Finding the perfect 2x3

[k_jupiter]

Why? Have you got unsatisfactory results with roll film? I ask because I've had no trouble with roll film and can't imagine what you'd gain ...

Oh Dan... you gain the experience of messing with fiddly little pieces of film, glass enlarger negative holders, innovative ways to process itty bitty little pieces of film, the joys of jamming a 2x3 Graphmatic, etc.

But... this works for some people. They don't need the depth and resolution of an 8x10 negative.

So what is this roll film? You mean you spool it on a reel like 135 to develop? Wow! What a great idea. Maybe you ought to patent it.

tim in san jose

 

[Dan Fromm]

Thanks, Tim. I suspected I was missing something obvious.

Thinking of missing the obvious, I had no idea -- look at post #21 in this thread -- that an Adapt-A-Roll 620 can be used to flatten film. Who'd a thunk it? I suppose that those who don't have one can use a spare 120 spool and a changing bag ...

Thinking of missing the obvious, take a look at this: (there was a url link here which no longer exists) I have one of those splicers for S8. The poster is mistaken, they perforate perfectly precisely. But, oh, think of the effort and time in the dark perforating even a short roll of film will take. And think of the slips.

I shouldn't be surprised at any of this. I know people who are absolutely brilliant at finding harder ways to do things.

Um, about roll film, well, you start with a long roll of coated filmstock as you'd cut sheets from, slit it into long strips, and roll it up instead of cutting the strips into short rectangles. There's nothing to it, really, as long as you keep the dark in. I b'lieve, could be mistaken, that the, um, backing, for size 120 roll film is thinner than that backing of film intended to be cut into 2.25" x 3.25" sheets.

If you look hard you'll find roll holders for 5" and 10" wide film, some with motorized film advance. I'm ashamed to admit that I invented none of this. Did, though, have a camera that took 5" roll film. It had a pair of 38/4.5 Biogons, shot a lot of roughly 56 mm x 56 mm images on a roll. Not a stereo camera, either, the lenses' shutters fired alternately.

Another idea brought up in this thread that I can't quite grasp. Intimacy of cameras. Several people have used the idea so it must be obvious but I don't get it. I mean, I have 2x3 Graphics. Nice cameras, limited. Also a 2x3 Super Cambo, nice camera that doesn't have the Graphics' limitations but with some of its own. Much more forbidding than a little Graphic, smaller than a 4x5 Super Cambo. Is it intimate? Will someone please tell me how to measure?

Cheers,

Dan

 

[michaelbsc]

Kind of funny, I'm gearing up to start using 2.25x3.25 sheet film. <snip>

Why? Have you got unsatisfactory results with roll film? I ask because I've had no trouble with roll film and can't imagine what you'd gain ...

Dude, it's a hobby!

I do it for fun, not profit. It doesn't need to make sense. Show me any logic in banging heads in a football field. But a lot of folks think it is entertaining.

 

[vpwphoto]

This is a timely thread because I'm looking at 2x3's myself. Does anyone have a picture of a 2x3 graphic next to a 4x5 graphic? It would be great to see what the size difference truly is. I poked around flickr but didn't find much.

Jim

The graphc 2x3 is a much less substantial beast. About 2/3's the size and very charming.

 

[vpwphoto]

Check out the Kalart double rangefinder camera they made in the 50's I see one on e-bay almost weekly... there is one ther now. Takes film holders, a rangefinder for each eye... it's a cool folding 2x3.

 

[erikg]

(snip)

Another idea brought up in this thread that I can't quite grasp. Intimacy of cameras. Several people have used the idea so it must be obvious but I don't get it. I mean, I have 2x3 Graphics. Nice cameras, limited. Also a 2x3 Super Cambo, nice camera that doesn't have the Graphics' limitations but with some of its own. Much more forbidding than a little Graphic, smaller than a 4x5 Super Cambo. Is it intimate? Will someone please tell me how to measure?

Cheers,

Dan

Baby graphics: nice, but yes limited. Intimate? The camera thingy that they use for a colonoscopy, now that is intimate.

