Graflex.org

worldphoto · Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:54 pm Post subject:

Recently, I read that a new Graphic buyer bought to experience the history of the Speed Graphic camera. Myself, Thirty plus years ago, I bought because it was the least money to break into LF photography. I believe others are here for the same reason. The reality is that digital photography is winning! My wife, Barbara, just this week told me that she wanted to (immediately) buy one. Now here is a person that refuses to operate a computer.
It's hard for me consider my camera being part of history when it was only about twelve years from manufacture when I bought it.
Comments are welcome but lets be realistic!
Harry

Henry · Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2004 4:16 pm Post subject:

Well, some of us in my generation (b. 1941) were weaned on, first, roll film cameras such as the little Kodak Brownie Reflex (127), then the early affordable consumer 35s such as the Pony 135. The fact is, I never heard of a Graphic until much later---Graflex, Inc. certainly wasn't marketing them to *my* crowd---nor did I realize how superior roll film is to 35mm until I started hanging out with a pro who shoots 4x5. That's when, impressed mightily by the detail of those big negs, I started to look for better ways to make pictures. I settled on the Century Graphic because it seemed to combine the better features of a (small) view camera with the unbeatable convenience of roll film, plus I found a beautiful one at a good price at a local camera store.

My Century was made in 1954, when I was turning 13 years of age. The year before, I had scrimped and saved to buy my Pony 135 (I remember that it cost $32) but as far as Graphic cameras were concerned, I was oblivious. Even when I attended college in Rochester, NY, during the sunset years of Graflex (1960s), it was terra incognita to me.

Now that I am in a position to more fully appreciate the Century, I rejoice in all the qualities that make Graflex products so desirable. Historical value is only a part of the picture. High quality is timeless, whether in the equipment or the end result. As one who is interested in all facets of history, and particularly in architectural and industrial history, I find it immensely satisfying to use a tool which is contemporaneous with many of the subjects I shoot, yet unlike many of those, is still performing its intended function with incredible reliability. At the age of 50, my Century Graphic is undoubtedly in much better shape than its owner!

[ This Message was edited by: Henry on 2004-06-08 09:51 ]

Rangemaster · Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2004 6:17 pm Post subject:

Well I consider the Graphic a part of history as well as a photographic tool to both teach me the proper way of making photographs and to appriciate where photography has come from, my particular spark in the photographic hobby/job came on a trip to Yellowstone several years ago. My venture into large format photography is my stupid compultion to lean about all aspects of something when I get involved in it. The graphic not only has helped me to learn about many different aspects of photography it has allowed me to participate at a price level I can afford.

Dave

Adrian · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 10 Location: Philadelphia, USA

Well, on the one hand, these are very usable cameras. I hate to see them just sitting as part of a collection because they are still great tools.

On the other hand, they certainly are a relic to most. My crown graphic is just a bit more than twice as old as I am. I bought it because it was the cheapest way to get into large format. I want to get back to doing photography, but I don't have a space fo rmy darkroom. Also, the darkroom is tedious. Large format allows me to contact print in the sun using salted paper. It's a lot of fun.

Actually I have been looking for a view camera for a long time, and it was only my doscovery of a crown graphic in an antique store that inspired me to get one. I always liked using the view camera in college, but my school also had a speed graphic that I remembered using. That camera led to a bunch of new speed graphic owners who are considerably younger than their cameras.

For me, it's just a great tool. It does what I need and cameras like the linhof cost so much more and don't do much more... But, once you get your hands on it and start to realize how many great and famous pictures were taken with it, the history of it really does add a lot to the experience.

My other cameras are a totally automated Canon EOS that does everything you can think of, a little digital point and shoot, and a cardboard box with a hole in it. I'm not sure what that says.

As for the digital, the ones in my price range are pretty limited. There are a lot of shots it just plain misses. The great thing is that it's just so easy to take a picture, so you end up with many more little everyday snapshots. Not high art, but you get more of a diary than if you had to develop it and everything. And of course, they are so easy to email and share.

