Graflex! a question

[Orso babele]

Hi everybody
I'd like to buy a crown graphic special, but how can I know if a model has the Graflock back or not.
Serial number?

thx

Sam

[Frank N. Stein]

In article >,
"Orso babele" > wrote:

> Hi everybody
> I'd like to buy a crown graphic special, but how can I know if a model has the Graflock back or not.
> Serial number?
> thx
> Sam

Try www.graflex.org
--
Run down to Bob Storches they handle lights
for all occasions.

[Orso babele]

>
> Try www.graflex.org


thx

:-)

Sam

[AArDvarK]

Those things fly up on ebay aaaaalllllllllll day long.
Alex

"Orso babele" > wrote in message ...
> Hi everybody
> I'd like to buy a crown graphic special, but how can I know if a model has the Graflock back or not.
> Serial number?
>
> thx
>
> Sam
>
>

[Richard Knoppow]

"Orso babele" > wrote in message
...
> Hi everybody
> I'd like to buy a crown graphic special, but how can I
know if a model has the Graflock back or not.
> Serial number?
>
> thx
>
> Sam
>
There is no way you can tell for certain from the serial
number. Only very early Pacemaker series cameras had spring
backs. By about 1950 or 1951 all Speed and Crown Graphic
cameras has Graflok backs but many cameras were re-fitted
for Graflok backs later. Its a relatively simple job and the
backs were not expensive when new.
There is great confusion about Graflex serial numbers
beginning about 1950. The numbers were issued in batches,
some numbers were never used, and some batches were issued
twice. AFAIK, this has never been straightened out. In
addition, some pages of the serial number record are
missing.
About the only way to determine if a particular camera has
a Graflok back is to ask the seller. You will have to make
sure he/she knows what you mean.
The Crown and Speed Graphic Special was the standard
camera equipped with a Schneider Xenar lens. Xenar lenses
are not among the standard lenses offered with the cameras.
Graflex sold Kodak Ektars and "Optar" lenses as standard
equipment on Pacemaker and later cameras. Optar lenses were
originally rebranded Wollensak Raptar lenses, avoid them.
Later Optar lenses were made by Rodenstock and are of very
good quality. These have the Rodenstock name and "Made in
Germany" on them. The Xenar lenses used on the Special are
also of good quality although I think the Kodak Ektar was
easily the best of the standard lenses.
The Graflex org web site will help to identify models.
Although the data there is not complete it is nonetheless
very helpful.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

[Orso babele]

> Although the data there is not complete it is nonetheless
> very helpful.


thx :-)
you have been precious

I'm bidding on this graflex, seller can't tell me if it has graflock, from the position of the rangefinder it seems a late model (so
it has graflock) but from the picture I'm not able to understand if there is or not the lock

could u help me?
thx again

http://cgi.ebay.it/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3806266485&category=15247&sspagename=STRK%3AMEBBI%3AIT&rd=1
>
>
> --
> ---
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
>
>
>

[AArDvarK]

"Orso babele"
> thx :-)
> you have been precious
>
> I'm bidding on this graflex, seller can't tell me if it has graflock, from the position of the rangefinder it seems a late model
(so
> it has graflock) but from the picture I'm not able to understand if there is or not the lock
>
> could u help me?
> thx again
>
> http://cgi.ebay.it/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3806266485&category=15247&sspagename=STRK%3AMEBBI%3AIT&rd=1

That is definitely a graflock back, also called
'international' back. That fold-out viewer you
see on the back in the lower picture is removable,
and the same area will accept a 120 rollfilm back,
any international 120 back will work, and the old
graflex ones sell for less.

Normal lens for 120 film is 90mm and no doubt,
the lens on the camera now will be either a 127mm
or a 135mm, so that's quite telephoto for 120 film.
I don't think the back rotates though. Since it is a
crown and not a Speed, no focal plain shutter.
And you may have to pay for a CLA on that shutter.

Alex

[Tom]

AFAIK all top range finder (TRF) Graphics which is what you are looking at came
with a Graflok (International) Back.

--

Orso babele wrote:
>>Although the data there is not complete it is nonetheless
>>very helpful.
>
>
>
> thx :-)
> you have been precious
>
> I'm bidding on this graflex, seller can't tell me if it has graflock, from the position of the rangefinder it seems a late model (so
> it has graflock) but from the picture I'm not able to understand if there is or not the lock
>
> could u help me?
> thx again
>
> http://cgi.ebay.it/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3806266485&category=15247&sspagename=STRK%3AMEBBI%3AIT&rd=1
>
>>
>>--
>>---
>>Richard Knoppow
>>Los Angeles, CA, USA

>>
>>
>
>
>

[AArDvarK]

Correction, not any Int'l back will work. There are ones
made for the smaller 2x3 cameras, of the which there
is no "flange"-like metal area around the film holder
that will cover the area of 4x5 inches. the backs come
with or without this square surrounding plate. You
want it "with".

