So... the 2.25 x 3.25 Speed Graphic...

Chadinko · Dec 6, 2016

Is it medium format or large format?

I see it referred to as both. I think it's medium format, because the sheet film negatives are smaller than 120 negatives, and 120 is about the largest film that can be used with it.

But I see it referred to as large format. Is that because it looks like a 4x5 Graphic?

Ah the things one thinks about over the course of a looooong day at work...

elcabezagrande · Dec 6, 2016

2.25 x 3.25 = 6 x 9. I would call it a medium-format sheet film camera.

shutterfinger · Dec 6, 2016

2.25*25.4=57.15
3.25*25.4=82.55
Same image size as 6x9 on roll film.
It can be considered medium format when using roll film, large format when using sheet film.
Its the toggle point so either is correct.

Dan Fromm · Dec 6, 2016

Well, there are conventions. The US large format forum's conventions are that large format begins at 4x5 and that all formats on 120 film are medium. I'm not sure what APUG's convention is.

But there's no generally accepted fixed rule. People will wrangle about 2x3's place until film goes away.

MattKing · Dec 6, 2016

Depends on how old you are, and when you are speaking of.

2 1/4 x 3 1/4 used to be referred to as "miniature". And then it became medium format, and I suppose if your norm is micro 4/3, it must be gargantuan.

OptiKen · Dec 6, 2016

Everything about preparing, setting up, shooting, developing, and printing with the 2.25 x 3.25 Speed Graphic screams large format.

I have one and enjoy when I have the time and subject matter to use it.
Personally, I call it medium format simply because of the size of the negative and that I can use 120 roll film if I like.

I guess you could say it's medium format with a large format feel.

Prof_Pixel · Dec 6, 2016

OptiKen said:
I guess you could say it's medium format with a large format feel.

That's how I'd describe my 23 Speed Graphic

Sirius Glass · Dec 6, 2016

MF sheet film camera

Dan Fromm · Dec 6, 2016

OptiKen said:
Everything about preparing, setting up, shooting, developing, and printing with the 2.25 x 3.25 Speed Graphic screams large format.

Nope. They scream "I am a very old-fashioned camera."

OptiKen · Dec 6, 2016

Dan Fromm said:
Nope. They scream "I am a very old-fashioned camera."

And they are right.

Chadinko · Dec 7, 2016

In my lexicon, "old-fashioned" means "epic cool"

Chadinko · Dec 7, 2016

OptiKen said:
Everything about preparing, setting up, shooting, developing, and printing with the 2.25 x 3.25 Speed Graphic screams large format.

I have one and enjoy when I have the time and subject matter to use it.
Personally, I call it medium format simply because of the size of the negative and that I can use 120 roll film if I like.

I guess you could say it's medium format with a large format feel.

Yeah that's probably the best way to put it.

Ian Grant · Dec 7, 2016

OptiKen is right an MF camera with LF feel and features, that becomes more so with Baby Linhofs etc with their greater range of features.. Matt King is right that pre-WWII convention was that 6x9 and all 120 & 35mm cameras were miniature format, Quarter plate, 9x12, 5x4 and 7x5 were medium format and LF started at 10x8 upwards.

If you're considering a 2.25 x 3.25 Speed Graphic or similar find one that takes a roll film back, with a Speed Graphic that means a Graflok rather than a spring back.

Ian

darkroommike · Dec 7, 2016

The 2x3 was sometimes referred to as a Miniature Speed Graphic or a Baby Graphic, it's a press camera with movements just like a larger press camera. I have a Century 2x3 and a couple of 3x4 Graphics, got thrown out of a "large format" group on Facebook when I insisted that 3x4 was large format. Before modern films I think the distinction between large format and miniature format was more important. Before WW2 5x7 was considered medium format and all serious work was being done on 8x10.

Ian Grant · Dec 7, 2016

darkroommike said:
Before modern films I think the distinction between large format and miniature format was more important. Before WW2 5x7 was considered medium format and all serious work was being done on 8x10.

The distinction really goes back to when the Larger formats negatives were contact printed and the medium format plate and film sizes were enlarged, of course there was some cross-over.

My grandparents wedding was shot on a 12x10 or 15x12 camera and contact printed, the images of my grand mother and her bridesmaids was 10x8.

darkroommike said:
The 2x3 was sometimes referred to as a Miniature Speed Graphic or a Baby Graphic, it's a press camera with movements just like a larger press camera. I have a Century 2x3 and a couple of 3x4 Graphics, got thrown out of a "large format" group on Facebook when I insisted that 3x4 was large format.

Quarter plate was a common professional size for Press photography, the continental European equivalent was 9x12cm which is a bout the same width but slightly longer. However after WWII the Linhof cameras with their rotating backs meant that theu could also use 5x4 film which is wider but about the same length as 9x12.

The US based LFFP website accepts 9x12cm as being the smallest LF format, by post WWII conventions personally I think Quarter plate would be a better choice because some pre-WWII 9x12 cameras were sold in some markets with quarter plate backs and plate holders. However some manufactures sold slightly smaller Quarter plate models which couldn't take 9x12 [late/film holders.

Ian

darkroommike · Dec 7, 2016

Rumor has it there was also a quarter plate back for the Graphic View (at least that's what I've always heard).