Sadly, most people are not that picky about image quality, and digital is getting cheaper and better, so it will probably not be long until people are talking about film the way they talk about the Graphics.

RichS · Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 2:43 am Post subject:

The history of Graphics is undeniable and, oddly enough, not well documented. Being the tool used to record history itself, that tool was pretty much ignored during it's lifetime...

I can remember very clearly the purchase of my first "good" camera. 35mm was the thing to buy then. Sure, you could buy the Speed graphic, but you'd have to lug that big camera around. get only one shot and then have to reload. And you have to buy a lens, then a shutter, then have the lens mounted in the shutter and have them both mounted into a lens board. And there's no zooms! I can remember the whole line that salesman gave me, and it worked. I left the store with the little, shiny 35mm.... How I regret that descision now...

As in many other things, I think I'm a bit in the middle of the road with Graphics. Like you say, I bought my first because it was inexpensive, well built, had a good reputation, and would do what I wanted in 4x5 for starters. I didn't care at all about the history of the cameras... But as I found out more and more about these cameras, the history of them grew on me and I now very much appreciate what these cameras have given us through the years.

But it didn't change my personal view of my cameras... As a side example. I also look out for old wood working tools. There's nothing I hate to see more than a nice old tool sitting in some bin waiting for a yuppie to come along to buy it to decorate an office! Not being rich, I only buy the tools I can use. But I buy them, restore them to good working order, and then _use_ them. I just repaired a camera back with a Stanley No 71 plane that I "rescued" from an 'antique' dealer's shelf. It now works perfectly and was used to make an old camera part completely useable...

Maybe that's a bit off topic, maybe not? What I'm trying to get across is that "history" or not, the Graphic cameras should be bought, restored to full working condition, and then USED as they were meant to. And treated with the respect that any quality tool should receive! Treated this way, they will last for many more generations to come. What a shame it would be if the day ever came that someone could not experience the joy and thrill of using a Speed Graphic complete with working focal plane shutter! What other camera compares? They may not be expensive, but they are priceless! And an iconic piece of history that goes far beyond photography!

And don't get me started on the Graphic Views! What a camera! What design!... Okay, I'll stop

[ This Message was edited by: RichS on 2004-06-08 19:44 ]

disemjg · Joined: 10 Jan 2002 Posts: 474 Location: Washington, DC

Rich is on target with his comments about Graphics being usable "tools" that can be appreciated on several grounds. Frankly, there would never be the activity we see on this web site if the cameras were merely collectables and were not being used daily for the purpose they were made for. The fact that they are classic designs that still are the best balanced design and value in their niche is an amazing part of their history, and a reflection of how good they are. The satisfaction in successfully usng them comes not only from the outstanding results, but also from the photographers demonstration of having mastered a piece of equipment that demands that you know what you are doing. This camera is a tool but not a mechanized whiz-bang that will do everything for you but push the button.

And, their history is indeed one of the rewards we receive by understanding and using them. We are just the most recent group of photogs who have taken pictures with these cameras, using essentially the same techniques, for the longest period of time. Hopefully others will follow us and continue to use and appreciate these cameras as practical, classic tools that bring home the bacon once you have learned your stuff.

frohnec · Joined: 12 May 2004 Posts: 57 Location: Virginia

I am just returning to photography as a hobby after 25 years of raising a family.

Raised on 35 mm Yashica and 120 Rolleiflex I wanted to come back trying something new.

I started looking at digital cameras, a Nikon 8MP, and was about to buy it when something stopped me.

It was a simple yet nagging question, how could I create a photograph with a digital camera. The answer was simple - I can't.

Photography is art, every photograph is a personal expression that originates in the soul. I find this especially true with Black and White. With black and white there are no fancy colors to enhance the photo just composition and shades of grey. For me a photograph starts with something small, just a glimpse of something that moves me that I want to capture.

I decided to purchase the Speed Graphic just last month and have spent most of my free time cleaning, focusing, adjusting, taking photos and developing the negatives. The Speed Graphic was my way of getting in to the large format relatively inexpenseively and now I fear I have been bitten by the bug. I am smitten with the history of the Speed Graphic and the timeless photos that have been created by famous people using the Graflex. I can't wait to get this camera just where I want and then spend countless hours in the field carefully, slowly, creating photos. (I am a Controls Engineer and most of my work is hunched over a computer making things go faster, "real time".)

