 film, you are on your own to DIY a 3x4 holder

5. The modification is non-destructive (despite how some people are insisting on calling it "butchering") and 100% reversible



It's funny how y'all have these elaborate "workarounds" to make this near-obsolete technology work in the modern-day and yet would accuse those of us looking for a simple, one-time solution to the problem as somehow "going through all the trouble"

 

[pablogustav]

thank you Yronnen, I believe that is the advice I have been looking for. Now, you have given me the insight into how this is done. I agree with many comments, that we do not want to bastardize these fine old beasts. I will leave my 4 x 5 series b alone as it is perfect as it is. I will search for a destroyed carcass of a 4 x 5 and take the graflex back from it and install it on the 3 1/4 per your advice. As it is easily converted back, I see no harm in it. thanks so much! Here is a shot I took of my twins with the 4 x 5; I love these cameras!

 

[mopar_guy]

How is it an "elaborate" workaround to put film in a film holder, make an exposure, process the film and make a print?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I don't know if you've read everything in the thread, but it is *not* "so much easier to cut the film to size."

1. The conversion takes 20 minutes, as per one of the links above suggested: How many 3x4s can you cut from an 8x10 in a darkroom that some of us don't have or a dark bag where you can barely squeeze in a paper cutter in 20 minutes?

2. The conversion is semi-permanent: once you do it, you're set. You can use 4x5 film or 3x4 instant, or any of the roll film backs up to 6x12 to your heart's content; cutting film to size has to be done every single time you want to shoot, for the rest of your life

3. The 4x5 that comes out of your converted back can be easily developed at your developers (at least any of them that do 4x5); like the OP says, not always the case with 3x4

4. The 4x5 that comes out of your converted back can be easily scanned on your Epson flatbed (or Imacon) scanners with 4x5 holders; with 3x4 film, you are on your own to DIY a 3x4 holder

5. The modification is non-destructive (despite how some people are insisting on calling it "butchering") and 100% reversible



It's funny how y'all have these elaborate "workarounds" to make this near-obsolete technology work in the modern-day and yet would accuse those of us looking for a simple, one-time solution to the problem as somehow "going through all the trouble"

I couldn't tell that from the link posted. As long as it doesn't permanently change the camera, all is well.

 

[rawhead]

How is it an "elaborate" workaround to put film in a film holder, make an exposure, process the film and make a print?

When you need to

1. Cut larger size film to 3x4 every single time, or
1'. order 3x4 film with limited selection and double the price from a faraway land since you can't get it at your local shop

before you can "put film in a film holder", and

2. find a lab who will work with 3x4 film (since not all of them do), or
2'. buy a developing tank that can take 3x4 film, since I know my Jobo 2509 ain't gonna cut it

before you can process the film, and

3. find a lab who will work with 3x4 film (see above), or
3'. re-equip your darkroom with materials required for 3x4 printing (neg holders, etc)

before you can print the film. Provided, of course, you *have* a darkroom to begin with, which not all of us do. I know I don't.



All of this vs., a non-destrutive, 100% reversible mod that will cost you maybe $100 and will be finished in less than 1 hour.

 

[Roger Hesketh]

Sorry I just realised that I did not make it clear in my previous post (as yronnen) the conversion I suggested using a 4x5 Graflex back which IMHO does little to compromise the aesthetic integrity of the camera as you are just swapping like for like. It just happens the back is an inch is an or so wider. It does not result in you being able to achieve 4x5 images on the film with a 3x4 Graflex SLR. You get 3x4 images on the film but you are spared the need to cut down the film.
Glad some found my post useful.

 

[rawhead]

Got a hold of Bert. He wasn't well, and he claims he's getting up there age-wise (he's 82) and don't know how long he'll continue making these things. I was able to secure one 3x4 Graflex to 4x5 Graflok conversion plate from him, which should be arriving in a week or two Will let you all know how it goes.