Alex

[AArDvarK]

"Richard Knoppow"
> There is no way you can tell for certain from the serial
> number. Only very early Pacemaker series cameras had spring
> backs. By about 1950 or 1951 all Speed and Crown Graphic
> cameras has Graflok backs but many cameras were re-fitted
> for Graflok backs later. Its a relatively simple job and the
> backs were not expensive when new.
> There is great confusion about Graflex serial numbers
> beginning about 1950. The numbers were issued in batches,
> some numbers were never used, and some batches were issued
> twice. AFAIK, this has never been straightened out. In
> addition, some pages of the serial number record are
> missing.
> About the only way to determine if a particular camera has
> a Graflok back is to ask the seller. You will have to make
> sure he/she knows what you mean.
> The Crown and Speed Graphic Special was the standard
> camera equipped with a Schneider Xenar lens. Xenar lenses
> are not among the standard lenses offered with the cameras.
> Graflex sold Kodak Ektars and "Optar" lenses as standard
> equipment on Pacemaker and later cameras. Optar lenses were
> originally rebranded Wollensak Raptar lenses, avoid them.
[snip]

I used to have a busch Pressman D 4x5, I bought it on
ebay. Not that I wonder if it was standard equipment
that it came with but I wonder about the quality of the
lens that came on it, it was a Steinheil culminar 135,
good stuff?

Alex

[Neil Purling]

When it comes to talk on how good or bad the standard issue lenses for the
'Crown and 'Speed it depends on how far you are going to test them.
A 127mm Ektar ought to manage to produce a reasonable 20x16 when well
stopped down f16, f22).
It depends on how sharp the corners are going to be.
Now I have no acquaintance with the Wollensak 135mm.
These lenses weren't meant to be used to make exhibition enlargements to be
honest.
Perhaps someone can tell us what newspapers did in order to make printing
plates from the image and what size enlargement they worked with.

I don't know if the originator of the post won the camera in question. I
think a Pacemaker 'Speed would be a better option so you can use barrel
lenses.
I own a 'Crown myself & was looking at a old 6 1/2" f6.8 Goerz Dagor.
However getting SK Grimes to mount it in a shutter was as expensive as
buying a modern lens on the used market.

The 135mm Xenar is still only a basic 4 element, 3 group 'Tessar' type and
MAY suffer from unsharp corners. It should be some improvement on the
Wollensak lenses but that all depends on how its been treated.
I was more concerned that the bellows were good when bidding on my Crown
Graphic.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 3/31/2004 12:05 AM Neil Purling spake thus:

> When it comes to talk on how good or bad the standard issue lenses for the
> 'Crown and 'Speed it depends on how far you are going to test them.
> A 127mm Ektar ought to manage to produce a reasonable 20x16 when well
> stopped down f16, f22).
> It depends on how sharp the corners are going to be.
> Now I have no acquaintance with the Wollensak 135mm.
> These lenses weren't meant to be used to make exhibition enlargements to be
> honest.
> Perhaps someone can tell us what newspapers did in order to make printing
> plates from the image and what size enlargement they worked with.

I can't give you all the gory details, but you can pretty well imagine for
yourself, based on what old newspapers look like: pictures were generally
pretty small, with a width of two or three columns. Plus, keep in mind that
they were printed with very coarse halftone screens (65 lines per inch), so
they weren't exactly full of exquisite detail.

Any fairly modern 35mm camera could easily match the image quality, given the
printing methods used.

> The 135mm Xenar is still only a basic 4 element, 3 group 'Tessar' type and
> MAY suffer from unsharp corners. It should be some improvement on the
> Wollensak lenses but that all depends on how its been treated.
> I was more concerned that the bellows were good when bidding on my Crown
> Graphic.

Anecdotal experience here (cf. "Dr. Slick's" continuing saga) shows that these
particular Xenars are pretty ****-poor performers.


--
.... but never have I encountered a guy who could not be bothered
to make his own case on his own show.

- Eric Alterman on his appearance on Dennis Miller's bomb of a show
on CNBC (3/17/04)

[Tom]

Well the prints they used to make the newpaper printing plates from were 8x10's,
sometimes cropped 8x10's. Then that print itself was often cropped, quite often
drastically. Going back to the 40's and earlier 35mm was impossibly inadequate
for newspaper work. In fact 120 really only started being good enough in the
50's. By the 60's 35mm would do the job, but you needed to pretty much use the
whole frame.

For those who don't remember, up into the 50's films were much more grainy than
newer films. It took ultra-fine grain developers, and very careful processing
technique to produce decent prints from 35mm. They did not call it miniature
film for no reason. Yes, magazines like the National Geographic were using 35mm
color but they were very expensive to produce. The weekly news magazines (Life,
Look, etc.) had the time to mess with 35mm B&W, but no daily newspaper did.