 

[k_jupiter]

Check out the Kalart double rangefinder camera they made in the 50's I see one on e-bay almost weekly... there is one ther now. Takes film holders, a rangefinder for each eye... it's a cool folding 2x3.

WRONG! Kalart Press Cameras are 3 1/4 x 4 1/4.

I have 3. Beautiful cameras, only one works. As far as I know, I have the only working Kalart Press Camera in the world.

*L*

tim in san jose

 

[k_jupiter]

Thanks, Tim. I suspected I was missing something obvious.

Thinking of missing the obvious, I had no idea -- look at post #21 in this thread -- that an Adapt-A-Roll 620 can be used to flatten film. Who'd a thunk it? I suppose that those who don't have one can use a spare 120 spool and a changing bag ...

Thinking of missing the obvious, take a look at this: (there was a url link here which no longer exists) I have one of those splicers for S8. The poster is mistaken, they perforate perfectly precisely. But, oh, think of the effort and time in the dark perforating even a short roll of film will take. And think of the slips.

I shouldn't be surprised at any of this. I know people who are absolutely brilliant at finding harder ways to do things.

Um, about roll film, well, you start with a long roll of coated filmstock as you'd cut sheets from, slit it into long strips, and roll it up instead of cutting the strips into short rectangles. There's nothing to it, really, as long as you keep the dark in. I b'lieve, could be mistaken, that the, um, backing, for size 120 roll film is thinner than that backing of film intended to be cut into 2.25" x 3.25" sheets.

If you look hard you'll find roll holders for 5" and 10" wide film, some with motorized film advance. I'm ashamed to admit that I invented none of this. Did, though, have a camera that took 5" roll film. It had a pair of 38/4.5 Biogons, shot a lot of roughly 56 mm x 56 mm images on a roll. Not a stereo camera, either, the lenses' shutters fired alternately.

Another idea brought up in this thread that I can't quite grasp. Intimacy of cameras. Several people have used the idea so it must be obvious but I don't get it. I mean, I have 2x3 Graphics. Nice cameras, limited. Also a 2x3 Super Cambo, nice camera that doesn't have the Graphics' limitations but with some of its own. Much more forbidding than a little Graphic, smaller than a 4x5 Super Cambo. Is it intimate? Will someone please tell me how to measure?

Cheers,

Dan

Obviously missing something. I have a couple of those intimate cameras sitting on my bookshelf. They look great. And that's where they stay. They work fine but as you have intimated, life is too short.

I too have done things the hard way. Loaded Linux on a PC and actually got on the internet (then promptly removed it and went back to WinNT), recut and respooled 120 film down to 127 size (another camera that now looks pretty sitting on a shelf), 6 different ways to develop 3x4 film (anyone want to buy any number of 3x4 cameras?), etc. Now my life is complicated enough that I occasionally get the 8x10 Deardorff out and the rest of the cameras, well, they look pretty. Even the rb67 gets very little use the last couple of years. Gave one away to my nephew, the other sits waiting for me to have time to shoot. It might go by the wayside soon.

You hit middle age and your priorities change... big time.

tim in san jose

 

[ChuckP]

I suppose one advantage of sheet film is you can process each piece to a different time. For those into the zone system or graded paper fans. Also some feel the sheets are flatter then film going through roll film holders. I'm not sure of that as my late model lever holders with the pin rollers looks OK to me. But everyone needs to process 2x3 sheet film at least once. I'm lucky enough to have a Nikkor sheet film tank that makes it easy. Also if you use a glassless carrier you will need to find a separate one for 2x3 cut film as it's a different size then 120 roll film. I have both for my 23c.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I use both sheet and rollfilm with my 2x3 camera, and I have both double sided holders and Grafmatics. I tend to use rollfilm (often 220 until I run out of Tri-X 220) when I have a lot of shots to take under similar lighting conditions, or other situations where I don't think I'll need Zone system development, or where I specifically want the 6x7 format. I'm more likely to use sheet film where I want individual control over development time, or I only have one or two shots to take, or I want the more oblong (compared to 6x7) 2x3 sheet format.

