Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it?
 

ATIPPETT wrote:
I am confused as to the use of the term copal. I have seen it in references to
lens board openings, in referecnes to shutters (separate from the lens), and I
have seen it in both upper and lower case.

I found one reference that copal #00 was a 25mm opening.

So what is copal/Copal #0, #1, #3, and #3S and how do they relate to lens
boards.


Copal is a shutter company. A #0 is smaller then a #1 which smaller then
the #3. Or if you've got older lenses you might find a #2,#4 or #5 shutter.
Did Copal make anything that big? You need a hole in your lensboard that
matches the shutter on your lens.

The hole on the lensboard must match the shutter. Unless the lens
is too big for your lensboard that's the only issue.

Nick

Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it?
 

"ATIPPETT" wrote in message
...
I am confused as to the use of the term copal. I have seen it in
references to
lens board openings, in referecnes to shutters (separate from the lens),
and I
have seen it in both upper and lower case.

I found one reference that copal #00 was a 25mm opening.

So what is copal/Copal #0, #1, #3, and #3S and how do they relate to lens
boards.

Different size shutter for different lenses. Each shutter requires a
different size hole in the board.

Short answer: #0 = 1.36", 1 = 1.64", 3 = 2.6", 3s = 2.53"

Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it?
 

"Copal" is the brand name of a shutter made by a Japanese company the name
of which I forget if I ever knew. The numbers after the name (e.g. 1, 3,
etc.) refer to the size of the hole in the lens board in which the shutter
fits. The smaller the number the smaller the hole and the smaller the
physical size of the shutter. There are today only three sizes of Copal
shutters being made as far as I know, 0, 1, 3. There used to be a 00 but
that was discontinued. There presumably was a 2 at some point but if so it
hasn't been made for a long time. For backpacking most people prefer a lens
that will fit in a 0 or 1 shutter, the 3 is big and heavy though it's
certainly capable of being backpacked.

I'm not an expert in the history of Copal shutters but AFAIK 3 is the
largest they've made, I don't recall ever seeing a Copal 4 or 5. When you
see numbers like 4 and 5 after a shutter brand name you're usually seeing a
shutter brand other than Copal, e.g. Ilex, Betax, et al that is no longer
made. There was no consistency between the size of the shutter holes with
these different brands, e.g. an Ilex 4 isn't necessarily the same size as a
Betax 4.

Copal pretty much dominates the shutter market for new lenses. I think
Prontor shutters are still being made but if so it's the only one other than
Copal that I know of. Compur shutters used to be common and you see them on
used lenses quite a lot but I don't think they're still being made.

"ATIPPETT" wrote in message
...
I am confused as to the use of the term copal. I have seen it in
references to
lens board openings, in referecnes to shutters (separate from the lens),
and I
have seen it in both upper and lower case.

I found one reference that copal #00 was a 25mm opening.

So what is copal/Copal #0, #1, #3, and #3S and how do they relate to lens
boards.

Thanks
Alan Tippett

Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it?
 

"ATIPPETT" wrote in message
...
I am confused as to the use of the term copal. I have
seen it in references to
lens board openings, in referecnes to shutters (separate
from the lens), and I
have seen it in both upper and lower case.

I found one reference that copal #00 was a 25mm opening.

So what is copal/Copal #0, #1, #3, and #3S and how do they
relate to lens
boards.

Thanks
Alan Tippett

You will find information on all new Copal shutters on
Steve Grimes shop web site at:
http://www.skgrimes.com/products/index.htm

This gives dimensions of the shutters and sizes of
mounting holes.
Copal is a Japanese shutter of high quality, although I
think the old Compurs were better. Nonethelss, Copals are
very widely used for high quality lenses and are about the
only game in town. Copal makes both settible and
self-setting shutters. They call the self-setting variety
"press" shutters but this is a misuse of the term. A press
shutter was a shutter with a blade arrestor allowing ground
glass focusing without changing the speed setting.
Self-setting shutters are convenient and simple, shutters
that need to be cocked can have much stronger spring motors
and give higher shutter speeds.
S.K.Grimes also sells rebuilt old shutters which can
sometimes be an economical choice, or in the case of very
large shutters, the only choice.


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

Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it?
 

Humm...? Nope, not at all Richard. Self-cocking shutters were called Press
shutters because in the old, old, old days of film packs the news guys (Press
Photographers) used them, so all they had to do was pull the tab on the filmpack
and shoot without having to recock the shutter. Sort of a primative motordrive.
That, by the way, was how that famous sequence of the Hindenburg burning and
crashing was shot. The kids who grew up with 35mm often can not understand how
that sequence could possibly have been shot with a press camera.

You are confusing the Press Shutter with the press-to-focus lever. And yes you
are correct they were limited to 1/100 of a second or so. The German made
Prontor-Press shutter was the best known of the type.

--

Richard Knoppow wrote:

self-setting shutters. They call the self-setting variety
"press" shutters but this is a misuse of the term. A press
shutter was a shutter with a blade arrestor allowing ground
glass focusing without changing the speed setting.
Self-setting shutters are convenient and simple, shutters
that need to be cocked can have much stronger spring motors
and give higher shutter speeds.

Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it?
 

Humm...? Nope, not at all Richard. Self-cocking shutters were called Press
shutters because in the old, old, old days of film packs the news guys (Press
Photographers) used them, so all they had to do was pull the tab on the filmpack
and shoot without having to recock the shutter. Sort of a primative motordrive.
That, by the way, was how that famous sequence of the Hindenburg burning and
crashing was shot. The kids who grew up with 35mm often can not understand how
that sequence could possibly have been shot with a press camera.

You are confusing the Press Shutter with the press-to-focus lever. And yes you
are correct they were limited to 1/100 of a second or so. The German made
Prontor-Press shutter was the best known of the type.

--

Richard Knoppow wrote:

self-setting shutters. They call the self-setting variety
"press" shutters but this is a misuse of the term. A press
shutter was a shutter with a blade arrestor allowing ground
glass focusing without changing the speed setting.
Self-setting shutters are convenient and simple, shutters
that need to be cocked can have much stronger spring motors
and give higher shutter speeds.

Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it?
 

In article ,
(Richard Knoppow) wrote:

I've never seen the actual negatives of the
Hindenburg disaster but doubt very much they were shot on pack film.

I thought I'd read somewhere that they were shot by people who didn't
use the second sheet of film, just exposed one sheet per holder under
conditions where every sheet counted and remembering which sheet was
exposed might be a problem.

Thought it was posted here, but I could be wrong.

Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it?
 

In article ,
(Richard Knoppow) wrote:

I've never seen the actual negatives of the
Hindenburg disaster but doubt very much they were shot on pack film.

I thought I'd read somewhere that they were shot by people who didn't
use the second sheet of film, just exposed one sheet per holder under
conditions where every sheet counted and remembering which sheet was
exposed might be a problem.

Thought it was posted here, but I could be wrong.

Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it?
 

I do not want to get into a ****ing contest with Richard, so I will not argue
with him except to say that most newspapers usually had more than one camera
and/or lens available. I was not there back in the 20's and 30's, but I have
talked with old timers myself. Often what they told me, and what Richard says
was very very different.

On things like grip-n-grins, the mainstay of the old time press, it was usual to
shoot one shot on one side of the holder, and a safety shot on the other. The
safety shot often was never even processed unless there was a problem, such as
someone blinking, with the first shot. However, to the best of my knowledge a
working press photographer never went out with just one film holder, and for
major events they often used pack film, WeeGee certainly did if you can believe
what he said in his books.

Funny thing is folks who seem to never have used the stuff, or who have only
used the 16 sheet packs made in the 70's with the then new untra-thin film in
them, have strange ideas about filmpacks. For one thing you could do just one
shot and remove it in the darkroom with out wasting the rest of the pack.
However, even back in those days film was not so expensive that a working
photographer was afraid to waste the rest of the film in the pack even if he had
only shot only 2 or 3 of the 12 sheets of film. And the film in the 12 sheet
packs was not all that thin, nor was roll film in the 50's and earlier.

--

Rebecca Ore wrote:

In article ,
(Richard Knoppow) wrote:


I've never seen the actual negatives of the
Hindenburg disaster but doubt very much they were shot on pack film.


I thought I'd read somewhere that they were shot by people who didn't
use the second sheet of film, just exposed one sheet per holder under
conditions where every sheet counted and remembering which sheet was
exposed might be a problem.

Thought it was posted here, but I could be wrong.

Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it?
 

I do not want to get into a ****ing contest with Richard, so I will not argue
with him except to say that most newspapers usually had more than one camera
and/or lens available. I was not there back in the 20's and 30's, but I have
talked with old timers myself. Often what they told me, and what Richard says
was very very different.

On things like grip-n-grins, the mainstay of the old time press, it was usual to
shoot one shot on one side of the holder, and a safety shot on the other. The
safety shot often was never even processed unless there was a problem, such as
someone blinking, with the first shot. However, to the best of my knowledge a
working press photographer never went out with just one film holder, and for
major events they often used pack film, WeeGee certainly did if you can believe
what he said in his books.

Funny thing is folks who seem to never have used the stuff, or who have only
used the 16 sheet packs made in the 70's with the then new untra-thin film in
them, have strange ideas about filmpacks. For one thing you could do just one
shot and remove it in the darkroom with out wasting the rest of the pack.
However, even back in those days film was not so expensive that a working
photographer was afraid to waste the rest of the film in the pack even if he had
only shot only 2 or 3 of the 12 sheets of film. And the film in the 12 sheet
packs was not all that thin, nor was roll film in the 50's and earlier.

--

Rebecca Ore wrote:

In article ,
(Richard Knoppow) wrote:


I've never seen the actual negatives of the
Hindenburg disaster but doubt very much they were shot on pack film.


I thought I'd read somewhere that they were shot by people who didn't
use the second sheet of film, just exposed one sheet per holder under
conditions where every sheet counted and remembering which sheet was
exposed might be a problem.

Thought it was posted here, but I could be wrong.