Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2011 21:51:01 GMT -5
Below are a couple of shots made back in 2005 on Tri-X using a FED 1 and a Graphic 35. It's not a really fair comparison because the FED shot was outside and the Graphic 35 was inside wide open at a slow shutter speed. First the FED 1, made in 1952. The Fed 1 is a dead copy of the Leica II and doesn't do a bad job. The Graphic 35 also was made in the early to mid 50s I think. It has a push button focusing system that for me was difficult to fine focus up close to a subject. As I said, this shot was wide open while the FED shot was probably at F11.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Feb 5, 2011 6:09:51 GMT -5
Here is the Graphic 35. It is an excellent well built camera with a unique design in its method of focusing. Its split image rangefinder is bright and clear and a pleasure to use. Wayne is right about the close focusing. The two push buttons are a trifle too easy to push. They would be perfect if there was a way to tighten their travel just a bit. Its shutter release is exceptionally well positioned falling naturally under the middle finger as it does. Mickey
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Feb 5, 2011 7:44:47 GMT -5
That Graphic 35 is another interesting camera. I would love to see how that focusing system works internally. The styling is pretty smooth too.
Bob
|
|
photax
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1,915
|
Post by photax on Feb 5, 2011 8:45:24 GMT -5
Mickey, a very interesting unusually styled camera, I have never seen before. Is this a Graflex model ? Wayne, I also like the FED 1 ( have a Fed 1f ), unfortunately I have not taken pictures with it for many years and my negatives got lost, but I still have some 35mm films in my fridge . Nice pictures ! MIK
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Feb 5, 2011 9:31:38 GMT -5
MIK,
It was manufactured by GRAFLEX, INC., Rochester New York starting in 1955.
Mickey
I just noticed marked on the camera "LENSES AND SHUTTER MADE IN GERMANY (WEST)"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2011 10:04:34 GMT -5
Mickey:
I thought my manufacturing date on the Graphic 35 was probably a little early. It's a well-built camera and I'm sure it takes better pictures that the one shown here.
MIK: I think this photo was taken with the FED 1G. I have a 1F that is about as smooth in operation as a Leica copy gets. I had Oleg Kahlyavin put new curtains. Oleg also rebuilt a 1936 FED 1B "NKVD" for me. Generally I preferred the Zorkis over the FEDs as far as manufacturing quality but I think I have got better pictures with the FEDs.
Wayne
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2011 10:26:28 GMT -5
I may have to take back what I said about the Graphic35. I found a couple of daylight shot and it doesn't seem to do a lot better stopped down (although the photos were overexposed). Might be why the camera didn't catch on.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Feb 5, 2011 15:21:47 GMT -5
Wayne,
To paraphrase the NRA --- It's not the camera that makes the picture. It's the photographer.
I have made plenty of poorly exposed photos. Surely one or two others have as well.
Mickey
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2011 16:42:31 GMT -5
What! Are you suggesting I could take a bad picture? I'm deeply hurt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2011 16:44:41 GMT -5
Mickey:
If I remember correctly they made an f/3.5 and an f/2.8 version of the Graphic 35. Mine is the 2.8. I may have to get a roll of C41 Black and white and try again.
W.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Feb 5, 2011 18:54:40 GMT -5
What! Are you suggesting I could take a bad picture? I'm deeply hurt. Not you, Wayne. Me. My camera is the f3.5 Why C41 B&W? Is there no longer any regular B&W available? I think your "over exposed" photos just need a little longer exposure during printing or, perhaps, a little burning in. They look perfectly good with detail in the highlights.There isn't much one can do with a bald sky. Mickey
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2011 22:38:52 GMT -5
I always get the best results from thin black and white negatives. I was taught young to shoot that way. You get overexposed or overdeveloped negs and the highlights block up and they get contrasty and the grain is enhanced. I really like the Kodak C41 black and white film. It's got really nice latitude and you can scan the negatives using programs like Digital Ice that remove dust and scratch marks. Those programs won't work with silver-based negatives.
|
|
|
Post by olroy2044 on Feb 6, 2011 8:29:14 GMT -5
I have to agree with Wayne about the C41 Kodak. When I first tried it, my immediate reaction was that I didn't like it. But not having darkroom facilities (or daylight tanks, etc) made the C41 stuff much more convenient than conventional B&W. As I used it, I came to really like it. I only wish that 200 speed was still available for use in my older cameras. 400 speed sort of pushes the envelope for some of them. Ilfa used to make a 200, but I can no longer find it listed on their website. Maybe I'm just not seeing it. Roy
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Feb 6, 2011 9:37:29 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2011 10:58:39 GMT -5
Everything I've seen suggests Ilford is better than the Kodak C41 black and white but I thought Ilford went out of business.
|
|