Graflex.org

[vic valis]

...I'm contemplating buying a new pre-ann Speed Graphic (I love them) and have a general question. I know about 3x4 sheet film, I know where to find it and how to use it, as I've used 4x5 for years. The camera I'm looking at is 3.25 x 4.25. The seller says different name but same size, the one is the other. Makes sense, as the difference in size would be pretty small. Can anyone confirm this, or tell me if getting 3.25 x 4.25 would be useless, as I do not know of a source for 3.25 x 4.25 film. I'd hate to be off by a quarter of an inch. Thanks,


_________________
That money talks,
I'll not deny.
I heard it once;
It said "good-bye."

[Rangemaster]

As far as I know there is only one company around that might have film for that size and they are located in England, I had one of those cameras and sold it for parts, cause I could not find film here and the cost for it from England was not worth the trouble....

Dave

_________________
Focus on the Picture, Not on the Glass.
Satin Snow(TM) Ground Glass

[RichS]

Just struck my curiosity...

Is there a real "3x4" film size? As far as I always thought, "3x4" meant 3 1/4 by 4 1/4. I even looked through my 1950's Kodak books hoping to find the odd sizes mentioned. The only sizes there are the standard 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 and 3 1/4 x 4 1/4... No 3x4 mentioned. I know I always refer to my mini-Speed as 2x3 even though it's 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 (isn't it?)...

this was not a good Wednesday question!


Just thought of looking at Paine's Graflex book. Only 3 1/4 by 4 1/4 size. I don't think there is a 3x4...

And Film for Classics lists 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 film in tri-x and t-max...


[ This Message was edited by: RichS on 2004-07-07 10:05 ]

[Nick]

I think you're right Rich. It's like we call it 4x5 but it isn't-)

J&C sells a bunch of different stuff they have cut to size. You're limited in choices of course. Personally I'm not sure the appeal of this size. Aren't the cameras almost the exact same size of a 4x5? What do you really gain in return for the hassle of an orphan film size?

[RichS]

[Nick]

The way I see it.

You need 3x4 film holders. Not a big issue but something to remember.

If you process yourself you need to figure that out. My current setup can't handle 3x4. So I'd be looking at trays for 3x4 film. I'm okay for printing.

If you are getting the film processed commerically you'll need to find a lab that will do it. I'm not sure that will be easy.

Then you've got the film issue. The limited film choices are okay if you like the choices but if you don't expect to cut the film yourself. 3x4 film is also more expensive. Less film for almost 50% more money-(.

I just don't know what you gain using a 3x4 over a 4x5?

[t.r.sanford]

I've owned a 3¼x4¼ "Anniversary Speed Graphic" since 1966 (still works fine) -- I have never heard of a "3x4" film size in its own right, any more than I've ever heard of a "2x3" film size.

Last time I looked, JandC prices on 3¼x4¼ film were more or less comparable to those for 4x5. Those of us who like Kodak products regard the mainstream-market demise of 3¼x4¼ film in the early '70s as a catastrophe. Those who enjoy trying different things need not find it so.

It's not all that difficult to modify a 4x5 enlarger negative carrier to accept 3¼x4¼ film.

[vic valis]

Yeah, J and C was the company I knew of... I have a friend who is always so excited about what he's bought that he has to tell everyone. In fact, I might end up buying the camera, cleaning it up and putting it on display, but I have a thing about not collecting things I cannot use at least once. Anyhow, pretty much answers the question... I had not been sure if the phrases were interchangable, but now I feel good enough about it to go for it.



_________________
That money talks,
I'll not deny.
I heard it once;
It said "good-bye."

[Les]

Les always has to open up another can of worms.

While a the thread has established that "3x4" is a lazy way of saying 3 1/4 x 4 1/4, There were film holders that were a close but odd size.

Lantern size.

3 1/4 x 4

These holders fit the standard 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 camera but used 'standard' lantern slide sized plates. They are hard to find, and not real useful, unless you have a magic lantern but they are out there.

Again this pertains to film (or plate) holders not the camera.

