Graflex! a question

When it comes to talk on how good or bad the standard issue lenses for the
'Crown and 'Speed it depends on how far you are going to test them.
A 127mm Ektar ought to manage to produce a reasonable 20x16 when well
stopped down f16, f22).
It depends on how sharp the corners are going to be.
Now I have no acquaintance with the Wollensak 135mm.
These lenses weren't meant to be used to make exhibition enlargements to be
honest.
Perhaps someone can tell us what newspapers did in order to make printing
plates from the image and what size enlargement they worked with.

I don't know if the originator of the post won the camera in question. I
think a Pacemaker 'Speed would be a better option so you can use barrel
lenses.
I own a 'Crown myself & was looking at a old 6 1/2" f6.8 Goerz Dagor.
However getting SK Grimes to mount it in a shutter was as expensive as
buying a modern lens on the used market.

The 135mm Xenar is still only a basic 4 element, 3 group 'Tessar' type and
MAY suffer from unsharp corners. It should be some improvement on the
Wollensak lenses but that all depends on how its been treated.
I was more concerned that the bellows were good when bidding on my Crown
Graphic.

On 3/31/2004 12:05 AM Neil Purling spake thus:

When it comes to talk on how good or bad the standard issue lenses for the
'Crown and 'Speed it depends on how far you are going to test them.
A 127mm Ektar ought to manage to produce a reasonable 20x16 when well
stopped down f16, f22).
It depends on how sharp the corners are going to be.
Now I have no acquaintance with the Wollensak 135mm.
These lenses weren't meant to be used to make exhibition enlargements to be
honest.
Perhaps someone can tell us what newspapers did in order to make printing
plates from the image and what size enlargement they worked with.

I can't give you all the gory details, but you can pretty well imagine for
yourself, based on what old newspapers look like: pictures were generally
pretty small, with a width of two or three columns. Plus, keep in mind that
they were printed with very coarse halftone screens (65 lines per inch), so
they weren't exactly full of exquisite detail.

Any fairly modern 35mm camera could easily match the image quality, given the
printing methods used.

The 135mm Xenar is still only a basic 4 element, 3 group 'Tessar' type and
MAY suffer from unsharp corners. It should be some improvement on the
Wollensak lenses but that all depends on how its been treated.
I was more concerned that the bellows were good when bidding on my Crown
Graphic.

Anecdotal experience here (cf. "Dr. Slick's" continuing saga) shows that these
particular Xenars are pretty ****-poor performers.


--
.... but never have I encountered a guy who could not be bothered
to make his own case on his own show.

- Eric Alterman on his appearance on Dennis Miller's bomb of a show
on CNBC (3/17/04)

Well the prints they used to make the newpaper printing plates from were 8x10's,
sometimes cropped 8x10's. Then that print itself was often cropped, quite often
drastically. Going back to the 40's and earlier 35mm was impossibly inadequate
for newspaper work. In fact 120 really only started being good enough in the
50's. By the 60's 35mm would do the job, but you needed to pretty much use the
whole frame.

For those who don't remember, up into the 50's films were much more grainy than
newer films. It took ultra-fine grain developers, and very careful processing
technique to produce decent prints from 35mm. They did not call it miniature
film for no reason. Yes, magazines like the National Geographic were using 35mm
color but they were very expensive to produce. The weekly news magazines (Life,
Look, etc.) had the time to mess with 35mm B&W, but no daily newspaper did.

Now, about those lenses...

My experience is that many of the old lenses that are disparaged here were quite
good. There seems to be two things going on here.

One is this perfect is not good enough BS that you see nowadays.

The second is we are talking about old, old, old lenses. You have no idea what
they have been through. Maybe someone remounted it and got the spacing wrong.
Maybe someone swapped elements. Maybe a haze of something is on the lens. Maybe
the cements in it are deteriated. Maybe it has been dropped. You just never know
what you are getting.

I do know that in the 60's a Wollensack Enlarging Pro-Raptar was considered
about the best enlarging lens made. That does not jibe very well with the idea
that Wollensack lens are shoddy, poor quality things. Yes, many older lens were
not up to the quality of modern computer designed and manufactured lenses. That
however does not mean they were junk. While the Speed Graphic was the preeminent
news camera, it was also used by about 80% of the professional photographers in
the US for commercial work as well. It was the only camera many professionals
owned. I have seen old 20x25 prints made from Speed Graphic negatives. They did
not look in anyway inadequate to me.