Now, about those lenses...

My experience is that many of the old lenses that are disparaged here were quite
good. There seems to be two things going on here.

One is this perfect is not good enough BS that you see nowadays.

The second is we are talking about old, old, old lenses. You have no idea what
they have been through. Maybe someone remounted it and got the spacing wrong.
Maybe someone swapped elements. Maybe a haze of something is on the lens. Maybe
the cements in it are deteriated. Maybe it has been dropped. You just never know
what you are getting.

I do know that in the 60's a Wollensack Enlarging Pro-Raptar was considered
about the best enlarging lens made. That does not jibe very well with the idea
that Wollensack lens are shoddy, poor quality things. Yes, many older lens were
not up to the quality of modern computer designed and manufactured lenses. That
however does not mean they were junk. While the Speed Graphic was the preeminent
news camera, it was also used by about 80% of the professional photographers in
the US for commercial work as well. It was the only camera many professionals
owned. I have seen old 20x25 prints made from Speed Graphic negatives. They did
not look in anyway inadequate to me.

--

David Nebenzahl wrote:

> On 3/31/2004 12:05 AM Neil Purling spake thus:
>
>> When it comes to talk on how good or bad the standard issue lenses for
>> the
>> 'Crown and 'Speed it depends on how far you are going to test them.
>> A 127mm Ektar ought to manage to produce a reasonable 20x16 when well
>> stopped down f16, f22).
>> It depends on how sharp the corners are going to be.
>> Now I have no acquaintance with the Wollensak 135mm.
>> These lenses weren't meant to be used to make exhibition enlargements
>> to be
>> honest.
>> Perhaps someone can tell us what newspapers did in order to make printing
>> plates from the image and what size enlargement they worked with.
>
>
> I can't give you all the gory details, but you can pretty well imagine
> for yourself, based on what old newspapers look like: pictures were
> generally pretty small, with a width of two or three columns. Plus, keep
> in mind that they were printed with very coarse halftone screens (65
> lines per inch), so they weren't exactly full of exquisite detail.
>
> Any fairly modern 35mm camera could easily match the image quality,
> given the printing methods used.
>
>> The 135mm Xenar is still only a basic 4 element, 3 group 'Tessar' type
>> and
>> MAY suffer from unsharp corners. It should be some improvement on the
>> Wollensak lenses but that all depends on how its been treated.
>> I was more concerned that the bellows were good when bidding on my Crown
>> Graphic.
>
>
> Anecdotal experience here (cf. "Dr. Slick's" continuing saga) shows that
> these particular Xenars are pretty ****-poor performers.
>
>

[Marv Soloff]

Before we all forget, the quality of pictures taken by photogs using
stock Graflex 4 x 5s was excellent. Check out the stuff by Bourke-White
and Weegee.

Regards,

Marv

David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 3/31/2004 12:05 AM Neil Purling spake thus:
>
>> When it comes to talk on how good or bad the standard issue lenses for
>> the
>> 'Crown and 'Speed it depends on how far you are going to test them.
>> A 127mm Ektar ought to manage to produce a reasonable 20x16 when well
>> stopped down f16, f22).
>> It depends on how sharp the corners are going to be.
>> Now I have no acquaintance with the Wollensak 135mm.
>> These lenses weren't meant to be used to make exhibition enlargements
>> to be
>> honest.
>> Perhaps someone can tell us what newspapers did in order to make printing
>> plates from the image and what size enlargement they worked with.
>
>
> I can't give you all the gory details, but you can pretty well imagine
> for yourself, based on what old newspapers look like: pictures were
> generally pretty small, with a width of two or three columns. Plus, keep
> in mind that they were printed with very coarse halftone screens (65
> lines per inch), so they weren't exactly full of exquisite detail.
>
> Any fairly modern 35mm camera could easily match the image quality,
> given the printing methods used.
>
>> The 135mm Xenar is still only a basic 4 element, 3 group 'Tessar' type
>> and
>> MAY suffer from unsharp corners. It should be some improvement on the
>> Wollensak lenses but that all depends on how its been treated.
>> I was more concerned that the bellows were good when bidding on my Crown
>> Graphic.
>
>
> Anecdotal experience here (cf. "Dr. Slick's" continuing saga) shows that
> these particular Xenars are pretty ****-poor performers.
>
>

[Nicholas O. Lindan]

"Marv Soloff" > wrote

> Before we all forget, the quality of pictures taken by photogs using
> stock Graflex 4 x 5s was excellent. Check out the stuff by Bourke-White
> and Weegee.

Pictures? Like photographs?
Now, what do pictures have to do with it?

