600 Sq. In. neg I made on Saturday

[Frank Petronio]

If we got enough people together we could spell out "A-P-U-G" on a tailings pile.

 

[darinwc]

I took a crack at the banding:

I took a crack at the banding. I think I did a decent job, I am in no way an editing expert. I used the windows version of GIMP.
Dead Link Removed

A real contact print must be extremely impressive. What a great job Jim!

Questions:

Do these cameras have rise/fall?

Where in the world did you get film for this crazy thing?

 

[Fast Frankie]

WOW

That shot absolutly ROCKS!!
I'll be joining Per later this month for his workshop. I am SO looking forward to checking out that camera

FF

 

[PhotoBob]

No question, this is an incredible image.

 

[rbarker]

Excellent test shot, Jim - even with the banding and smearing. I'm sure I'm not the only one who will be interested in hearing your tale of the CLA/repair process.

Wanna trade contact prints?

 

[Len Robertson]

I finally found my APUG password, so I can jump in here. I hope I don't offend anyone by mentioning one of the "other" forums, but we have been having a Cirkut discussion over on photo.net Classic Cameras:
Dead Link Removed
Anyone getting Cirkut fever from seeing Jim's pic might want to give it a read.

 

[removed account4]

jim

you rock!

 

[jimgalli]

I took a crack at the banding. I think I did a decent job, I am in no way an editing expert. I used the windows version of GIMP.
Dead Link Removed

A real contact print must be extremely impressive. What a great job Jim!

Questions:

Do these cameras have rise/fall?

Where in the world did you get film for this crazy thing?

Nice work. Bottom line is; you could set up a 10mp digital on a tripod and make 27 exposures 10 degrees apart, throw out the left and right 1/3, and stitch together all the center sections and probably have as good or better than what the old camera can do. I think you need to have a certain enjoyment of the historic processes in mind and a bit of the heroic to want to play with these old dinosaurs. It also helps to be certifiably insane. Probably boils down to whether you have the geek gene and enjoy the computer stuff or the motorhead gene and enjoy the mechanical, arithmetical and chemical challenges of trying to do what a commercial photog considered ordinary 80 years ago.

Yes, they have mostly rise, not much fall, and the film is OOD aerial recon Plus X I bought on Ebay a couple of years ago with this process in mind.

I'm already seeing how some folks get consumed by pano photography. At first I simply wanted this tool in my closet with all the others. But this may be an area where in order to be really good, time wise, it would have to be just about all you do. I'm not ready for that kind of commitment. OTOH, looking at the finished contact, even a crummy one, I have to say it has a kind of overwhelming impact. They have the potential to be very powerful. Extremely. So why do they end up hanging in museums with 99.8% of the people walking through not even seeing it hanging there? Sensory information overload?

Interesting side note. AFAIK only one 22" Cirkut camera was ever built. It's remains are in Alaska owned by Ron Klein. Apparently it was in Tonopah Nevada at some point because we have 2, 22" X 80+" panoramic photographs of Tonopah about 1910 hanging in our museum.

 

[darinwc]

GIMP, art

BTW, here is the technique I used in GIMP..
First I cut a thin strip of the sky onto another layer.
I pasted it over and over again until it filled up the frame.
I blurred it some horizontally, then I did a massive vertical blur.
That gave me a layer that pretty much equalled the vertical banding.
I changed that layer to a negative, and mixed it with the original layer using an additive method. By adjusting the curve of the negative layer, I was able to pretty much even the exposure out. Though I should have lowered the values of the original a bit first, because i ended up blowing out the whites.
Anyway, I bet you could use this to print a digital negative mask for your originals, if the cla on the camera doesnt help.

regarding scanning: could you use a document scanner (one with a paper feeder rather than a single-document flatbed) to feed a print through it?

Also, I noticed some of the areas were 'streched' horizontally. was this an artefact of the image stitching software or the inconsitant speeds of the camera?

 

[Len Robertson]

Jim - Very interesting you have the two 22" prints at your local museum. I knew Ron had the camera, but never before knew of any prints. According to the wonderful Cirkut historian Bill McBride, the Rochester Panoramic Camera Company was incorporated in Rock Springs Wyoming in 1904. Production was started in Rochester NY in 1904. Rock Springs and Tonopah aren't all that far from each other. I wonder if there is any connection between the Rock Springs guys and the 22" camera? Is there a photographer's name on the prints? Maybe Ron has figured out the 22" history, although the last time I talked with him (4 years ago?) I don't think he knew. I'm going to email him about this thread and maybe he will have time to add some information.

I'm predicting Jim is going to be so caught up in Cirkut photography he won't have time to buy all the neat lenses on eBay.

Someone once told me when people buy their first computer they think it is more or less like a TV or stereo - you plug it in and it does what you want. In reality, a computer is like a pet or a child - it get sick or does "wrong" things for no reason, and you need to learn to deal with it. From my experience, a Cirkut is much more in the second category. After many, many hours, the Cirkut will teach you what it wants you to do, and may reward you with usable negatives. I even wonder if calling a Cirkut a "camera" is quite right.

