Film Holder question

[cp goerz]

Birds of a feather....




Is it true that you have two film backs for the cameras you mention and that Alan DID custom fit the holders to a holder you sent him? Isn't it also true that you have had the holders for eight months and only now are complaining about them?? After eight months....for custom made parts? What other business do you know that allows such practice? The fact that he even offered you a 75% refund on your order that can't be used on ANY other camera except yours is a pretty darn good deal...just what other makers of ANYTHING custom take orders back...name just one..PLEASE!!!




Is it also true that Alan took returns for some other custom work you asked him to do and he gave you a full refund? Is it normal practice for you to return custom items over and over?



Your constant posting to yourself is just a bit too much of a 'one-man-screaming' show, go to your lawyers and take it from there. If you aren't going to do anything then leave it at that, if you are I'm sure your lawyer will tell you to keep quiet till the show is over.


I know for a fact that Alan has been burned by WAYYYY too many people asking for custom holders and parts that can in no possible way be used for any other camera except the one it was made for...only to have some guy who either measured badly or didn't realize that two Wisners backs that are identical wasn't a given. Are both of your backs the exact same size? Careful how you answer that one!



Just so there is no subterfuge and only transparency on my part...I do know Alan and was the first person to give him the gig of making holders for my 8x20 camera about ten or fifteen years ago. I do count him as a friend, a good one.


CP Goerz

 

[RobertP]

CP, It appears you want me to post twice to our exchange in the other forum. I'll be happy to. First off in post #27 on the other forum you ask. "Is it true you have two film backs for the camera you mention and that Alan DID custom fit the holders to the back you sent him?" Now your claiming that I only sent him a holder. I assure you Brubaker had a holder and one of the backs and I will post pics here also of both of the backs loaded with the holders. The holders fit neither back. So yes he was suppose to fit it to the back I sent him like you asked in post # 27 at the other forum. Yes and it is true Alan took a return on some custom made trays because they leaked like a sieve and they didn't fit my sink after me giving him exact measurements of length, width and depth. Instead of a refund I had him send me an 8x20 holder and sent him the extra money to make up the difference in price. This holder didn't fit so this is when I ordered the 4 custom fit holders and just told him to keep the money toward the price of the custom holders. In one of our previous phone conversations Alan said send the filmholders back and he would make it right. He also said he would address the filmgate slop. He then calls back because I had sent him a pic of how the holder was fitting into the back and asked me to send both backs. So I proceeded to remove the ground glass from both backs for shipping. I then took some exact measurements and called him to tell him the discrepancies in his holders to the measurements of my backs. This is where he changed his mind again about fixing the filmgate slop. He had no intention of fixing the holders. He wanted both of my backs so he could mill my backs to fit his holders because he could see in order to mill the top rib handle he would have to mill through the rib plate mounting screws. He also made no mention to me that this was his intentions until I confronted him with it. I paid for holders to fit my back...not for my back to be milled to fit his holders. This is what is meant by custom fit holders. Plus four sheets of film into the filmgate allowing enough slop that the film is on the verge of falling out of the film rail is unacceptable by me. In comparing these to some of his older 12x20 and 7x17 holders the older holders have a tighter filmgate by twice as much. Here is a pic of both the vertical and horizontal backs. Just so no one thinks I'm showing the other back that wasn't sent to AWB. You can tell the vertical back from the horizontal by the location of the mounting pins. Roberthttp://www.apug.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=9519&stc=1&d=1200194603

 

[RobertP]

CP, Also to answer your question about " just what other makers of ANYTHING custom take orders back...name just one..PLEASE!!!" All of them when what they send out is not to spec, especially when they had the product to fit it to right in front of them. Robert

 

[barryjyoung]

As we know, there are no 'standard' dimensions for most ULF film holder/camera backs. Perhaps it is time that the major ULF manufacturers came up with some agreed standards?

Barry

Hi Barry: Cool name!

I just sent an email to Sandy King who is leading an effort to do just what you suggest in this post. I am currently using the standard published by Mr. King which I am calling the jan. 1. 2008 standard. My letter to Sandy was to verify that this is going to be the "written in stone" standard and also to verify that other film holder manufacturers are or are not going to comply with it. We are making progress toward standardization with the interests of the end user in mind. I am not sure about any of the other manufacturers yet, but I know Young Camera Company and S&S holders will be interchangable.

 

[BarryWilkinson]

Hi Barry: Cool name!

I just sent an email to Sandy King who is leading an effort to do just what you suggest in this post. I am currently using the standard published by Mr. King which I am calling the jan. 1. 2008 standard. My letter to Sandy was to verify that this is going to be the "written in stone" standard and also to verify that other film holder manufacturers are or are not going to comply with it. We are making progress toward standardization with the interests of the end user in mind. I am not sure about any of the other manufacturers yet, but I know Young Camera Company and S&S holders will be interchangable.

That's good news Barry. I hope other manufacturers will follow this lead?

Barry

 

[Rob Vinnedge]

Hi Barry: Cool name!

I just sent an email to Sandy King who is leading an effort to do just what you suggest in this post. I am currently using the standard published by Mr. King which I am calling the jan. 1. 2008 standard. My letter to Sandy was to verify that this is going to be the "written in stone" standard and also to verify that other film holder manufacturers are or are not going to comply with it. We are making progress toward standardization with the interests of the end user in mind. I am not sure about any of the other manufacturers yet, but I know Young Camera Company and S&S holders will be interchangable.

