Graflex.org

djon · Joined: 05 Nov 2004 Posts: 174 Location: New Mexico

I'd like to dedicate my Century to 135mm, making it a rangefinder camera for formal portraits, mostly head/shoulders of middle aged and elderly people...

Its Kalart is highly accurate with the particular camera's 80MM 2.8 Heligon (wonderful lens hand-held), but that's usually far too wide for the intended purpose (I don't want a wide lens exaggerations...I love 35mm lens in 35 but have tired of it in 35mm portraits).

I have several Kalart rangefinder adjustment instructions and feel confident...but will the little Century's Kalart actually adjust to 135mm as its standard lens (especially, will it do that at portrait distances, such as 6'?

I do have the appropriate finder mask for 135mm as well as multiple backs ...this seems a VERY attractive concept for portraiture, compared to Hasselblad or Bronica etc.

Alternatively I might just pick up an extra Century body and dedicate it to this task, leaving the 80mm version intact...thoughts?

Djon

R_J · Joined: 03 Aug 2004 Posts: 137 Location: Europe

"I'd like to dedicate my Century to 135mm, making it a rangefinder camera for formal portraits, mostly head/shoulders of middle aged and elderly people..."

Sounds like a wonderful use for the Century - shooting photographs of elderly people and averaging their ages.

There's no problems with a 105mm Ektar at all - if I had a spare lensboard I'd try to get a 135mm Caltar to check for you, although Dan informs me that I'll have to wait until Spring thaw - that'll be July

In any case, the axis seems to extend sufficiently for a 105mm to allow an incredible bellows draw, thus facilitating close focus. You may lose out a little in the minimum focussing distance with the 135mm, by around 20mm...

"Its Kalart is highly accurate with the particular camera's 80MM 2.8 Heligon (wonderful lens hand-held)"

What is a Heligon or Heliogon? I've seen some around although never stopped to ask.

I find it intuitive using 6x6cm format for portraiture work. Strangely it seems very difficult to achieve with 6x9cm ratio. People seem to just sit helplessly somewhere along the axis of the photograph for me, and the extra length seems to make for documentary group work, rather than interpretative portraiture.

You'd be surprised at how commonplace Hasselblads and Planar 80mms are. The Rolleiflex 6x6s have really taken a hit in Europe - with 8 degrees of tilt, the SL66 is a fantastic portraiture camera.

Good luck.

djon43 · Joined: 16 Oct 2005 Posts: 18 Location: Albuquerque NM

Century makes more traditional sense with 101/105 etc but it's great with Rodenstock Heligon 80 2.8 if one thinking in terms of 35mm lenses on 35mm cameras.

Just as with 35mm, it's too wide for classic portraits unless one wants a special effect. I don't want any evidence of "lens" in these particular portraits.

In the past I've used 80mm far too often for portraits in 6X6 and 6X7 (Hass, Rollei, Graflex XL)...usually wound up cropping heavily to get the classic 1.5-2X portrait magnification, which is why I now want to set this camera up for 135 (that fancy talk, plus the fact that I have a mint 135 Xenar on a Century lensboard

R_J · Joined: 03 Aug 2004 Posts: 137 Location: Europe

That makes sense. How many elements/construction is the Heliogon?

" I don't want any evidence of "lens" in these particular portraits."

I'm really not astute enough to notice. But then again, I enjoy flare; light fall-off, vignetting, chromatic aberrations - everything except a Holga.

If it's too challenging to set up, I'm sure your subjects will stay still enough for you to access the groundglass focussing.

Dan Fromm · Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2146 Location: New Jersey

troublemaker · Joined: 24 Nov 2003 Posts: 715 Location: So Cal

The Kalart works very well with 135's
It is the same unit as on the bigger cameras with a shorter coupling arm.
Check infinity and leave set on the RF while finding focus for the 135 via moving the front standard and checking on the GG with a loupe, and then see if the thing even needs adjustment for the switch. I have had a couple surprises recently between I believe a 101 and 127. Anyway, it will work and I have a couple here I just did that make nice handheld set ups, though I prefer this with the Speed 23 rather then with the lighter Century body.
I will be trying out both the 135 and a new Heligon 80 set up in a couple weeks out on the water for a sailing photo shoot.
I agree, the 80 is wide, too wide for somethings, but I am going to give it a try out backpacking this summer since it is light, sharp as heck, and far superior to the littel Raptar I have been using, and this will allow me to bring along the 80 as a medium wide, and the 135 as a longer normal, which in my opinion, makes a more true to life image more the way I see things compared to the 103 I have been unsing. Anxious to try these... I have shot many 135 images on 2x3 format and have been very pleased with results, and when shooting 4x5 have a tendency to crop close to medium format anyway, so why waste the film. I mostly use 120 backs on the 4x5 unless shooting big color landscape. And after doing the 120 back for a few portraits with a 135mm Optar, I thought why not dedicate the smaller Speeds which are better handled and ballanced with the longer lens? Works pretty darn good, and fun to shoot wide open as long as RF is dead on.
Have fun with it...

djon43 · Joined: 16 Oct 2005 Posts: 18 Location: Albuquerque NM

Troublemaker, BINGO! Thanks. You'll love the Heligon. The hood/UV filter combo that I use is a B+H 46E with Skylite that was actually designed for some dslr or other...

A wonderful combo for handheld shooting.

Dan, thanks for the background/lens-tech.

This Heligon's not flary at all, but mine does wear a collapsable rubber hood (which isn't at all in the way when the drawbridge is up). The same hood fits the Xenar, though there's a bit of thread gnashing...

My longago XL mainly wore an 80 Planar, same as Hasselblad or Rollei...no special flare, though they do deserve good lens shades.

By "evidence of "lens" I meant distortion ...80mm is generally considered wrong for 6X6 formal portraits because it doesn't compress facial features and tends to make foreground hands, people, objects larger than they seem in real life, Vs background people. Guys with big noses have bigger noses when shot with short lenses.

djon43 · Joined: 16 Oct 2005 Posts: 18 Location: Albuquerque NM

R-J, yes, the ground glass is always available but the optical tube finder and Kalart rangefinder are so good on these Graflex cameras that it's perhaps more reasonable to think of them as huge IIIF Leicas than as view cameras.

I LOVE view cameras, but one of the main charms is that big ground glass...which 6X9 doesn't have at all by comparison to 4X5. The tiny ground glass is one reason I accumulated relatively fast (press) lenses for this little camera.

troublemaker · Joined: 24 Nov 2003 Posts: 715 Location: So Cal

True,it is rather difficult to see anything beyond the middles on the 2x3 glass, but it does work. One of the reasons I am psyched on the Rodenstock 80 is the brightness for set up not available on a 6.8 Rapter prior to sunrise. I haven't yet relied on movements with the littel Century I backpack with (it is stripped down to bare minimum with no finders or RF etc...) but may start experimenting at home and shooting a bit loose with it. On the other hand, When trying to use a bit of movement with my Crown for the near far landscapes I find the 90mm and the 135mm land in places on the rails that prohibit movements anyway, and will be journeying with a Graphic View possibly for that type of work with one of Daves GG's installed.
But I refuse to carry much weight crossing high Sierra terrain, and even the Century with a light tripod and accesories becomes too much in a hurry. Thus my reference to lighter weight lenses. I read a thread over on the GV pages where someone said they packed with a View. They aint gettin in where I go with anything bigger than a 2x3 unless they have sherpas. I tried every conceivable weight savings idea to see if I could justify a 4x5 for a couple images I want and decided to leave the big stuff at home. But I sure miss having a littel room to move and being able to view that big glass.
I suppose one bonus mounting a 4x5 lens on a 2x3 is ability to use any amount of available movements, provided the focal length works out for the composition; most of the Sierra stuff tends to be pretty wide , esspecially if working reflecting pools with full background, which I do a lot of.

troublemaker · Joined: 24 Nov 2003 Posts: 715 Location: So Cal

I am wondering if you are intending to dedicate your 135 Xenar you have listed under equipment? I only ask because I find the German Xenars to be predominently rather sharp lenses. I am going the other way but keep getting junker lenses that are still too sharp for my intended projects. I just got an old beat up 127 Wollensak Velostigmat in a "you can't believe how bad this looked" in an attempt to get something more vintagelooking. Old pre anniversary board all split (Actually had to split the board off of the shutter), and even looked like someone threw darts at it at one time. Gunk all over the lens and so on. and what happens when I clean it up a little and test it? Stupid thing was darn near as good as the perfect 135 Optar I was also giving a test shoot, and I am afraid the shutter may end up working also. I wish everything I purchased worked out so bad. Pretty soon I'll be using vintage coke bottle bottoms if this keeps up. The 127 I am changing out on one of the Speeds so I have an older non coated lens setup for hand holding. What I think I really want is one of those Wolly soft protrait lenses in Barrel (still looking) to put on a Speed 45 I just brought back from the grave. Nice barrel lens platform...to try Coke bottles?

Dan Fromm · Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2146 Location: New Jersey

Dan Fromm · Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2146 Location: New Jersey

djon43 · Joined: 16 Oct 2005 Posts: 18 Location: Albuquerque NM

Whatever happened to the manly men of yesteryear...hauling 8X10, wooden tripod and plates up into the Sierras?

All you need is a llama, or a burro.

I used to date a girl whose father ran burros , high into Yosemite for the Currey Company. Heck of a girl, her home was full of halters and pack saddles and had a certain eau de manure. I was tempted to scrape my feet feet AFTER visiting, rather than before...

troublemaker · Joined: 24 Nov 2003 Posts: 715 Location: So Cal

Hi Dan,
Thanks for the tips on the flary lens. I have been eyeing the Wide Field 100's for some time, but not encouraged by the price. I finally managed to sneak up on a nice 203 Ektar, but haven't had much luck on the WF's. For wides I have a stunning 90 Angulon I have mentioned a few times here, but it doesn't offer much if any movement now thatI am armed with a GVI and II.
But in theHigh country I only pack in max 2x3 stripped Century, so the Rodenstock 80 will probably do well, and I still might have to drop a few extra smacks for a higher quiality 65. I wont bite on the littel 65 angulons because I don't expect much more out of them than the Raptar, which get s the job done pretty well, and the Angulon only stops to f~22. That's all for color stuff I want sharp. The soft stuff relates to projects here around the house and around town. I have had some success with diffusers, even stack stuff up, and am messing around with double diffusion using the on the lens for getting the aura flare in the highlights into the dark, enlarging, and then diffusing partial print exposure complete or selectively to wash out the grain.
I have been looking more widely at different kinds of lenses as I learn more and more so probably better not to get too many things going all at once. I have at least ten lenses here I have not even tested with film yet, but obviously too sharp for the still life portrait type stuff. The basic look I get on some of this stuff has a sort of infrared look to it, but I did not like infrared at all, and not willing to waste much more time and effort with the stuff, so the Macco went in the freezer until time allows.
I do intend to apply some of these effects I get to some things in the Eastern Sierra this next summer.

djon43 · Joined: 16 Oct 2005 Posts: 18 Location: Albuquerque NM

Trouble: "...I find the German Xenars to be predominently rather sharp lenses."

Sharp, utilitarian, not pretty.

I've not been after vintage effects. I simply want distinctive, handsome portraits of couples (in particular) who were once more conventionally attractive than they are now...slightly kind, not totally kind. Not grizzled character studies. Maybe looking the way they do in a foggy bathroom mirror..

The special effect I'd most like, and I'd prefer making it with Photoshop (can do optically), is Hasselblad Softar, sharp/soft...the fly's eye optics of Softar gives sharp eyes/hair and smooths skin. I've not yet pursued in Photoshop...will inquire at P.N. Might involve gaussian blur.

I have a big Softar, but mounting it on a Xenar will call for an extreme adapter...hmm. Got me thinking.