Film Holder question

RobertP · Jan 10, 2008

Again I spoke to soon. The reason the guy wants me to send my camera-back to him was so he can mill it to fit his rib lock. The whole reason I paid for custom built holders and supplied him with my camera- back was so they would fit my camera without any extra milling to the back. He has no intention of fixing the slop in the septum to film rail ( filmgate) issue. I can't believe this guy. Robert

mark · Jan 10, 2008

That just sounds wrong. Real wrong. Don't let him do anything to your camera.

RobertP · Jan 10, 2008

Mark, Trust me, he'll never get near my camera with so much as a nail file. He's actually trying to tell me that this much slop is a normal tolerance. Maybe I should post my picture here and ask the apug community if I look like I just fell off a turnip truck.

Sal Santamaura · Jan 10, 2008

RobertP said:
...Maybe I should post my picture here and ask the apug community if I look like I just fell off a turnip truck.

No, I think it would be much more valuable if you post the manufacturer's name.

cp goerz · Jan 11, 2008

After reading this thread I thought I'd check my holders and found that the number of sheets varied all over the place. I too shoot 8x20 and have about 20 holders, mainly AWB, Korona and a few Wisner holders. The AWB were clearly the best(least number of sheets that could fit) followed by Korona and then the Wisner, Mr W never seemed to have made a good holder though I do have a few of his cameras.

When you consider that the center of the sheet is quite a bit closer than the ends of the sheet when measured from the lens just how accurate do you have to be? There is probably so much slop in LF cameras between the 'actual' focussing plane to where the film finally sits that it probably isn't that much of an issue as you may think.

The depth of the groove on the film back will have no effect on any other holder you are using, whats the problem with having it tweaked to fit your holders?

CP Goerz

RobertP · Jan 11, 2008

Sal, I am trying to come to some resolve with the manufacturer. At the moment they neither want to fix the filmgate issue or refund my money. If this continues I will be posting the name of the manufacturer complete with pictures on every photo forum on the net. I will also be sending photos and letters to every camera manufacturer in the world, alarming them of the quality and the service I have received. cp goerz, deepening the groove in the camera back will not solve this problem. But keep in mind I paid for custom built holders plus sent them my camera- back so they could be built to fit. I hardly consider being able to slide four sheets of film into one side of a holder "close enough" and paying for custom built holders and supplying them with my camera-back, having to remill my back shouldn't even be an issue. Robert

Rob Vinnedge · Jan 11, 2008

Richard T Ritter said:
There is a ULF standard that the manufacturers are now using. It is the older holders and the few that decide to make up their own that cause the problems. If a camera is made right the S & S, Lotus, ABW holders will all work. This probably will be address in the article in View Camera. If you are not sure you should have the camera back and the holders checked.

The light leak is where the dark slide goes in the holder this can be a problem on any size holder. Best to lay the dark slide or drape the dark cloth over the top when doing vertical with the light source over head.

Richard,

Perhaps this would be a good time to post, once and for all, the definitive ULF standard to which you refer. Not everyone will see it in the magazine. Are you referring to the standard set by Canham, which S&S claims to follow? If so, Canham's list is not quite complete (as far as I have been able to determine), as it omits 16X20 and 20X24. And then there is the oddball, 14X17, which seems to be the ANSI version. Chamonix lists some of their holders as Lotus-like, or Phillips-like, or just plain Chamonix.

I would love to see a definitive standard that manufacturers plan to use from now on.

RobertP · Jan 11, 2008

If I don't get any resolve from this soon maybe I will submit my own" buyer beware article" complete with photos to Mr Simmons at View Camera. I would hate to see others have to go through this.