 

[jimgalli]

Also, I noticed some of the areas were 'streched' horizontally. was this an artefact of the image stitching software or the inconsitant speeds of the camera?

Inconsistent speed of camera and related to the other issues.

 

[MattCarey]

Frank is right of course. I made 8 different scans and stitched them together in Photoshop. Actually a couple of saucers did go by but alas, they were going against the camera rotation and it didn't catch them.

Admit it, Jim--

the little green men loaned you their Nikon Coolscan MegaDelux Alpha Centauri negative scanner.

Matt

By the way, I see an interesting strategy you have here. You post images that clearly show that you are crazy (who else would have done this?) However, by sinking all your money into old cameras, your family has no incentive to have you put away. Clever!

 

[panoramic]

Floyd Shellor owned the 22 inch Cirkut

Hi from Alaska.

California photographer Floyd Shellor custom made the huge 22 inch cirkut camera that I own sometime around 1910. He eventually moved to Skagway Alaska taking the camera with him but never managed to use it again. When he moved to Arizona the camera was left behind. Sadly over the years parts were lost and damaged. I found the camera in an abandoned warehouse about ten years ago. The roof was leaking and the camera was wet and muddy. It is missing the lens, bellows, and turntable. I suppose it could be restored, but as a museum piece, it is more important to leave it alone. I might make a totally new copy someday.

I did find his business card, it reads:

PANORAMIC VIEWS​

THE NATIONAL VIEW COMPANY

F W SHELLOR, Traveling manager

OPERATOR OF THE LARGEST PANORAMIC MACHINES IN THE WORLD

P O BOX 103 SISSON, CALIFORNIA

​

Shellor took many panoramic views in Alaska using a #10 Cirkut. One of my favorite images is a view of Mt. McKinley. The site he chose is only accessable via dog sled and probably several days travel as well.

Ultra large panoramic photography is still alive. I for one use a #16 Cirkut and have just finished making a reproduction of George Lawrence's "captive airship" that uses film 24 inches high by 60 inches long. You might find this link interesting. It has a photo of the camera.

Lawrence Panoramic Camera Project

Hope this helps,

Ron Klein
Juneau, Alaska

 

[127]

That is impressive - I thought I'd cracked it when I viewed it stretched across TWO monitors, but even then I only got about half of it. If I can just find another couple of monitors...

Ian

 

[jimgalli]

Ron, it's great to have you aboard! Thanks for the post. What's the big brassie on the Lawrence? 24" Dagor?

Never mind. Once I had my lunch in front of me I went back and read the page. 19" Dagor. Hey, I was close.

Been thinking about this and I want to modify one other statement I made above. You could stitch up a pretty good static pano like the one I shot with a digital, but there's no other way to do a stadium full of people like Clayton Tume does except with a rotation camera.

 

[MattCarey]

Wow,

that gets my vote for best first post to APUG!

Matt

 

[Len Robertson]

Ron - Thank you so much for the information on your #22. I may have misunderstood that you didn't know the history of the camera when you first found it. You did answer my question of whether the original Rock Springs people had anything to do with this camera. It sounds like probably not.

A couple of technical questions - Is the looseness of the film spool on the pins a possible cause of banding? I remember a tip in the IAPP newsletter about using a brass tubing sleeve to make the spool a little snugger on the pins. Keith Henry who owned Libby Studios in Spokane and shot groups for many years said he would tear a piece of film wrapper foil and put it over the pins. I think he claimed the older Cirkut spools had a smaller hole in the ends and fit tighter.

What is your experience shooting in the wind? It seems to me anything above the slightest breeze is going to shake the camera and cause uneven running but maybe I'm scaring myself. The wind blows here in eastern Washington quite a bit of the time (except the days I'm at work). I suspect it does in NV where Jim is too.

 

[darinwc]

OK, Everyone who has checked Ebay for panoramic cameras since reading this thread,
CONFESS NOW!

 

[jimgalli]

OK, Everyone who has checked Ebay for panoramic cameras since reading this thread,
CONFESS NOW!

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

In fairness, it's incomplete.

 

[Len Robertson]

I intended to warn Jim it is difficult to have only one Cirkut. You get one, then see one in better shape, or a bigger one, or a smaller one, always dreaming of the Holy Grail of Cirkuts - a #16. But since Jim confesses to having three, I'm obviously too late with my warning.

 

[finesilverprint]

Great job Jim, you're an inspiration to us all! I'm interested to hear your method of processing the negative. It just seems like a difficult task in the darkroom. Do you have negative sleeves for this size negative?

 

[jimgalli]

Great job Jim, you're an inspiration to us all! I'm interested to hear your method of processing the negative. It just seems like a difficult task in the darkroom. Do you have negative sleeves for this size negative?

I cut a 7 1/2 foot piece of 3" s**t pipe that was laying out in the back yard. Put a cap on one end and a bushing for threaded plug on the other. 2 liters of PyrocatHD got the job done. Not sure I consider the method a success though as the verso of the neg was really scratched up. These store nicely in a compact roll. No sleeve needed thank goodness. The only way I have to print so far though is to cut up 2 sheets of 16X20 paper and make 4 8X20 prints of the whole. I overlapped and then cut the pieces perfectly so no joint is really seen. Contacting as a whole is a future challenge. Plus I may not be so heroic in the length next time. 60 inches seems like a nice conservative number.

