Discussion in 'News - Discussion' started by Liam Clifford, May 19, 2017.
A maximum of 20 exposures? How does that work then?
If the camera is from 1913 then I reckon it's probably one of the early 5x4 Graflex RB models and according to Graflex.org (who seem to be pretty clued-up on these things) the options are:
Film holders - 2 exposures each
Graflex sheet film magazines - 12 exposures
Graflex film pack holders - 12 exposures (no longer available)
Plate film holders (?) - 2 exposures
Graflex roll holders - 6 exposure roll (no longer available)
I've had a bit of a search around the internet and the only piece of Graflex kit that limits you to 20 exposures is the RH-20 back - 20 exposures on a 220 roll of film.
Maybe I'm just over-thinking this. Perhaps his limit of 20 exposures is due to the fact that he can only fit ten film holders in his bag.
Anyway, does anybody here have any idea of why and how he's limited to 20 exposures?
I could edit your post down to 'Why? '
No, I can see the attraction of 'why'. I'm struggling with 'how' he's limited to 20 exposures.
Perhaps I should have edited it down to 'how'!
Maybe that was the number of exposures he managed before the other photographers got fed up of him and the Graflex blocking the view and had him thrown out?
How to get publicity: Do something weird...
Quite. I can only assume that he finds more than 10 DDS too heavy to carry around.
A thought here: Grafmatics are 6 shots, not 12, and often work better with only 5 septums loaded. Four Grafmatics, each a sheath short? Then again, did they make Grafmatics in reflex fitting (locating groove instead of ridge)? I assume they did, but I've never seen 'em. All mine are Graphic fitting.
I've seen plenty of old sports shots in books and I don't think this guy's are anywhere near up to those standards
Possibly because the vast majority of sports photographers used direct vision/rangefinder cameras, as they were vastly easier to use and with far less lag. On the other hand, there's at least one shot there that is brilliant by any standard.
The really streaky pan.
Yes. The best by a long way so far as I'm concerned. The others do nothing for me though.
HI Liam, I see that you have already got 22 posts but have not been very visible. I hope that you will be very visible in future. So a somewhat late welcome.
The Graflex photos have a nice period feel to them except the streaky pan with the modern F1 car. That is so contemporary. At one level Joshua Paul may just be making a point by using a plate camera, however the Graflex was the D5 of its day. His image makes a statement to all of us who whinge about some minor inconvenience of Nikon's or Canon's latest offering.
So lets hope that we see more of Joshua Pauls photographs, and also more new posts in this room of the forum from Liam and perhaps some pictures.
Perhaps he does not have a changing bag.
I used to have 24 double dark slides.
And reloaded them as necessary when on a trip.
What I do not understand is the lack of sharpness, in their day they produced brilliant images, and often used the superb Kodak Ektar lens. But you could fit just about anything.
I had a pre war TP Ruby reflex in the late 40"s fitted with an uncoated ross xpress lens. This could suffer from flair but was exceptionally sharp over the whole field. It was pretty much the British equivalent to his camera. But in 1/4 plate.
That was what struck me as well as the poor tonality. In the old books and magazines the pictures come across as sharp and with smooth tones.
What I am puzzled by is he was inspired by Indy 500 1969 shots.
Surely those shooters would have been using SLRs? LOL
But it appears he is using the 1913 camera as a means to slow down his photography and make more of a thinking process.
Now I think film has a certain look, which straight forward digital does not unless you do some post processing even then there something about film.
But even using digital you should be able to change your shooting process.
So the question is can you get the same feel as these 1913 camera shots using digital? Maybe post processing?
Of course there is one thing about shooting 4x5 film. Each negative in itself becomes a object of art. Its physical, unique. Unlike digital which only exists in a chip or HD somewhere.
Core reason why I shot slide back in the day was that physical small piece of art a slide was.
Unique, created by light and chemicals to produce a small piece of expression which you could make come to life just by holding up to light again.
You are replying to a very old thread. Since the very sad early death of Chris Cheesman, whom we still miss, there seems to be a reluctance for AP staffers to continue the News room although young Liam created a few threads. The reasons for this are not our business.
Separate names with a comma.