Marv, you probably have the flu and it has made you confused. Have a
good rest, drink plenty of fluids ...

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

[jjs]

> Perhaps someone can tell us what newspapers did in order to make printing
> plates from the image and what size enlargement they worked with.

No enlargement. That's what the big negative was for.

[jjs]

"Marv Soloff" > wrote in message
...
> Before we all forget, the quality of pictures taken by photogs using
> stock Graflex 4 x 5s was excellent. Check out the stuff by Bourke-White
> and Weegee.

Weegee? Fine techincal quality? Are you friggin serious? His lack of
technique is what makes his work remarkable. IMHO!

[jjs]

"Tom" <tom@localhost> wrote in message
...
> [...] In fact 120 really only started being good enough in the
> 50's. By the 60's 35mm would do the job, but you needed to pretty much use
the
> whole frame.

In your opinion, what was the big turning point that made 35mm acceptable
for newspaper work?

[AArDvarK]

"jjs"
> Weegee? Fine techincal quality? Are you friggin serious? His lack of
> technique is what makes his work remarkable. IMHO!
>

There was that movie called "The public eye" starring
Joe Pesci, wasn't that about Weegee? A great flick too.

Alex

[Bruce]

>
>In your opinion, what was the big turning point that made 35mm acceptable
>for newspaper work?
>
>

WWII

Graflex was made into the '70s but the life blood had been sucked out with the
flexability and ease of 35mm.
_________________
Ready, Fire, AIM.
Bruce
Brooklyn, N.Y.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 3/31/2004 2:22 PM jjs spake thus:

>> Perhaps someone can tell us what newspapers did in order to make printing
>> plates from the image and what size enlargement they worked with.
>
> No enlargement. That's what the big negative was for.

Um. I don't think so.

I can think of at least one front-page picture--the one of Truman holding
aloft the early edition with the headline "DEWEY WINS" across it--that most of
us here above a certain age also remember, that's definitely bigger than 4x5.
(Or pictures from The Date Which Will Live in Infamy.)


--
.... but never have I encountered a guy who could not be bothered
to make his own case on his own show.

- Eric Alterman on his appearance on Dennis Miller's bomb of a show
on CNBC (3/17/04)

[Marv Soloff]

No, Nick, sometimes I get confused. I am of the opinion that the end
result is what is important. The equipment doesn't mean doodoo.

Regards,

Marv

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
> "Marv Soloff" > wrote
>
>
>>Before we all forget, the quality of pictures taken by photogs using
>>stock Graflex 4 x 5s was excellent. Check out the stuff by Bourke-White
>>and Weegee.
>
>
> Pictures? Like photographs?
> Now, what do pictures have to do with it?
>
> Marv, you probably have the flu and it has made you confused. Have a
> good rest, drink plenty of fluids ...
>

[Nicholas O. Lindan]

"Marv Soloff" >
> Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
> > "Marv Soloff" > wrote
> > >Before we all forget, the quality of pictures taken by photogs using
> > >stock Graflex 4 x 5s was excellent. Check out the stuff by Bourke-White
> > >and Weegee.
> > Pictures? Like photographs?
> > Now, what do pictures have to do with it? [insert smiley, if needed]
> No, Nick, sometimes I get confused. I am of the opinion that the end
> result is what is important. The equipment doesn't mean doodoo.

That's heresy on this group, you know. [ditto re: smiley]

How about a rec.photo.photography newsgroup? No equipment allowed.

--

Good Lord, someone is going to take this seriously ....

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

[Tom]

The rec.photo.technique.* groups are probably what you are looking for.
Apparently there are far fewer people interested in photography then in cameras
because they tend to be low traffic. Then there is rec.photo.moderated for those
who do not like off topic posts, though from my experience you get about the
same traffic unsubscribed on r.p.m as you do when subscribed.

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

>
> How about a rec.photo.photography newsgroup? No equipment allowed.
>
> --
>
> Good Lord, someone is going to take this seriously ....
>

Why not? It happens all the time. Just figured you are one of those photo snobs
(rec.photo.technique.art).

[Raoul]

In article >, jjs
> wrote:

> "Marv Soloff" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Before we all forget, the quality of pictures taken by photogs using
> > stock Graflex 4 x 5s was excellent. Check out the stuff by Bourke-White
> > and Weegee.
>
> Weegee? Fine techincal quality? Are you friggin serious? His lack of
> technique is what makes his work remarkable. IMHO!

Technique can be defined in many ways. Weegee had great Weegee
technique. His ability to get the raw, stark images in The Naked City
was incomparable. Old-school film, big assed flashbulbs, lens stopped
down and the balls to move in close. Factor in a focusing bed which
was marked 'close' and 'far' for focussing and Weegee's finger on the
trigger and you have technique few can match.

Jeff
>
>