--

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 3/31/2004 12:05 AM Neil Purling spake thus:

When it comes to talk on how good or bad the standard issue lenses for
the
'Crown and 'Speed it depends on how far you are going to test them.
A 127mm Ektar ought to manage to produce a reasonable 20x16 when well
stopped down f16, f22).
It depends on how sharp the corners are going to be.
Now I have no acquaintance with the Wollensak 135mm.
These lenses weren't meant to be used to make exhibition enlargements
to be
honest.
Perhaps someone can tell us what newspapers did in order to make printing
plates from the image and what size enlargement they worked with.


I can't give you all the gory details, but you can pretty well imagine
for yourself, based on what old newspapers look like: pictures were
generally pretty small, with a width of two or three columns. Plus, keep
in mind that they were printed with very coarse halftone screens (65
lines per inch), so they weren't exactly full of exquisite detail.

Any fairly modern 35mm camera could easily match the image quality,
given the printing methods used.

The 135mm Xenar is still only a basic 4 element, 3 group 'Tessar' type
and
MAY suffer from unsharp corners. It should be some improvement on the
Wollensak lenses but that all depends on how its been treated.
I was more concerned that the bellows were good when bidding on my Crown
Graphic.


Anecdotal experience here (cf. "Dr. Slick's" continuing saga) shows that
these particular Xenars are pretty ****-poor performers.

Before we all forget, the quality of pictures taken by photogs using
stock Graflex 4 x 5s was excellent. Check out the stuff by Bourke-White
and Weegee.

Regards,

Marv

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 3/31/2004 12:05 AM Neil Purling spake thus:

When it comes to talk on how good or bad the standard issue lenses for
the
'Crown and 'Speed it depends on how far you are going to test them.
A 127mm Ektar ought to manage to produce a reasonable 20x16 when well
stopped down f16, f22).
It depends on how sharp the corners are going to be.
Now I have no acquaintance with the Wollensak 135mm.
These lenses weren't meant to be used to make exhibition enlargements
to be
honest.
Perhaps someone can tell us what newspapers did in order to make printing
plates from the image and what size enlargement they worked with.


I can't give you all the gory details, but you can pretty well imagine
for yourself, based on what old newspapers look like: pictures were
generally pretty small, with a width of two or three columns. Plus, keep
in mind that they were printed with very coarse halftone screens (65
lines per inch), so they weren't exactly full of exquisite detail.

Any fairly modern 35mm camera could easily match the image quality,
given the printing methods used.

The 135mm Xenar is still only a basic 4 element, 3 group 'Tessar' type
and
MAY suffer from unsharp corners. It should be some improvement on the
Wollensak lenses but that all depends on how its been treated.
I was more concerned that the bellows were good when bidding on my Crown
Graphic.


Anecdotal experience here (cf. "Dr. Slick's" continuing saga) shows that
these particular Xenars are pretty ****-poor performers.

"Marv Soloff" wrote

Before we all forget, the quality of pictures taken by photogs using
stock Graflex 4 x 5s was excellent. Check out the stuff by Bourke-White
and Weegee.

Pictures? Like photographs?
Now, what do pictures have to do with it?

Marv, you probably have the flu and it has made you confused. Have a
good rest, drink plenty of fluids ...

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

Perhaps someone can tell us what newspapers did in order to make printing
plates from the image and what size enlargement they worked with.

No enlargement. That's what the big negative was for.

"Marv Soloff" wrote in message
...
Before we all forget, the quality of pictures taken by photogs using
stock Graflex 4 x 5s was excellent. Check out the stuff by Bourke-White
and Weegee.

Weegee? Fine techincal quality? Are you friggin serious? His lack of
technique is what makes his work remarkable. IMHO!

"Tom" tom@localhost wrote in message
...
[...] In fact 120 really only started being good enough in the
50's. By the 60's 35mm would do the job, but you needed to pretty much use
the
whole frame.

In your opinion, what was the big turning point that made 35mm acceptable
for newspaper work?

"jjs"
Weegee? Fine techincal quality? Are you friggin serious? His lack of
technique is what makes his work remarkable. IMHO!


There was that movie called "The public eye" starring
Joe Pesci, wasn't that about Weegee? A great flick too.

Alex

In your opinion, what was the big turning point that made 35mm acceptable
for newspaper work?



WWII

Graflex was made into the '70s but the life blood had been sucked out with the
flexability and ease of 35mm.
_________________
Ready, Fire, AIM.
Bruce
Brooklyn, N.Y.