PDA

View Full Version : Daryls Franka



taco
11-12-2005, 05:36 PM
Got this one in the reubric For Sale Or Wanted To Buy:
http://f295.tompersinger.com/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b=sale,m=1127620075
Here is a front view how it arrived Attached files http://f295.f295.org/uploads/franka_1_600_4199.jpg (http://f295.f295.org/uploads/franka_1_600_4199.jpg)

taco
11-12-2005, 05:37 PM
And a view from the back with the back open

Attached files http://f295.f295.org/uploads/franka_2_600_4883.jpg (http://f295.f295.org/uploads/franka_2_600_4883.jpg)

taco
11-12-2005, 05:38 PM
Had some strange holes in it

Attached files http://f295.f295.org/uploads/franka_4_600_2758.jpg (http://f295.f295.org/uploads/franka_4_600_2758.jpg)

taco
11-12-2005, 05:39 PM
And a lot of reflecting parts, formerly hidden by the bellow

Attached files http://f295.f295.org/uploads/franka_5_600_1995.jpg (http://f295.f295.org/uploads/franka_5_600_1995.jpg)

taco
11-12-2005, 05:42 PM
After fixing the holes and painting the inside black, I needed something to fix my pinhole and used a piece of thin, cheap laminate parquet

Attached files http://f295.f295.org/uploads/franka_8_600_9097.jpg (http://f295.f295.org/uploads/franka_8_600_9097.jpg)

taco
11-12-2005, 05:44 PM
Next step was to dismantle my old Praktica Super TL (never was happy with the pinhole results with 135 film)
and use the plate with the M42 thread Attached files http://f295.f295.org/uploads/franka_10_600_2029.jpg (http://f295.f295.org/uploads/franka_10_600_2029.jpg)

taco
11-12-2005, 05:46 PM
The Praktica plate glued to the Franka body: Now I have a device that can be fitted with all kinds of M42 lenses, pinholes, filters etc.

Attached files http://f295.f295.org/uploads/franka_11_600_1076.jpg (http://f295.f295.org/uploads/franka_11_600_1076.jpg)

taco
11-12-2005, 05:50 PM
The (second) pinhole of the Praktica, mounted on an extension ring. Poked into a disposable McDonalds ashtray and sanded, sanded, sanded... till I had the feeling that it was thin enough. Pinhole is roughly scanned about 0,311 mm. The Franka construction has a f-length of 46 mm needing a pinhole of 0,30 mm, so 0,311 should do.

Attached files http://f295.f295.org/uploads/franka_12_600_203.jpg (http://f295.f295.org/uploads/franka_12_600_203.jpg)

taco
11-12-2005, 05:52 PM
The finished camera with a to large body cap as shutter, shutter closed. Have to look for a smaller one!

Attached files http://f295.f295.org/uploads/franka_13_600_5311.jpg (http://f295.f295.org/uploads/franka_13_600_5311.jpg)

taco
11-12-2005, 05:56 PM
Same with the shutter open.
The M42 thread principle has the advantage that you can apply filters or even change the extention ring with the pinhole against another one.
Disadvantage: with every changement at least one shot is spoiled or all has to happen in the dark (changing bag ?)

And now:

GO SHOOT SOME FILM Attached files http://f295.f295.org/uploads/franka_14_600_5138.jpg (http://f295.f295.org/uploads/franka_14_600_5138.jpg)

taco
11-12-2005, 05:58 PM
Forgot to mention: For the moment it's still a 6 x 9. Waiting for the first film to see if the vignetting is acceptable, if not, it will be "castrated" into a 6 x 6

ImageMaker
11-12-2005, 06:31 PM
With both 6x9 and 6x6 windows in the back, you could also use this camera for "blender" type images; if you advance on the 6x6 but have the full frame open on 6x9, practically all the film will be double exposed, but you'll have different combinations every 3 cm (I found this out by leaving my Moskva-5 viewfinder and window selector set to 6x6 when I took out the mask to shoot 6x9). You can also use the positions of the 6x6 and 6x9 framing marks to judge lesser overlaps in either format.

moot
11-12-2005, 07:41 PM
Looks really good, taco. My converted Foldex is 45 mm f.l. on 6x9, and I haven't found the light falloff to be too bad.