[Dave]

Les, 3 1/4 x 4 is actually still being produced. This is a standard size for electron microscope film. I know people who still use this stuff, although new electron microscopes have gone over to digital capture (surprise).

There are different types of EM film, but some of them are orthochromatic to visible light. I don't know how they would perform for light photography, although I suspect it would be poorly. Still, if you guys can't get sheet film for your 34 Graphics in the future, it might be worth experimenting with this stuff.

[Graflex Sid]

31/4 x 41/4,known in the trade as "Quarter Plate" camera...I've 2.
Only used cut film a couple of times (from 5x4 trimmed down),most of the time use a 120 roll film back.More choice of film stock.

OK,so Im not getting the beauty of the full frame-frankly,Im not worried.

You can develope 2 sheets at a time in a Paterson Universal 120 tank.Stand them upright each side of the spiral,close the lid,measure the chemical to the amount you require,and away you go.Simple.(Remove 120 reels).

Perfect results.(follow instructions like deving a roll film).Forget dishes,time consuming.

Remember,not many "Quarter" plate cameras were made,as they were NOT popular,so these are more collectors pieces than the other sizes.Make sure they are POST war models.

Happy Shooting!Best Wishes from London.

[glennfromwy]

I have a couple of "3X4" Speeds. One is a pre-Anny with a Graflex back and a bag mag. No rangefinder, just scale focus which is plenty accurate when shooting at small apertures. I think it's a neat camera for going out and getting hand held "grab" shots. The 135mm Eurynar in dial set Compur is dead on accurate, which makes it even better. Now all I need is more time so I can go out and have some fun with it.

_________________
Glenn

"Wyoming - Where everybody is somebody else's weirdo"

[t.r.sanford]

I haven't really explored the question, but there's some evidence that 3¼x4¼ gave 4x5 a run for its money in the immediate postwar decade. The remarkable Kalart press camera (billed as the "Camera of the Future") used that format, as did the last surviving Graflex reflex model. I've seen accounts of an experimental Kodak press camera with some whizzbang features from the late '40s or early '50s, also using 3¼x4¼ film.

You could make an argument that 3¼x4¼ should have been the wave of the future (as you could argue for 24x32mm. as the standard 35mm. frame, or 70mm. as the logical next step after 120 rollfilm). A 3¼x4¼ negative has about 2/3 the area of a 4x5 negative, and almost twice the area of 2¼x3¼. Cameras using 3¼x4¼ film are substantially smaller than their 4x5 counterparts, though if my 3¼x4¼ "Anniversary Speed" is representative, they're not a whole lot lighter!

"Polaroid" cameras confronted (and confront) the need to be big enough to produce a sort of contact print -- and it isn't an accident that the successful ones made 3¼x4¼ pictures. It's not unlikely that the timing of Dr. Land's product introduction played a part in his choice of format.

Because 3¼x4¼ died out, used 3¼x4¼ cameras and accessories once were rather cheaper than their 4x5 counterparts. That's why I got mine. I'd expect this still to be true, unless anything you can't easily get film for is now regarded as a Rare Collectible Antique (I haven't paid much attention lately).

The 3¼x4¼ "Speed Graphic" is a pleasant camera to use, and the film issue is soluble...

...and, as it happens, I do have a "magic lantern" taking 3¼x4-in. slides! As noted, very truly, the real issue is a lack of time.

[Les]

While this isn't scientific, there sure seem to be a whole lot more 3x4 Speeds made before the war than Pacemakers after.

And yet Kalart chose to make that Wiz bang camera of theirs in 3x4. I wonder why.?

TR tell me more of your "accounts" of a Kodak press camera?

[glennfromwy]

I don't remember the exact details but in my old books somewhere there is an article that states that the 3X4 format was the choice of many newspapers and magazines because it fit their layout schemes. Thus, the popularity. If I remember correctly this was pre war or maybe wartime when it was written. I would guess this to be a carry over from the days of full plate (literally) photography.

_________________
Glenn

"Wyoming - Where everybody is somebody else's weirdo"