This website is a wonderful place where veterans freely share priceless information. With the continuing dialog that we carry on here I can't see how the Graflex will ever disappear.

Dan Fromm · Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2148 Location: New Jersey

RichS · Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:17 pm Post subject:

Dan, I really don't want to start another whole digi-analog debate, but the difference between the two is deffinite.

Digital is set, and very often by someone other than the photographer. You say you set the speed, arperture, etc in digital? But they are exact _pre_sets that are always identical. And the camera itself makes changes to what it captures before you ever get the chance to see or use the recorded image. Computer processing is pre-set no matter what you may think. Use the brighten option and you're using an algorithm programed in by someone else. Same for all the other options. Unless you actually do pixel-by-pixel editing, you are having some elses programming change your "photograph"

Analog/silver photography is a human/mechanical/light/silver process that it totally controlled by the photographer, and chance. f-8 is never exactly the same no matter how good the shutter is. Was the arpeture set from f-11 or from f-5.6? The end result will be different. Metering is done with an external meter. The reading will always be slightly different, and so will the shutter settings... Films have different characteristics, unlike CCD's.

Take it to th darkroom and everything is similarly different but in reverse. No two prints can ever be exactly the same. They are created by the photographer controlling light that stokes a silver medium that has different characteristics between different paper types and developers and even different timings.

The entire analog proces, beggining to end can not possibly be duplicated exactly no matter how hard a photographer tries.

Once a digital capture is done, any number of exact duplicates can be made with or without the photographer...

The only similarity between the two is that the initial image was done by capturing reflected light. From there on, the is absolutely no similarity. And that's why I call it "digital imaging" and not photography...

Uwe Schrecker · Joined: 07 Jun 2004 Posts: 3 Location: Germany

starling · Joined: 05 Jun 2004 Posts: 12 Location: Ottawa, Canada

I agree about prices for real cameras. I know everyone says they are dropping, but, I don't see it, at least not for quality cameras. Someone must be buying them.

I posted a question about my "new" Crown Graphic last week and its defective rangefinder. I'm going to return it as it's under warranty and they will fix it. But I've already had the opportunity to shoot some pictures using it with the ground glass. Frankly, I could have gotten almost as good results with my Nikon if I used it with the same level of attention, as I just scanned the colour Polaroid prints on my old flatbed scanner. The local minilab gives me my 35mm pictures already scanned AND printed, and the quality of those scan is more than good enough for web display. But I can't even describe how much I enjoyed the process of one picture at a time photography using the Crown. It's great. To me, it's not about ultimate resolution or enlargement size, it's more about the process. Now, I'm loathing having to return the camera because of the probably long turnaround time. And yes, I did ruin the first picture by forgetting to close the shutter after focussing before I removed the darkslide

On the other hand, after 25-30 years of amateur photography, I think my second Crown Graphic exposure may well be my most personally-satisfying photo in all that time. I spent about half an hour setting it up and I was extremely careful and caring about the picture, in a way that I have never been before. It's great fun.

[ This Message was edited by: starling on 2004-06-13 09:52 ]

[ This Message was edited by: starling on 2004-06-13 09:53 ]

Rangemaster · Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 6:52 pm Post subject:

There in lies the key, "I could have gotten almost as good of results" if I had taken the time with my Nikon that I did with the graphic, there is an art to photography and the large format camera contributes to that art greatly, they are definately not point and shoot, to produce a good picture you have to think and understand at least part of the photographic process to produce a great print, to me the large format is so interesting because I do have to think and I have to compose and look at all elements of the picture to produce results.

Dave

RichS · Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:08 am Post subject:

Starling: If you shot a Polaroid and are comparing that to a good 35mm, you _are_ pretty close. Polaroids fall far short of what a 4x5 can do. I'm not knocking Polaroids as I love the film, especially the Type 55 P/N. Okay, I never liked the color film... But you really do have to compare apples to apples here. Shoot the same film with everything else as close to the same as possible and then compare!