 

[pelerin]

I cut a 7 1/2 foot piece of 3" s**t pipe that was laying out in the back yard. Put a cap on one end and a bushing for threaded plug on the other. 2 liters of PyrocatHD got the job done. Not sure I consider the method a success though as the verso of the neg was really scratched up. These store nicely in a compact roll. No sleeve needed thank goodness. The only way I have to print so far though is to cut up 2 sheets of 16X20 paper and make 4 8X20 prints of the whole. I overlapped and then cut the pieces perfectly so no joint is really seen. Contacting as a whole is a future challenge. Plus I may not be so heroic in the length next time. 60 inches seems like a nice conservative number.

Hi Jim,
That sounds like fun. As someone noted further up the thread you know you have stumbled onto a challenging pursuit when you plan repairs and modifications before the next shot... sorta like exchanging engines between races. As far a printing goes you might see if you could work the Galli magic and find a deal on a long roll contact proofer. These were used both for proofing long roll for commercial applications (e.g., school portait work) and for continuous contact printing of aerial camera film. (as in Uncle Sam) If 8" by however is not big enough Seitz made beautiful panoramic enlargers that worked like gaint scanning slit cameras. I don't know if they made one big enough for 8" film but, when you get the pan bug real bad, you can liqidate all all that old glass and inquire about some custom Swiss machine work. Better be seated though. I wonder if for developing could make a giant reel?
Celac.

 

[panoramic]

Banding issues

>A couple of technical questions - Is the looseness of the film spool on the pins a possible cause of banding?

Some people believe this works but the logic is wrong. The film spool needs to flex a bit so the film can align itself with the take-up drum. I use an oversized spool in my #10 made from pvc pipe and brass ends turned on a lathe. They are tighter than the plastic spools made today, but no tighter than the original wood/metal spools.

Banding issues are mostly caused by:

1. No oil on the gear train bearings

2. Too much oil on the gear train and grit is jammed in the teeth.

3. Improper meshing of pinion gear to the ring gear. Too loose causes fine line bands because there is a point where the teeth actually have a gap of no contact causing the camera to stop until the next tooth contacts. Too tight of a mesh causes binding due to the lack of precision in the camera.

4. Gears are not preloaded. Oldtimers would rest their finger on the camera while running to cause drag in the gear train. I’ve seen Mickey Mouse inventions to do the same thing but they rarely work.

5. Tripod is not level or stable. Level is a must. If the legs are too close together then it is wobbly, too spread and you must be a midget.

6. Wheels on turntable are worn and the ring gear is dented. The center hole is supposed to be loose. Proper alignment is made by the outer wheels tracking. If they are worn or have flat spots it isn’t going to help. Some people have put ball bearing in place of the wheels, but since they have wide surfaces, they skid and that is bad too. Ball bearings need brass tires that are thin. DO NOT TRY TO PUNCH OUT THE AXLE PINS. This requires a special puller or you will break the casting.

7. The camera is too old. The spring is weak, probably someone squirted oil on it and it is gummy. The spring should be rust free and lubed with powered graphite. Some cameras had the original springs replaced with a heavier spring for more power but it makes shorter shots. I do confess to having hotrodded one of my #10 cameras and I love it. I removed the original guts and carefully preserved them for museum purposes and made an entirely new lower plate using only two gears and a Swiss motor. All of this can be reversed to original condition quite easily. When I do large groups, I always have a spare camera on hand that is a wind up original.

>What is your experience shooting in the wind?

I have shot scenic views here in Alaska and the Yukon where I needed my assistant to sit under the tripod and hold it so it would not blow over. You could see the bellows flop in the wind but it still never caused banding. Remember that only ¼ inch of film is being exposed at any given moment and if the system has drag on it, it will be just fine. Make sure the tripod legs are spread out enough. You can experiment with this and see what it takes to make it the most stable. This really is important. Also, don’t try to adapt the camera to a modern tripod. That doesn’t work and looks ugly too.

Ron in Alaska

 

[Len Robertson]

Ron - I can't thank you enough for taking the time to answer my questions in such detail. I've gone through the motor, including spring, on my #8, and while I may have done something wrong, I'm going to leave it alone for the time being and concentrate on the other areas you mentioned. On my last roll, I did three shots. The first two showed slight banding, while the last showed much more. At the time, I wondered if the difference in the third shot was a pinion gear/gearhead mesh error on my part. I knew not to get the mesh too tight, but I hadn't realized not enough mesh could be a problem, although now I understand why. I'll take a closer look at the condition of the #8 gearhead, too. I think the rollers are good enough, but I may have missed something. I was doing the "finger drag" on my last roll, but on the third shot, a friend stopped and was distracting me, so I may not have been as careful as the first two shots.

The information about shooting in the wind is great. I've been hesitant to shoot in anything above the gentlest breeze. Since I was already having problems, I didn't want to add another variable. Thanks again for all the information.

Len