If you use filters I suggest darkening the front of the pinhole to avoid reflections.

taco
11-12-2005, 08:29 PM
With both 6x9 and 6x6 windows in the back, you could also use this camera for "blender" type images; if you advance on the 6x6 but have the full frame open on 6x9, practically all the film will be double exposed, but you'll have different combinations every 3 cm (I found this out by leaving my Moskva-5 viewfinder and window selector set to 6x6 when I took out the mask to shoot 6x9). You can also use the positions of the 6x6 and 6x9 framing marks to judge lesser overlaps in either format.
As a member of a "serious" photo and slide club I know how difficult it is to make good overflows with slides which you first can compare and put in order on a light bank, so it would be much more difficult to do a good overlapping with film. I would have to take notes of what was on the last image, how was the mood, the light conditions etc etc. No, thanks, ??)
To much work for me, it will be either 6x9 or 6x6 but with the good news of moot I hope 6x9

ImageMaker
11-12-2005, 08:46 PM
Well, worth remembering I've been getting decent coverage on Tri-X of 35x60 mm from a 16 mm projection distance; in your format, that'd be equivalent to about 25 mm. I don't think you'll find the light fall off very objectionable at all from 45 mm (as long as you don't get vignetting from the inside of the extension tube). The much harder part is getting used to a very wide angle view -- I might NEVER get used to the wideness of my GumPintoids, but you're close to twice the equivalent focal length, pretty close to what you'd get with an 18 mm or so on 35 mm, but without the fisheye distortions.

earlj
11-12-2005, 11:04 PM
45 mm is the focal distance of the Aussie folder conversion that Andrew sent me. There is very little fall off on any of the 6X9 images I have taken. The pinhole is .300 mm.

taco
11-13-2005, 07:59 PM
First comparative shots: With the same distance of 70 cm between the cameras and the flowers. As I didn't want to spoil a 120 film for a test, I cut some sheets of Ilford Multigrade 4 glossy slightly bigger then 6 x 9 cm and taped one sheet into my Ansco Shur Shot (f-length = 100 mm) and another one into the new Franka (f-length = 46 mm)
Available light, Ansco 3 hours 20 minutes, Fr anka 2 hours 10 minutes. Paper negatives just scannedand reversed, absolutely no treatment. I think that the vignetting is o.k.
Interesting point: messured with a ruler both have a height of 5,8 cm but the Ansco only a width of 8,1 cm where the Franka has 8,5 mm Attached files http://f295.f295.org/uploads/shur_shot_flowers_1615.jpg (http://f295.f295.org/uploads/shur_shot_flowers_1615.jpg) http://f295.f295.org/uploads/franka_flowers_6567.jpg (http://f295.f295.org/uploads/franka_flowers_6567.jpg)

taco
11-13-2005, 08:02 PM
Here are two digital shots: The first one corresponding to 50 mm for 135 film and the second one zoomed on the flowers:

Attached files http://f295.f295.org/uploads/digicam_flowers_1_1589.jpg (http://f295.f295.org/uploads/digicam_flowers_1_1589.jpg) http://f295.f295.org/uploads/digicam_flowers_2_197.jpg (http://f295.f295.org/uploads/digicam_flowers_2_197.jpg)

ImageMaker
11-13-2005, 10:04 PM
Yep, a lot of the old box cameras had the same frame size as an Autographic camera, which allowed a big gutter between frames for the one-line note that could be written on the film through the door on an Autographic back. At some point, someone figured out that there was an extra 5-6 mm of wasted image space there if your camera wasn't an autographic, and started making the image mask that much wider (probably coincident with introducing a different size of contact print paper, or a different mask for a roll contact printer).

I agree, I don't think you'll find the light fall-off at all objectionable on film, since film has a lot more latitude than paper in the first place.

taco
11-16-2005, 07:16 PM
Looks really good, taco. My converted Foldex is 45 mm f.l. on 6x9, and I haven't found the light falloff to be too bad.

If you use filters I suggest darkening the front of the pinhole to avoid reflections.
If you look at the shot taken with the Franka and compare it with the Ansco shot: I believe that I already have reflections. The spot was left up after the camera directed to the flowers with a glass shower door in the background. I believe that this glass reflected some of the light straight onto the pinhole which reflected it back. That could explain why the middle of the photo is lighter

murrayatuptowngallery
11-17-2005, 04:17 AM
Note the freedom from optical distortion in the high-tech pinhole photos, and the dizzying pincushion distortion (crooked walls) in the digital one. I feel seasick!