Large format camera manufacturing

[Petzi]

IMHO the biggest problem with ULF is that you are limited to contact printing. That may result in beautiful prints, but they all have the same size.
Why don't you make a camera that could be converted to an enlarger? That would be quite useful.

 

[smieglitz]

...
The idea of the universal holders between formats on my cameras just adds additional value. With other mfgs one might have to spend an additional $2000-$3000 dollars to have a couple reducing backs and holders. With my design you only buy the extra holders and inserts for a fraction of that amount.

I think a new design for ULF film holders would be very welcome and in demand. It is one thing to cart around a big honkin' camera and quite another to have sufficient holders to take along. Old style ULF holders are bulky and heavy in addition to pricey. Something like the thin Mido holders with inserts sounds like a great idea.

When I'm out with my 5x7 I take along 10-20 loaded holders and I can still still schlepp the camera and tripod. With the 11x14 everything gets loaded on a cart and I might take 4 holders at most because of the weight and bulk. That's a big change that people used to carrying 4x5 holders may not realize. Even if one had the financial resources to invest in a multitude of standard ULF holders, there is a limit to how many can be conveniently taken along in the field.

I've recently taken up wetplate collodion and one of the nice aspects in terms of equipment is that the holders can take lightweight acrylic inserts of several size and thus allow one large camera to do many different formats without adding a huge amount of weight to the package in the form of reducing backs.

I think you are on to something Jim.

Joe

 

[Dan Fromm]

Do any of these photographers still live?

Ansel Adams sure used a wooden camera in the 1920s. But I remember an Arca Swiss camera shown in his books. Also a Calumet camera (all metal I guess?) Later he used Hasselblad. I am not aware that he used wooden cameras after like 1950 or so.

Not a very convincing point for wood. But I had already given in. Wood is the best material to make a camera of today.

Petzi, I honestly don't know which material, if any, is best. I note that Keith Canham makes metal cameras and wood cameras. Both clearly work. And both clearly work well enough. So both materials are best. Or perhaps neither is overwhelmingly superior to the other.

As an economist, I don't have to be reminded that when optimization is costly good enough can be best. Herb Simon won his Nobel for that simple insight.

As a photographer, sure I'd like to have better gear but I don't think there's much around that's so much better than my present kit that using it will make a visible improvement in the pictures I take. So I've quit worrying about what's best, now spend more effort sorting out the not good enough.

 

[smieglitz]

IMHO the biggest problem with ULF is that you are limited to contact printing. That may result in beautiful prints, but they all have the same size.
Why don't you make a camera that could be converted to an enlarger? That would be quite useful.

And have you ever used a wooden vs metal contact printing frame? I much prefer wood.

You are being silly with that enlarger idea. Either that or grandiose. 4x5 is meant for enlarging, not ULF. Silly, silly, silly...

Joe

 

[Petzi]

You know I think I have the best of both worlds, I just bought an 8x10" camera back and a suitable 8x10" horizontal enlarger. I hope I will soon manage to get that thing through the darkroom door so I can get started.

Color film no problem. Well I may have to get the 8x10" Fuji Pro 160S in England, my dealer only has Kodak Portra, but that's not really a problem at all.

 

[Jim Jones]

. . . 4x5 is meant for enlarging, not ULF. . . .

Joe

As long as there is a need for ULF prints, there is a need for ULF enlargers. I remember long ago a transparancy that must have been 40 feet wide in New York's Grand Central Station that was claimed to be enlarged from 35mm Kodachrome. However, ULF would have done it even better.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

As long as there is a need for ULF prints, there is a need for ULF enlargers. I remember long ago a transparancy that must have been 40 feet wide in New York's Grand Central Station that was claimed to be enlarged from 35mm Kodachrome. However, ULF would have done it even better.

There's a good history of the Kodak Colorama I think at the George Eastman House or Kodak website. The earliest ones were indeed done with a Deardorff 8x20" camera. At some point, I think they used 6x17cm Linhof Technorama, and later 35mm Kodachrome.

 

[Mike A]

Ditto what Joe is saying here in regards to the bulk and heft of the holders. When I set up my 11x14 Phillips over at Richards place everyone noted the size of the camera itself and the tripod, I then pointed to the large messenger bag that I carry four S&S holders in and noted that the bag with holders weighs more than the Phillips w/ head and tripod attached.