Dan Fromm · Dec 7, 2016

Chadinko said:
In my lexicon, "old-fashioned" means "epic cool"

No, it means more work, less ease and comfort. If you want epic cool, take a stroll into a walk-in freezer.

darkroommike said:
Rumor has it there was also a quarter plate back for the Graphic View (at least that's what I've always heard).

No rumor, the 10th edition of Graphic Graflex Photography says in several places that a 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 back was available. Here in the US we don't think or speak in terms of plates, we speak and think in terms of dimensions. 3x4 is quarter plate.

Ian Grant · Dec 7, 2016

Dan Fromm said:
Here in the US we don't think or speak in terms of plates, we speak and think in terms of dimensions. 3x4 is quarter plate.

Perhaps with one exception where you had Full plate which is the same as the British Whole plate, but instead of Half plate you had 7x5 then 4¼x3¼ which is Quarter plate but often shortened to 3x4, as is 6x9 often referred to as 2x3 both dropping the fractions.

What may confuse some is the German (European) 6.5x9 sheet film format slightly wider than the 6x9 120/620 roll film format.

Ian

darkroommike · Dec 7, 2016

Dan Fromm said:
...
No rumor, the 10th edition of Graphic Graflex Photography says in several places that a 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 back was available. Here in the US we don't think or speak in terms of plates, we speak and think in terms of dimensions. 3x4 is quarter plate.

I'm from the US, Dan, I can't put my hands on my copy of Graphic/Graflex Photography right now (I'm sure it's here somewhere) but that might be where I read that. I think the 3x4 Graphic View back was much more popular in UK than it ever was here. I also have a Japanese camera, the original Toyo Field, that shoots half plate 4 3/4 x 6 1/2 and that had a full plate 6 1/2 x 8 1/2. The Japanese plate sizes are different from the UK which is different from the metric sizes used in the rest of Europe and which is again different from US sizes, small wonder most photographers are a little crazy. The things that's nuts about all these early plate sizes is that both the dimensions of the negative sizes and the outside dimensions of the holders vary from maker to make. Glad that ISO finally fixed that. To nudge this back on target there were also, at one time, at least three very similar nominal 2x3 cut film formats. 6.5x9cm (Japanese), 2.25"x3.25", and 2.5"x3.5" on the Ilford ULF this year the only one listed was 2.25"x3.25".

Chadinko · Dec 7, 2016

I like the fact that I can get the same film (Arista.edu/Fomapan 100) in all the formats I shoot -- 35mm, 120, 2.25x3.25, and 4x5. I haven't been around the medium/large format photography world very long but I believe I've found a home here, as I rarely pick up a 35mm camera and if given the choice between my 7D with the various L glass and a Speed Graphic or my Noritas I'll grab the film camera almost every time. To the extent when my wife totaled her car at the end of the runway by where I work, the only camera I had on me to document the damage was the Norita and my phone, which has a crappy sensor on it. So all the documentary shots are in black and white

This discussion gives me SO much more to read about and learn about...

shutterfinger · Dec 7, 2016

Ian Grant said:
If you're considering a 2.25 x 3.25 Speed Graphic or similar find one that takes a roll film back, with a Speed Graphic that means a Graflok rather than a spring back.

A roll film back can be mounted on a spring back body. The focus panel has to be removed and the roll film back held in place by the adapter kit made by Graflex that is hard to find or by homemade retainers. The advantage of a Graflok back is that one can easily switch between focus panel and roll film back without tools.

darkroommike said:
The 2x3 was sometimes referred to as a Miniature Speed Graphic or a Baby Graphic, it's a press camera with movements just like a larger press camera.

The Miniature Speed Graphic was manufactured from 1939 through January 1947. It is the first 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 Graphic and is based on the Anniversary Speed Graphic design, it was replaced by the Pacemaker Crown and Speed Graphics in 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 format in February 1947. The Century Graphic was introduced in 1949.

Some refer to all as Baby graphics.

Dan Fromm · Dec 7, 2016

There are insertion type roll holders for 2x3 Press cameras with spring backs. I've used 2x3 -- they were also made to fit 2x3 and 4x5 cameras -- Adapt-A-Roll 620 roll holders for decades. They will feed from a 120 spool but must take up on a 620 spool. They take up the film emulsion side out, so I rewind the film on to a 120 spool before sending it to the lab. Read about them at http://www.graflex.org/speed-graphic/adapt-a-roll.html, which I wrote. Since then I've acquired more 620 AARs, including a 3x4 that I've sold and a 4x5. I was wrong about gate size, its really only ~ 82 mm long.

Chadinko · Dec 7, 2016

shutterfinger said:
A roll film back can be mounted on a spring back body. The focus panel has to be removed and the roll film back held in place by the adapter kit made by Graflex that is hard to find or by homemade retainers. The advantage of a Graflok back is that one can easily switch between focus panel and roll film back without tools.

My Century Graphic obviously came with the Graflok back built in, but my Speed Graphic had a spring back which really annoyed me as I have three rollbacks that I couldn't use on the Speed Graphic. I started collecting the bits and bobs -- not much, really -- required to make the modification to the back, then I watched Ebay until I found someone selling just the Graflok back for a Speed Graphic and I bought it. Five screws and five minutes later, I had a Graflok back on my Speed Graphic and the spring back is sitting in a drawer.

So... the 2.25 x 3.25 Speed Graphic...

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency