If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it?
ATIPPETT wrote:
I am confused as to the use of the term copal. I have seen it in references to lens board openings, in referecnes to shutters (separate from the lens), and I have seen it in both upper and lower case. I found one reference that copal #00 was a 25mm opening. So what is copal/Copal #0, #1, #3, and #3S and how do they relate to lens boards. Copal is a shutter company. A #0 is smaller then a #1 which smaller then the #3. Or if you've got older lenses you might find a #2,#4 or #5 shutter. Did Copal make anything that big? You need a hole in your lensboard that matches the shutter on your lens. The hole on the lensboard must match the shutter. Unless the lens is too big for your lensboard that's the only issue. Nick |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it?
"ATIPPETT" wrote in message ... I am confused as to the use of the term copal. I have seen it in references to lens board openings, in referecnes to shutters (separate from the lens), and I have seen it in both upper and lower case. I found one reference that copal #00 was a 25mm opening. So what is copal/Copal #0, #1, #3, and #3S and how do they relate to lens boards. Different size shutter for different lenses. Each shutter requires a different size hole in the board. Short answer: #0 = 1.36", 1 = 1.64", 3 = 2.6", 3s = 2.53" |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it?
"Copal" is the brand name of a shutter made by a Japanese company the name
of which I forget if I ever knew. The numbers after the name (e.g. 1, 3, etc.) refer to the size of the hole in the lens board in which the shutter fits. The smaller the number the smaller the hole and the smaller the physical size of the shutter. There are today only three sizes of Copal shutters being made as far as I know, 0, 1, 3. There used to be a 00 but that was discontinued. There presumably was a 2 at some point but if so it hasn't been made for a long time. For backpacking most people prefer a lens that will fit in a 0 or 1 shutter, the 3 is big and heavy though it's certainly capable of being backpacked. I'm not an expert in the history of Copal shutters but AFAIK 3 is the largest they've made, I don't recall ever seeing a Copal 4 or 5. When you see numbers like 4 and 5 after a shutter brand name you're usually seeing a shutter brand other than Copal, e.g. Ilex, Betax, et al that is no longer made. There was no consistency between the size of the shutter holes with these different brands, e.g. an Ilex 4 isn't necessarily the same size as a Betax 4. Copal pretty much dominates the shutter market for new lenses. I think Prontor shutters are still being made but if so it's the only one other than Copal that I know of. Compur shutters used to be common and you see them on used lenses quite a lot but I don't think they're still being made. "ATIPPETT" wrote in message ... I am confused as to the use of the term copal. I have seen it in references to lens board openings, in referecnes to shutters (separate from the lens), and I have seen it in both upper and lower case. I found one reference that copal #00 was a 25mm opening. So what is copal/Copal #0, #1, #3, and #3S and how do they relate to lens boards. Thanks Alan Tippett |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it?
"ATIPPETT" wrote in message ... I am confused as to the use of the term copal. I have seen it in references to lens board openings, in referecnes to shutters (separate from the lens), and I have seen it in both upper and lower case. I found one reference that copal #00 was a 25mm opening. So what is copal/Copal #0, #1, #3, and #3S and how do they relate to lens boards. Thanks Alan Tippett You will find information on all new Copal shutters on Steve Grimes shop web site at: http://www.skgrimes.com/products/index.htm This gives dimensions of the shutters and sizes of mounting holes. Copal is a Japanese shutter of high quality, although I think the old Compurs were better. Nonethelss, Copals are very widely used for high quality lenses and are about the only game in town. Copal makes both settible and self-setting shutters. They call the self-setting variety "press" shutters but this is a misuse of the term. A press shutter was a shutter with a blade arrestor allowing ground glass focusing without changing the speed setting. Self-setting shutters are convenient and simple, shutters that need to be cocked can have much stronger spring motors and give higher shutter speeds. S.K.Grimes also sells rebuilt old shutters which can sometimes be an economical choice, or in the case of very large shutters, the only choice. -- --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it?
Humm...? Nope, not at all Richard. Self-cocking shutters were called Press
shutters because in the old, old, old days of film packs the news guys (Press Photographers) used them, so all they had to do was pull the tab on the filmpack and shoot without having to recock the shutter. Sort of a primative motordrive. That, by the way, was how that famous sequence of the Hindenburg burning and crashing was shot. The kids who grew up with 35mm often can not understand how that sequence could possibly have been shot with a press camera. You are confusing the Press Shutter with the press-to-focus lever. And yes you are correct they were limited to 1/100 of a second or so. The German made Prontor-Press shutter was the best known of the type. -- Richard Knoppow wrote: self-setting shutters. They call the self-setting variety "press" shutters but this is a misuse of the term. A press shutter was a shutter with a blade arrestor allowing ground glass focusing without changing the speed setting. Self-setting shutters are convenient and simple, shutters that need to be cocked can have much stronger spring motors and give higher shutter speeds. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it?
Humm...? Nope, not at all Richard. Self-cocking shutters were called Press
shutters because in the old, old, old days of film packs the news guys (Press Photographers) used them, so all they had to do was pull the tab on the filmpack and shoot without having to recock the shutter. Sort of a primative motordrive. That, by the way, was how that famous sequence of the Hindenburg burning and crashing was shot. The kids who grew up with 35mm often can not understand how that sequence could possibly have been shot with a press camera. You are confusing the Press Shutter with the press-to-focus lever. And yes you are correct they were limited to 1/100 of a second or so. The German made Prontor-Press shutter was the best known of the type. -- Richard Knoppow wrote: self-setting shutters. They call the self-setting variety "press" shutters but this is a misuse of the term. A press shutter was a shutter with a blade arrestor allowing ground glass focusing without changing the speed setting. Self-setting shutters are convenient and simple, shutters that need to be cocked can have much stronger spring motors and give higher shutter speeds. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it?
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it?
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it?
I do not want to get into a ****ing contest with Richard, so I will not argue
with him except to say that most newspapers usually had more than one camera and/or lens available. I was not there back in the 20's and 30's, but I have talked with old timers myself. Often what they told me, and what Richard says was very very different. On things like grip-n-grins, the mainstay of the old time press, it was usual to shoot one shot on one side of the holder, and a safety shot on the other. The safety shot often was never even processed unless there was a problem, such as someone blinking, with the first shot. However, to the best of my knowledge a working press photographer never went out with just one film holder, and for major events they often used pack film, WeeGee certainly did if you can believe what he said in his books. Funny thing is folks who seem to never have used the stuff, or who have only used the 16 sheet packs made in the 70's with the then new untra-thin film in them, have strange ideas about filmpacks. For one thing you could do just one shot and remove it in the darkroom with out wasting the rest of the pack. However, even back in those days film was not so expensive that a working photographer was afraid to waste the rest of the film in the pack even if he had only shot only 2 or 3 of the 12 sheets of film. And the film in the 12 sheet packs was not all that thin, nor was roll film in the 50's and earlier. -- Rebecca Ore wrote: In article , (Richard Knoppow) wrote: I've never seen the actual negatives of the Hindenburg disaster but doubt very much they were shot on pack film. I thought I'd read somewhere that they were shot by people who didn't use the second sheet of film, just exposed one sheet per holder under conditions where every sheet counted and remembering which sheet was exposed might be a problem. Thought it was posted here, but I could be wrong. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it?
I do not want to get into a ****ing contest with Richard, so I will not argue
with him except to say that most newspapers usually had more than one camera and/or lens available. I was not there back in the 20's and 30's, but I have talked with old timers myself. Often what they told me, and what Richard says was very very different. On things like grip-n-grins, the mainstay of the old time press, it was usual to shoot one shot on one side of the holder, and a safety shot on the other. The safety shot often was never even processed unless there was a problem, such as someone blinking, with the first shot. However, to the best of my knowledge a working press photographer never went out with just one film holder, and for major events they often used pack film, WeeGee certainly did if you can believe what he said in his books. Funny thing is folks who seem to never have used the stuff, or who have only used the 16 sheet packs made in the 70's with the then new untra-thin film in them, have strange ideas about filmpacks. For one thing you could do just one shot and remove it in the darkroom with out wasting the rest of the pack. However, even back in those days film was not so expensive that a working photographer was afraid to waste the rest of the film in the pack even if he had only shot only 2 or 3 of the 12 sheets of film. And the film in the 12 sheet packs was not all that thin, nor was roll film in the 50's and earlier. -- Rebecca Ore wrote: In article , (Richard Knoppow) wrote: I've never seen the actual negatives of the Hindenburg disaster but doubt very much they were shot on pack film. I thought I'd read somewhere that they were shot by people who didn't use the second sheet of film, just exposed one sheet per holder under conditions where every sheet counted and remembering which sheet was exposed might be a problem. Thought it was posted here, but I could be wrong. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
COPAL 1 - Help me!!1 | Massimiliano Spoto | Large Format Photography Equipment | 1 | June 29th 04 06:54 PM |
Copal Shutters, Need Lubrication? | Heinz Grau | Large Format Photography Equipment | 3 | June 25th 04 04:32 PM |
toyo lensboard copal 0 | Matt Ashbrook | Large Format Photography Equipment | 1 | June 25th 04 04:31 PM |