Richard, I think a multi-format ULF camera would be the niche market you could tap into, something like the rail design you showed us at your place. I'll be looking for another great lunch as a test pilot for one of your prototypes.

Mike

I think a new design for ULF film holders would be very welcome and in demand. It is one thing to cart around a big honkin' camera and quite another to have sufficient holders to take along. Old style ULF holders are bulky and heavy in addition to pricey. Something like the thin Mido holders with inserts sounds like a great idea.

When I'm out with my 5x7 I take along 10-20 loaded holders and I can still still schlepp the camera and tripod. With the 11x14 everything gets loaded on a cart and I might take 4 holders at most because of the weight and bulk. That's a big change that people used to carrying 4x5 holders may not realize. Even if one had the financial resources to invest in a multitude of standard ULF holders, there is a limit to how many can be conveniently taken along in the field.

I've recently taken up wetplate collodion and one of the nice aspects in terms of equipment is that the holders can take lightweight acrylic inserts of several size and thus allow one large camera to do many different formats without adding a huge amount of weight to the package in the form of reducing backs.

I think you are on to something Jim.

Joe

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Now that Gitzo is making basalt tripods, I think it's time to consider stone tools more seriously. Come on, wouldn't a stone camera be way cool?--a super-heavyweight for the studio.

 

[Dave Parker]

Now that Gitzo is making basalt tripods, I think it's time to consider stone tools more seriously. Come on, wouldn't a stone camera be way cool?--a super-heavyweight for the studio.

Wouldn't have to worry a whole lot about vibration, but if you ever tipped it over on your foot, watch out!!!

 

[resummerfield]

I think a new design for ULF film holders would be very welcome and in demand......

I agree. But the design must be compatible with existing filmholders (it seems that the AWB specs are starting to be used as some kind of standard?), so that folks with existing cameras would buy them. So that means the design wouldn't be much smaller or lighter..... I would like to see something made from aluminum and plastic, and priced much lower that those now available.

 

[smieglitz]

...But the design must be compatible with existing filmholders (it seems that the AWB specs are starting to be used as some kind of standard?), so that folks with existing cameras would buy them. So that means the design wouldn't be much smaller or lighter.....

I would disagree with your view on the backwards compatibility issue. Better to have smaller, lighter, special holders of a novel design and have whoever makes them also make adapter backs for existing cameras.

It is not difficult to make a camera back. However, it is very difficult to make a holder. I have an AWB 11x14 Walnut holder that I purchased new. It is sweet. But, IIRC, I believe there were over 80 set-ups involved in its machining and construction. Compared to the camera it is a much more precise and complex item to manufacture. That's why they cost so much in their present form.

Joe

 

[Ole]

Those are all cameras made for enthusiasts, not for day-to-day use.

My 5x7" Gandolfi Traditional (black, wood, not MDF) is one of a lot that was made for the British Government in the 1950's. It's seen 50 years of hard, professional use. I doubt a government office would be much concerned with the estethics of a camera, as long as it was made locally and did the job!

 

[Jim Chinn]

I realized that to make a less expensive film holder I would have to go in a different direction then the accepted design.

First I settled on a thickness of 1.080" thickness. That is because either the plastic I use or wood (cherry, mahogany, walnut) can be obtained already precision milled to 1/2" thickness. The cost is less per inch or board foot then if I bought raw wood stock and shaped it myself. .080 aluminum for the center is about as thin as you can go before dealing with flatness issues.

The holders load from the top, eliminating the need for the complicated setups machining the end flap. A hinged frame of brass or stainless ( have not decided on which) holds the film flat.

The holders made of plastic are lighter then standard, the wood slightly (1-2oz) heavier.

The problem with standard holders is the oddball dimensions. A t-Dimension for 7x17 I think is .357" Just a smidge under 3/8ths but a little over 10/32". Getting the thickness of material right is the most difficult and costly part. If I could source the plastic I use in 3/8" I would use that. But 3/8" is not a standard thickness manufactured in the plastics industry.

Since these holders do not intercahnge with standard holders I will include two holders with each camera when the cameras come out. The pricing of the holders should allow the customer to buy one or two addtional holders at time of purchase or later down the road. ($185 for an 11x14 as opposed to $360 for an S&S) and still be within a reasonable budget.

 

[avandesande]

It's a shame nobody on apug has experience with molding plastic. That would make things much easier.

 

[Petzi]

Most photographers don't want plastic cameras. On the other hand, some kinds of plastic are pretty high tech and could be useful for a camera. But they may cost more than metal.