RobertP · Jan 11, 2008

Dear Apug community, I just received my last and final email from the filmholder manufacturer. Earlier today he had offered to take the filmholders back but only to reimburse me for 75 % of my money. I just received this email a few moments ago. I quote. " Robert, I am not obligated to give back your money at all. You can keep the holders. I do not want your business at all with you. I did my part giving you the best in holder design with the Wisner holder you gave me for outside dimensional accuracy. I will however cut the riblock handle so your holders will fit flush in your camera back! Have a nice day! Alan" unquote. Not only did I provide Mr. Brubaker with a Wisner holder but I also supplied him with the camera back. Now I will be posting pics of the entire filmholder and the shoddy workmanship this man has given me. I paid this man over 2000.00 for custom made filmholders and this is the kind of service I get in return. In the pictures (I will post soon) you will see that a AWB holder has an inner riblock and a top rib that is suppose to snap over the top of the camera back. Even if he milled the top rib to clear the camera back he would mill right through the rib plate mounting screws. This fix would obviously not work. For those who claim that his filmgates are the closest tolerances, all I can say is take a look at the pics I posted showing 4 sheets of film inserted into one side of his holders. I realize that I am not buying as many holders as say the Ebony Company or other large buyers but I would have least expected the same customer service that anyone else would receive. 10 hours ago he was willing to reimburse 75% of my money, now that has changed. He won't make right on the filmgate slop because he knows he would have to rebuild the holders and that would cost him time and money. He doesn't care if his cutomers are satisfied with the quality they receive or not. He claims that all of his holders have the same tolerance as mine and that is just a downright lie and I wish I could afford to fly to California and call him a liar to his face. I've already compared my holders to other older AWB holders and this claim he makes is absolutely not true. Taking legal action is probably out of the question since I'm not in the state of Ca. I guess I am just out over 2000.00. Robert

RobertP · Jan 11, 2008

Brubaker top rib

Here is a picture of the AWB Brubaker holder. These holders have 2 ribs, an inner rib inside the back like most holders plus a top rib that is suppose to snap over the camera back. The next pic is the holder loaded into the camera. Notice if he mills enough away to clear the camera back he will be milling into the screw hole that attaches the rib plate. Obviously this fix wouldn't work. His next move would be to widen the groove in my back an extra 3/16 " then that would require me to have to pull the film holder up that far off the bottom of the back to get it to engage. This is why I paid for custom built holders so I could avoid these kind of fixes. Not to mention the other problems.(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

RobertP · Jan 11, 2008

By the top rib not seating over the camera back this is holding the inner rib away somewhat from the groove inside the back, naturally causing light leaks. Robert

roodpe · Jan 11, 2008

Did you send the back to the film holder manufacturer when you ordered the holders? If not, how do you know the problem is with the holders? It looks like you are using a Wisner camera from the photos. Wisner made holders for his camera and the dimensions might not be the same as the current standardized dimensions Richard Ritter talked about.

RobertP · Jan 11, 2008

Yes I did. If you go back and read you'll see that I have mentioned numerous times that I sent a Wisner holder and the camera back to him. As an owner of a couple of Wisner cameras I am fully aware of the variables in his camera designs. This is why I paid to have custom built holders. But aside from the rib lock issue the filmgate allows for 4 sheets of film to be loaded on each side of the holder. Sorry everyone if I keep repeating myself. Robert

roodpe · Jan 11, 2008

RobertP said:
Yes I did. If you go back and read you'll see that I have mentioned numerous times that I sent a Wisner holder and the camera back to him. As an owner of a couple of Wisner cameras I am fully aware of the variables in his camera designs. This is why I paid to have custom built holders. But aside from the rib lock issue the filmgate allows for 4 sheets of film to be loaded on each side of the holder. Sorry everyone if I keep repeating myself. Robert

Sorry Robert. I should have read your post more carefully.

Pete

RobertP · Jan 11, 2008

Pete, No problem, I'm just frustrated and disappointed. I waited over a year on these holders. Robert

Michael Kadillak · Jan 11, 2008

RobertP said:
But aside from the rib lock issue the filmgate allows for 4 sheets of film to be loaded on each side of the holder. Sorry everyone if I keep repeating myself. Robert

Looking at this issue from an engineering perspective it seems to me that a piece of information that needs to be integrated into this mix is the statistical variability of the thickness of sheet films that go into ULF holders. Photo Engineer would be able to pull these numbers off of the top of his head. My point is that a film holder maker probably has to be able to accomodate a wide range of thicknesses of sheet film.

