Graflex.org

xyzphoto · Joined: 03 Jan 2002 Posts: 47 Location: Oklahoma

I have three nice 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 Graphic Type 5 film holders which I would like to give to someone who could make use of them. They were mislabeled in an ad and the seller will not take them back. If interested, contact me by email, and I will send. suffridged@simplynet.net

Les · Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 2682 Location: Detroit, MI

I hope the appropriate pox was placed on this seller. I wouldn' t mind you posting who this person is so we can avoid him. Selling 'as is" is one thing, but "as isn't" is something we all prefer to avoid.

xyzphoto · Joined: 03 Jan 2002 Posts: 47 Location: Oklahoma

Well, I did make some very pointed suggestions to him. The best solution is to ask the right questions. When looking for Graflex holders I always make a point to ask if the word Graphic appears anywhere on them and if there is a groove on the outside edges. For some reason, Graphic holders are often advertised as Graflex. Why?

Les · Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 2682 Location: Detroit, MI

they were often made by Graflex, Inc. or Folmer Graflex corp. So it's not unreasonable to call it a graflex Speed Graphic or a Graflex Film holder for the same reason others are called a Fedility film holder.

The Companies that made the Speed Graphic et al, were never very bright at marketing.

xyzphoto · Joined: 03 Jan 2002 Posts: 47 Location: Oklahoma

xyzphoto · Joined: 03 Jan 2002 Posts: 47 Location: Oklahoma

There have been no takers on the free film holders. I would still like to give them to someone who can use them. Just contact me at the email I gave on the first post on this topic.

alecj · Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 853 Location: Alabama

I'll take your three. But ...... you'll have to take my five! Plus the film pack adapter to really make it even.

[ This Message was edited by: alecj on 2002-10-06 12:54 ]

clnfrd · Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2002 10:12 am Post subject:

You would think that with all the renewed interest in Graflex/Graphics, some enterprising soul would cut and market 3X4 cut film. As far as the film packs are concerned, I didn't like'em when they were available. The film was so thin and flimsy, it was difficult, as least for me, to process. Fred.

xyzphoto · Joined: 03 Jan 2002 Posts: 47 Location: Oklahoma

alecj, I enjoyed your response. It's hard to admit that one's property is of little or no value, but that is the conclusion I'm coming to about these holders. It seems that Graflex holders in this size are worth considerbly more than Graphic holders. clnfrd, filmforclassics.com sells 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 cut film in case your are interested.

Les · Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 2682 Location: Detroit, MI

yes film for classics does, but it costs more than 4x5! Now given the choice between a 3x4 Super D and a 4x5 Super behemoth I'll pay the money and go "light", With the size/weight difference between a 3x4 and 4x5 Graphic on the other hand, the cost doesn't make sense.

Mark JW · Joined: 31 Aug 2002 Posts: 19

Just a thought. I am new to using a 4x5 speed. When I decided to get into LF (and back into photography) I considered various options. I though about a 3x4 set up, but the film issue stopped me from going that route. One thing I did think about as an solution was to make a film slicer out of a block of wood (a nice hardwood would be ideal)

1) using a table saw It would be easy to cut a 1" kerf in the block.
2) sand it down smooth with some adhesive backed sandpaper stuck onto a stiff paint scraper,
3) screw an xacto blade onto the face of the block
4) slide the film though the block to remove a 1" slice.

The drawback to this woud be that if you did not keep the film tight against the bottom of the kerf, then the slice would go wide and ruin the sheet.

I decided to go with the 4x5 instead

alecj · Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 853 Location: Alabama

Let's see. Razor blade. Darkness. Unprotected hands.

Yes, I'd agree. 4x5 WAS the better decision.

Along that line, THEY [I guess THEY are all gone now, huh?] used to make a little cutter, like a paper cutter, only small and designed just for cutting down 4x5 into 3x4. Wonder who lost money investing in THAT idea?

clnfrd · Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2002 12:45 pm Post subject:

Yeah...well..don't know what I was thinking, considering 3X4. My old enlargers only accomodate up to 2X3. And while on that subject, I have always used graded paper...mostly F3 (or G3). It appears to me that the grade 3 of today is more contrasty than the old Kodabromide F3 of years ago. Since polycontrast is more widely available and less expensive, but requires a set of filters, is it the most desirable option? Fred.

Les · Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 2682 Location: Detroit, MI

In a word. YES. (actually your dating yourself, Kodak hasn't made Polycontrast in years, now its Polymax)

And while I"m sure your still working with fiber based, it was extrememly difficult to find graded paper in RC 6 or 8 years ago, I suspect it's impossible now. I wanted graded RC because I use a Morse Contact printer. It has argon bulbs that glow purple/blue. Now this was great for Azo and the other papers of the 40s and 50s---extrmemly fast-- but gives a grade 9 on Poly papers.

clnfrd · Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2002 4:29 pm Post subject:

Well, I'll try again. Logged in...typed a reply...and then was prompted to log in again and the reply was apparently lost. Anyway, thanks again, Les. Yes, I am quite dated...sold enlargements on Kodabromide F3 in the halls at school in '49 to earn lunch money. The kids loved shots of the school sports heroes. Anyway, I was buying and using Ilford Ilfospeed RC Grade 3 8X10 paper until about a month ago, when My dealer stopped carrying it. According to Adorama, Kodak Polycontrast paper is still a current item as are filter sets. Am gonna get me some and try it. Fred.