 

[Dave Parker]

Myself personally don't care what a camera is made of, if it does the job, is a good value, , is durable and continues to function over the period of time I want or need to use it, then I will purchase it, looks don't make the picture, I do, function, durability and value are the main points in a camera purchase I look for.

Dave

 

[wfwhitaker]

I am a camera made of meat.

With apologies to Minsky....

 

[Bruce Watson]

I guess the project is doomed. People can't agree whether they want wood or metal. No, I'm mistaken here. I am the only one who wants metal. Everybody else wants wood. And I have given in already because I am convinced now that wood is better.

http://www.canhamcameras.com/

Looks like Canham agrees with you at least - his new 24x20 is all metal. Personally, I would rather have aluminum, which is why I work with a 5x4 Toho. To each his own though.

 

[rbarker]

I am a camera made of meat.

With apologies to Minsky....

That's only because you still have your memory, Will.

I wanna see the film-recorder circuitry, though.

 

[mark]

I am going to pipe in here as one of those who will never be able to afford one of the ULF cameras produced now. DO I want to get into ULF? HELL YES.

I have almost bought old used cameras and stopped as soon as I found out the cost of film holders. Right now I would be able to afford a used camera and ONE new film holder. I refuse to settle for just one film holder. I shoot too darn much film for this and hate changing film in the field. I would need, at minimum, five holders. This need completely stops my entry into ULF.

If you can make a camera fine, if you can make reasonably priced film holders even better. Pair the two up, as Jim has described, and you will have a true winner.

There will always be folks who buy a camera as a status symbol. I have met them, they are a laughable lot. There are also going to be those who are forced to buy the more expensive cameras because there is no alternatives. There are also those like me who want to but cannot afford to. I would think your market is the latter two groups. You will get these folks with a camera that is reasonably priced, solid, with film holders that are not going to blow away the film budget. As for the looks, who cares. I have never gotten excited over the looks of any of my tools. yes a camera is a tool. I have yet to look at a wrench and say: "damn that is one purdy wrench." I have yet to say that about any camera I have ever seen.

 

[MichaelBriggs]

Wood verus metal seems to be discussed at the level of asserting X is better, or camera Y is made of Z.

Each material has advantages and disadvantages that the camera designer and business person should want to consider. Wood tends to have excellent stiffness per weight (as a natural composite material) and to be inexpensive, which makes it use attractive in a large camera. But with all these discussions of "wood cameras", no one has pointed out that the example cameras are hybrids. Does anyone know of any LF camera that is 100% made of wood? Usually they have hinges, struts, screws, rack and pinon, etc. made out of metal. There is a certain level of detail that wood isn't strong enough to hold. As Petzi points out, plastics might have a role in some places, perhaps to reduce friction on some sliding areas.

Wood can be used in larger cameras because the tolerances are looser (anyone ever seen a 35 mm camera made of wood?). The fastest expected taking aperture is smaller (higher f-number), so the depth of focus is larger.

 

[Petzi]

It is true that the tolerances are not that critical, but you don't shoot an 11x14" sheet of film to get a result comparable to a smaller format. Cameras for ULF should in my opinion be designed for high precision, so they could deliver a better result with the large film.

Of course there may be two schools of thought here. One is to use ULF for b/w contact printing only. In this case, everything is easy. You don't need that much resolution at the film plane. This is a bit of a "retro" approach. These people probably prefer wooden cameras that look retro.

In my opinion however, if you use that much film, you should do it to get the highest definition possible, and that leaves no room for sloppiness in camera design.

 

[Jim Chinn]

I had talked to someone on APUG (don't recall who) who related a story about a person they knew that bought a new camera (ebony if I recall). The person was afraid to ever use it for fear of scratching it or possibly damaging it.
If someone buys a camera to either show it off or just display it as some sort of sculpture they would be better off hanging a picture on the wall or buying some real sculpture for several thousand dollars from a collectible artist. Much better investment in the long run.

But cameras can be a status symbol among peers just as clothes, or cars or golf clubs can be among various groups.

 

[Donald Miller]

The thing that comes to mind for me is that it is widely recognized that manufacturing cameras is a lot easier then building film holders. Why do you think that people like AWB and Sandy King continue to manufacture sheet film holders and don't get into building cameras?

They already do or have access to wood working equipment...the metal would be a piece of cake...but they don't talk about making cameras. That tells me a great deal.