I pulled out some of my dozen or so S&S holders of various ULF sizes and I can put at least three sheets of TMY under the rib on some holders and only two sheets into some ribs of others so obviously there is some "play" here. On the flip side I remember one S&S holder that I got that was a dark oak that would bearly accept a single sheet due so we must appreciate and understand that wood is a dynamic material affected by humidity. I do not know the mathematical tolerance of how much play is too much play when it comes to resolution and print results. I am only tossing some of my personal experience into the mix.

I hope that a satisfactory can be had for your time and effort in this regard Robert. I feel your pain....

Cheers!

cp goerz · Jan 11, 2008

Just to ask the obvious but is the back to be custom fitted that was sent the same back that has the groove problem? Also you mentioned you sent a holder too, did you send both?

CP Goerz

RobertP · Jan 11, 2008

Michael, I've tried numerous films Efke, TMY, FP4. All allow 4 sheets of film do load although the 4th one is tight but I can load 3 sheets with considerable play so they will load completely the full length of the holder, without any resistance at all. I can load a sheet and pull the darkslide and actually see the film sag/bow. No other holder I've ever owned has allowed this kind of slop including Wisner holders. I realize that wood can't be held to the same tolerance as metal but this is truly unacceptable. These holders have been kept in a padded case in a room that is constant 68 degrees with an RH that is pretty constant at 40 % so I highly doubt that atmospheric conditions has played any role in this. I would have no problem with a film gate that would allow two sheets to load. As a matter of fact I'd be tickled to death with that. But 4 sheets that allow enough film sag/bow to the point where the film is ready to fall out from behind the film rail is not acceptable. Robert

RobertP · Jan 11, 2008

cp, Yes I sent both. But to be clear. There is no problem with the groove in the camera back. The problem is the distance between the filmholder rib and the rib handle ( as the manufacturer calls it ) or top rib the snaps over the top of the back.

Michael Kadillak · Jan 11, 2008

RobertP said:
Michael, I've tried numerous films Efke, TMY, FP4. All allow 4 sheets of film do load although the 4th one is tight but I can load 3 sheets with considerable play so they will load completely the full length of the holder, without any resistance at all. I can load a sheet and pull the darkslide and actually see the film sag/bow. No other holder I've ever owned has allowed this kind of slop including Wisner holders. I realize that wood can't be held to the same tolerance as metal but this is truly unacceptable. These holders have been kept in a padded case in a room that is constant 68 degrees with an RH that is pretty constant at 40 % so I highly doubt that atmospheric conditions has played any role in this. I would have no problem with a film gate that would allow two sheets to load. As a matter of fact I'd be tickled to death with that. But 4 sheets that allow enough film sag/bow to the point where the film is ready to fall out from behind the film rail is not acceptable. Robert

Richard Ritter would be my next call as this situation really sucks. Even though several of my S&S holders exhibit tendency for a wide channel, The end flap and the light trap end seems to hold things down nicely and I have not had a problem. that said, I have painted the end flap black and had my wife sew black snychilla flap end "condoms" that protect the film from stray light as they come from my septums to beneath my dark cloth and back. Considering the cost of ULF sheet film, it is a small price to pay for success and no fogging.

Hope you get this situation in the rear view mirror ASAP.

RobertP · Jan 11, 2008

Richard Ritter....we need to clone that guy! He's the McGuyver of ULF..... hey i still have a sense of humor. Robert

RobertP · Jan 11, 2008

You know I have no problem defending my position on this. I only wish Mr. Brubaker would join us and defend his position that all his film holders have this kind of play. And its not because I want to put him on front street. But there are two sides to every argument and I feel it would do us all a service to hear his reasoning on this matter. Robert

RobertP · Jan 12, 2008

Of course he won't take my calls and discuss this any further with me in private so I'm sure he doesn't want to discuss it in a public forum. Robert

mark · Jan 12, 2008

In my neck of the woods 2000.00 equals more than most folks' monthly gross take home. It sure is a lot of film too. I would contact someone.

I was contemplating AWB and have taken them off the list.

RobertP · Jan 12, 2008

Mark, I'm receiving private messages and email from others who have sent back holders recently due to poor workmanship. So I'm not the only one who is having problems with this guy. He just probably figures that what I have invested isn't enough for me to bring legal action against him. Robert

Film Holder question

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency