View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Les
Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 2682 Location: Detroit, MI
|
Posted: Sun Feb 23, 2003 3:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
i just recieved a couple of masks and I thought I'd get the groups opinion on what I have.
the first one:
should be good for that 15 in tele optar
this one:
is supposed to be good for "16 15/16"-20" lenses"
according to Graphic Graflex Photo, 10th edition
So that means the 20" B&L aerial tele might focus on a Graphic? Anybody else got any ideas about tele lenses in the 430-508mm range?
Any ideas about this last one? It's original!
[ This Message was edited by: Les on 2003-02-22 19:58 ] |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2144 Location: New Jersey
|
Posted: Sun Feb 23, 2003 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
On 2003-02-22 19:55, Les wrote:
i just recieved a couple of masks and I thought I'd get the groups opinion on what I have.
this one:
is supposed to be good for "16 15/16"-20" lenses"
according to Graphic Graflex Photo, 10th edition
So that means the 20" B&L aerial tele might focus on a Graphic? Anybody else got any ideas about tele lenses in the 430-508mm range?
[ This Message was edited by: Les on 2003-02-22 19:58 ]
| Graflex bought some lenses from Dallmeyer, who made a 20" (508 mm) tele. This was probably an ok lens, it was offered on early focal plane Hasselblads.
Cheers,
Dan |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Henry
Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 1644 Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
|
Posted: Sun Feb 23, 2003 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm reading off of the back cover of Graflex, Inc. Form No. 1804/865, "Rapid-Vance RH/20 Roll Film Holder Guidebook," where there's a chart giving all the mask catalog numbers matched with focal lengths. The number 7 mask (cat. no. 9105-7) is for 192-227 mm lenses, and the no. 5 (cat. no. 9105-5) is for 268-305 mm. This is for "2-1/4 x 2-3/4 picture size."
As for that last one, it's to protect your eyeball when you take pictures of the sun. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
alecj
Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 853 Location: Alabama
|
Posted: Sun Feb 23, 2003 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Henry, I disagree. That last one is for night photography. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
RichS
Joined: 18 Oct 2001 Posts: 1468 Location: South of Rochester, NY
|
Posted: Sun Feb 23, 2003 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would have guessed that last one for a special military design for those nuclear tests in the 50's?
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Les
Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 2682 Location: Detroit, MI
|
Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
See, I'm glad I asked. I thought it was for the guy that shot IR film with wih an 87c on an SLR before he bought the Graphic, and this would make the Crown act more like the SLR.
It was that or the the first two was so you can shoot like John Winstanley (a Detroit god among photo circles) and the last was so you could shoot like Stevie Wonder (another Detroit god among certain circles) |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|