Barry (Barry Young, that is),

I'm happy to see you active in this effort. It would be wonderful if we could continue to press APUG and others into creating a category in their forum for easier access to such things as standards, tables, formulas, etc.

In such a forum category, I think a schematic with all of the dimensions clearly noted would be useful.

Referring to my thread "ULF film holder standards" of 2-2-08 in FEEDBACK and DISCUSSION to which you contributed relevant dimensions along with Sandy's, I would like to emphasize one feature which was implied but not stressed- the film aperture position. The width of the end flap, rails, and distance from end flap to rib lock would determine this, but perhaps the aperture ought to be specified on its own.

 

[barryjyoung]

Referring to my thread "ULF film holder standards" of 2-2-08 in FEEDBACK and DISCUSSION to which you contributed relevant dimensions along with Sandy's, I would like to emphasize one feature which was implied but not stressed- the film aperture position. The width of the end flap, rails, and distance from end flap to rib lock would determine this, but perhaps the aperture ought to be specified on its own.

This would not keep a film holder from fitting into a given back but I do see your point. Still, the difference between Canham and S&S holders is only 1/16 inch on the flap length. Do most photographers compose to the very edges of the aperture? I don't. The thing about the standard as I said in your other thread is to ensure that any holder can fit in any back. There is no way you are ever going to get everybody to agree on the size of the aperture in their focusing frames which would affect the aperture as much as the film holder. I think this is a non-issue. It is FAR less important than ensuring that the holder will fit in your camera. That is my humble opinion.

 

[Rob Vinnedge]

This would not keep a film holder from fitting into a given back but I do see your point. Still, the difference between Canham and S&S holders is only 1/16 inch on the flap length. Do most photographers compose to the very edges of the aperture? I don't. The thing about the standard as I said in your other thread is to ensure that any holder can fit in any back. There is no way you are ever going to get everybody to agree on the size of the aperture in their focusing frames which would affect the aperture as much as the film holder. I think this is a non-issue. It is FAR less important than ensuring that the holder will fit in your camera. That is my humble opinion.

I was just thinking that specifying film aperture dimensions would simply be another way to nail down the dimensions of the side rails, flap width and distance from rib lock to aperture after outside dimensions are established (I'm not really concerned about the 1/16th of an inch to which you are referring). Perhaps it is redundant.

 

[Richard T Ritter]

You have to remember that is new standard will not fit all cameras. The older banquet cameras require a narrower holder about 1/8 and the rib lock has to be in a different position. The longer flap can also be a problem. But these little problems can dealt with if you have an older camera.

 

[barryjyoung]

You have to remember that is new standard will not fit all cameras. The older banquet cameras require a narrower holder about 1/8 and the rib lock has to be in a different position. The longer flap can also be a problem. But these little problems can dealt with if you have an older camera.

Hi Richard:

I have looked into my crystal ball and predict that there will soon be a time when the quantity of requests for modifying backs to accept standard film holders goes up. I know that you do this work and we also will modify backs to take standard holders.

I received an email this very morning asking if the new standard film holders will fit in your fine 7x17 cameras. Will they? I was unable to find specifications on your website.

Thank you.

 

[Richard T Ritter]

They will. The first run of cameras would have to have to be modified but there is a good supply of new (old style) holders around. Cameras from here on out will be made to the new specs. The camera are being built to take S & S holders. Whats been happing and this works the best is to buy the camera and 3 film holders, the camera is then custom fitted to the holders you buy. Or if you have holders the camera and/or holders can be custom fitted to each other.

Setting a standard is a good start. I have seem holders from the same manufacture vary. Then there are the camera makers that make there own cameras and holders to their own standard.

 

[Rob Vinnedge]

Barry, Sandy, and Richard,

This is terrific. The standard is finally starting to set.

 

[barryjyoung]

They will. The first run of cameras would have to have to be modified but there is a good supply of new (old style) holders around. Cameras from here on out will be made to the new specs. The camera are being built to take S & S holders. Whats been happing and this works the best is to buy the camera and 3 film holders, the camera is then custom fitted to the holders you buy. Or if you have holders the camera and/or holders can be custom fitted to each other.

Setting a standard is a good start. I have seem holders from the same manufacture vary. Then there are the camera makers that make there own cameras and holders to their own standard.

Fantastic Richard!

Perhaps we can eventually have a much easier to use system for the end users. That is something that is long overdue.

It isn't all that tough to modify a holder to match a standard back either. Someone could boost some income just doing that. As I see it, the biggest problem would be moving the riblock and if the end user could live with the old one being milled away and the new one being installed in a new groove, this also would not be too much of a headache.

This is great news from you Richard. Thanks very much.

 

[sanking]

It sounds like a good time to stock up on 7X17 holders. We are currently about to finish production of two batches of 7X17 holders to the standard Barry has mentioned, one of American cherry wood, and the other of very long aged Chinese song. And we have on hand some twenty or so 7X17 holders in American black walnut that are identical to the new standard except for the position of the rib lock.

Fit of the rib lock is absolutely essential so it is always good to seek advice before you buy from someone who understands the issues of ULF photography as they related to mating of camera and holder.

Adding whatever number of holders this size Barry is making I doubt there have been this many new 7X17 holders on the market in a long time.

Sandy King