I don't have a 6x9 back for my 2x3 camera, though I have one for my 4x5 cameras, so that's another format consideration.

 

[Besk]

Ditto: I have a Mamiya Universal with the G adapter (Graflok) plus a Horseman 980. The sheet film comes in handy when you are only going to take a few shots or want individual development. I have at least 4 Grafmatics for that purpose. Otherwise the 6X9 back works fine.

I have plenty of experience dealing with 4X5 and 5X7 sheet film so the smaller size isn't anymore tedious.

 

[goamules]

Back to the original poster; I made a quarterplate wetplate holder for a 3x4 Korona the other day. It's pretty small with a fair amount of movements. I don't know if Korona made a smaller version, but you can make your plate holder to shoot 2x3.

 

[aoresteen]

I use a Cambo SF23. Very nice camera. It does NOT do sheet film!! I had to have SK Grimes make a 2.25 x 3.25 Sheet film back for it out of a Speed Graphic back. You could do the same thing for wet plates.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Tony, are you sure that the 2x3 SF won't accept the bail back Cambo offered for the 2x3 SC? I ask because I have a 2x3 SC that came with an international back, later found a bail back for it, and believe that all 2x3 Cambos use the same boards. From the carrier frame's point of view, a back is just another board.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[aoresteen]

Tony, are you sure that the 2x3 SF won't accept the bail back Cambo offered for the 2x3 SC? I ask because I have a 2x3 SC that came with an international back, later found a bail back for it, and believe that all 2x3 Cambos use the same boards. From the carrier frame's point of view, a back is just another board.

Cheers,

Dan

Dan,

Technically Cambo never sold or offered the 23SF with their bail back, at lease that is what they told me. The bail back was from an earlier 2x3 model (2x3C etc) and most were light grey in color (23SF backs are black). When I contacted Cambo about the SFH back they sugested that I contact Calumet to see if they had any left. They didn't.


I'd be interested to find out if your back is grey or black.


I looked for it but could not find one thus I had SK Grimes cobble one together for me. I bought a 23SF back (as a part, not complete) from Calumet and sent it to SK Grimes with a used back from a 2x3 Speed Graphic. It has the pop up finder and work well. I am thinking about having a Maxwell screen installed to brighten things up.

I have only seen references to the SFH back in old Cambo sales sheets. I have never actully held one in my hands so I don't know how it works in practice.

I have a resessed 23 lensboard and a 2x3 international back in grey from earlier Cambo 2x3 cameras. They indeed fit the 23SF so I'm sure that the earlier 2x3 bail back will fit as well.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Tony, it is black. A small version of Cambo's 4x5 bail back. I can just barely use a 2x3 AAR 620 with it.

 

[aoresteen]

Thanks Dan. How is it with sheet film holders?

 

[Curt]

A while ago I put together a Busch 23 by changing the spring back to a Graphic 23 International back. I collected four Grafmatic holders, three Graphic roll holders, and over twenty brand new in box sheet film holders. The one problem with the setup is the lens board on this model isn't interchangeable and the focus of the Kalart is exactly configured to the lens a 101 mm in a Rapax shutter. The lens is in excellent condition as the camera and lens was used very little if any.

All that said I was checking on film for it and found of course the supply of emulsions I wanted were gone. One day I was looking for a die cutter punch and noticed the one's for sale that were called 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 and were for small prints cut by a photo processor. I called the company after measuring the exact size of a sheet of film and found that they weren't the same. It's a descriptor like a 2x4 isn't 2x4 but is small in the finished size.

They wouldn't make one for me, a US company, so I browsed the net and found a company in either China or Hong Kong that would make a custom die cutter in exactly the dimensions I needed, the size of a sheet of 2 1/4 sheet film. And if that wasn't enough they would put a notch of any shape in the cutter for the emulsion side, and that was included in the cost of the die cutter.

The cost was just a dollar or two over a hundred dollars for one die cutter. I forget now what the dimensions are, again I don't have the figures handy but they will make it from a sheet of film which leaves the discussion aside. I wanted one so I could use Ilford FP4 and other emulsions not available off the shelf. An expensive sheet of film can be die cut down to many sheets. I'd have to scrub hundreds of emails over the last couple of years to find it but it's one possibility. No razor blade and no scratches and cuts on the hands or sitting in the dark for long periods. You would have to be a hard core 2 1/4 sheet film user to do this but I think it's the best home possibility.

Curt

 

[Dan Fromm]

Thanks Dan. How is it with sheet film holders?

No idea. I don't use 'em, have none. Should work well, that's what it is made for. The problem with the AAR 620 is that with the back in landscape orientation (long side parallel to the top of the rail) the holder's film chamber just clears the tilt mechanism. If you don't know what an AAR 620 looks like, look for an image of a C-2 roll holder.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...I browsed the net and found a company in either China or Hong Kong that would make a custom die cutter in exactly the dimensions I needed, the size of a sheet of 2 1/4 sheet film. And if that wasn't enough they would put a notch of any shape in the cutter for the emulsion side, and that was included in the cost of the die cutter...I'd have to scrub hundreds of emails over the last couple of years to find it but it's one possibility...

I'd be very appreciative if you could find that contact. My interest would be in such a device to cleanly and precisely cut down 8x10 film to wholeplate (6-1/2 x 8-1/2). A substantially larger -- and probably more expensive -- cutter than what you bought, but one that would greatly expand the range of emulsions available in my favorite format.

 

[Curt]

I didn't order one but I'll check to find the company email.

 

[michaelbsc]

I'd be very appreciative if you could find that contact. My interest would be in such a device to cleanly and precisely cut down 8x10 film to wholeplate (6-1/2 x 8-1/2). A substantially larger -- and probably more expensive -- cutter than what you bought, but one that would greatly expand the range of emulsions available in my favorite format.

I trekked down the same path in 2008. I got this response from one company.

"Sorry, 2 1/4x3 1/4 with rounded-corner is stock size, but 2 1/4x 3 1/4 with squared-corner is custom-made size. Please contact union & brothers at 310-538-8770 for custom-made cutter delivery time and price (about $300-350). Tks."


I did not pursue it past this. Let us know if you have success.

 

[Curt]

That was the about the same response I got when looking and asking. The cutter I found was a custom made one and the cost was $100.00, it is from China and the die is custom made in a stock die cutter so the over all size is limited. Fortunately the size of a sheet film is smaller than the stock cutter size and that's why they will make it. So it's not the cutter for a large sheet like 8x10, the throat sized for the larger sheet to be cut down is about 4 inches as I recall and from a draft request I found. The film is loaded top or bottom and the cut out is horizontal or perpendicular to the feed sheet.

I also found that my RB67 sheet film holders have sheaves that are removable allowing them to use 6.5 X 9 cm film which is 2 1/4 X 3 1/2 inches. I'd have to ask about a cutter for that size is I wanted to use them without the sheaths. I'm not sure, because I've not measured a sheet of 4X5, just how many 2 1/4 X 3 1/4 inch sheets one can get from a sheet. Two for sure three maybe, I'd have to measure so the cost is at least the same per sheet as half of a sheet of 4X5. The real goal here is to use film emulsions not available off the shelf.

I have the RB and holders and have a Busch "C" 23; 2 1/4 X 3 1/4; and being able to use films other than Arista and Efke is a definite plus for some shots. I'll keep looking for the company.

 

[michaelbsc]

I might well have done it for $100. The price I got for a US made one was more than I had at the time.

But this thread has my interest up again.

As I mentioned earlier, I did a little measuring, and if you look at a roll of 120 you can cut two 2x3 pieces off the end, then slit the remainder into 127 and 16mm. Wind the film backwards on an Adapt-a-roll 620 for a couple of days before slicing to get rid of the curl.

Crazy, but fun.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...it's not the cutter for a large sheet like 8x10, the throat sized for the larger sheet to be cut down is about 4 inches as I recall and from a draft request I found...

Oh, well. Thanks anyway for researching it Curt!