And boy I wish the price of 'real' cameras would come down! Who ever said they were?

But in the overall comparison, I run into familiar problems. I can get into the instant gratification too and nothing fits that bill like digital (or Polaroid!). But in the long term, "instant gratification" is not very gratifying. It's like a single good dark chocolate. Just leaves me wanting more...

And then there's the shear numbers. I can go for a half hour walk in my back yard and shoot a hundred 35mm shots. Out of those, I may get a dozen 'keepers'. And I come back with all those pics and feel like I accomplished something.

In that same half hour, I'm luck to get a single shot with LF gear. And it very often talks me a half hour just to get the gear together to go for that walk

But in similar lines to the 'instant gratification', I spend a little time going through the pics, pick my dozen keepers and I'm done. That's about the end of it...

I just went out the other day to do a "lens test". I shot one test twice. Re-set up and shot another test twice. Then I put the 'normal' lens on and luckily looked at the GG just to see the visual comparison between lenses. I really liked what I saw and took a fifth. That fifth is a 'keeper' even my wife likes. It all took me about an hour and a half to do this. A lot of time for a few tests and one 'photo'. But I found out a few things about the camera, tripod and even the dark cloth. I discovered some bad things too... But the big trhing is that I had _fun_! And after really messing up the one test, I have to go out and shoot it again because it should have been a keeper but I didn't notice that I had just moved the lens a bit too far and caught the image circle (and the bellows at the other end

). Part of the learning and the fun.

I don't get that form digital or 35mm. Maybe I'm too new to LF and that is part of what hold me? Maybe it's just LF? But there is something special about using a big camera and looking at that ground glass. back to the 'process' of taking the photo. And even wondering how the "old timers" used to do it and make it all look so simple... Did Adams or Weston ever forget the dark slides??? Maybe so, but apparently they didn't have the humor to tell anyone and laugh about it. To me, that's also part of the fun

P.S. This has gotten a bit off topic, as usual here

and really should be in the Large Format forum where it could really get off topic!

_________________
----------------------------------------
"Ya just can't have too many GVIIs"

----------------------------------------

starling · Joined: 05 Jun 2004 Posts: 12 Location: Ottawa, Canada

Hi Rich.

I have no doubt that actual 4x5 sheet film will be lightyears ahead of any direct Polaroid print. Unfortunately, I'm not quite setup for it yet. First thing I'll have to get is a few film holders. I figure 3 should be enough to start. I have some experience doing 35mm darkroom work, and I'm looking forward to developping my own 4x5 black & white. But as I said, for me, it's not about ultimate sharpness or detail... it's more about just the process of getting the picture, and the nicer, richer tonality of larger formats than 35mm. In fact, I actually prefer a more vintage look that isn't "too" sharp.

office888 · Joined: 19 Feb 2004 Posts: 41 Location: Southwest Michigan

The Graflex isn't just history. It MADE history. The explosion of the Hindenburg, the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima... Graflex was there with it's reliability and precision.

Personally, the reason I use a Speed-Graphic? Well, theres just a feeling with it that no amount of digital photography can make for. Theres something magical about setting up, looking at the upside-down image on the ground glass, focusing, setting f-stop & shutter speed, then shooting with a film holder. My satisfaction comes from the darkroom phase. I'm currently making do with fully manual equipment. Heck, for developing trays, i'm currently using black plastic paint trays. Yet still, theres something special when you remove the negatives from the fixer and place them in the final wash, finally seeing what image you produced. You dry the image and stare at it's beauty. Ten minutes later, the process starts all over again, this time with Ilford Multigrade IV RC (Best print paper in my opinion) and an enlarger.

Digital = You aim, you shoot. You go home and plug the memory card into your computer. You start up Adobe Photoshop or whatever you may use for editing, then go through and correct your errors. Where's the satisfaction? The first and last time I tried this, I felt none.

_________________
"Graflex cameras are like peanuts...you get one and you just can't stop." - Me