Making Specific Macro 8x10 camera

[Murray@uptowngallery]

1) One man's POS is another's treasure. If he's already doing 4x5, he might not be satisfied with a science project. If he's adaptable, he might be.

2) Look at mamutphot.com or Google the name for ULF cameras. There are some pretty weird contractions people are using...for example it's only 2s3, but Dan Fromm's Pushmi-Pullyu Dr Dolittle cam is something like two mating
2x3 cameras, from the description (I haven't seen it).

3) Do pinhole 8x10. See/ask about macro compensation for pinhole diameter calculation (Dead Link Removed) becasue pinhole is far less critical regarding focus this will alleviate alot of headache with getting filmplane to match ground glass. After the adjustment period of adapting to pinhole, a lens that is decreed to be a POS by one person may look just fine.

4) If you DO proceed with DIY 8x10 with lens and ground glass, the most critical thing for you will be matching film plane position with ground glass position. A standard 8x10 filmholder has a filmplane setback of 0.260", so you put a 0.260" spacer on your ground glass so it sits the same distance back from the mounting plane the filmholder sits in. There is a tolerance of 10 or 15thousandths on that 0.260" also. Further reading or asking will advise whether it's worth the trouble to offset the 0.260 + or - for film thickness, or just accept that film thickness is within the spacing tolerance above.

 

[Nick Zentena]

There is a big difference between a DIY ULF and a DIY 8x10 or 4x5. 8X10 monorails are almost a dime a dozen. You might pay more for shipping then for the camera.

ULF are relatively rare and not that cheap no matter what they look like.

I have little doubt that it'll take a great deal of luck to build a long bellows 8x10 for less then some of the old 8x10 monorails.

 

[Dan Fromm]

But my response DID include a correct answer behind one of the curtains...

Whatchoo doing reading myreplies, anyway? ...you know they're gonna give you an ulcer...

Murray, thanks for the kind expression of concern. Once upon a time my wife suggested that I should change jobs before I got an ulcer. I didn't and I didn't.

Now we know more about the causes of most gastric ulcers. Helicobacter pylori. If you're not infected with it you almost certainly won't develop a gastric ulcer.

And your posts are often interesting.

 

[Dan Fromm]

<snip>

for example it's only 2s3, but Dan Fromm's Pushmi-Pullyu Dr Dolittle cam is something like two mating
2x3 cameras, from the description (I haven't seen it).

<snip>

Murray, look here: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

One could do the same with a pair of 4x5 Graphics, but since there are inexpensive and fairly long 4x5 monorails around the only reason to do so would be to have a long 4x5 camera with no movements and a focal plane shutter.

I did what I did because I already had two 2x3 Graphics and didn't want to carry a third 2x3 camera. If I'd had the money I'd have bought a proper 2x3 monorail, shelved the Century, and been done with it. Take the hint, send money.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[Philip Taylor]

Thanks for the replies again everyone, I hadn't checked this post for a while.

I've done a bit of looking around in the little time I have whilst doing Uni and i've come up with a few options.

1. The original PVC pipe plan is doable - I can easily and cheaply get it large enough.

2. Box sliding - not as portable or adaptable for what I want.

3. there are some great camera technicians at uni who are happy to help
me out (they constantly make bellows for our 70 plaubel and linhof 4x5's).

I've also got some copy camera lenses which have plenty of coverage for 8x10 especially at these magnifications.

unfortunately i only have 150, 210 & 300mm lenses so bellows lengths wil be longer than originally intended.

By the way, yes I'm using 4x5, no I haven't built a camera yet but am fairly handy with other photo stuff I've made.

I now have a good understanding of various formulas for mag, object/lens distance, effective DOF etc. (just covered it more in depth at uni).

Thanks again.

 

[keithwms]

I have tried my hand at some "ultra-macro" with a cambo 8x10 monorail (inexpensive) and a little Nikon 120 AMED, the lens that became very inexpensive recently. As I recall, when using a diopter with that, 5:1 was no issue at all and I simply found it too annoying to focus after that.

If I wanted to push further my advice would be to get that same camera, a long piece of aluminum extrusion to subtitute for the rail, an extra rear standard so that you can attach another segment of bellows, and that'd do it. Something like a cambo has the stability for ultra macro. The major issues at high mag are stability and well-controlled focusing. The good news is that the shutter impulse and such won't matter because you will be taking looooong exposures when you go appreciably past 1:1. You can use your lighting control to control the exposure- you don't need a shutter at all.

But I would foremost think very carefully about the overall stability of your platform. People use heavy macro rails for a reason. A long-axis optical rig has real vibrational modes to worry about. In my profession we use inconel for this reason! Fortunately you won't have to go to that extreme, an old cambo would do nicely!

 

[keithwms]

Just another quick thought that struck me, how about using an enlarger. Nwo that is a stable platform for just about any enlargement. You would reverse the lens and put your film where the lights are.

Hmm maybe I will try that.

4x5 enlargers are quite inexpensive, especially without a light housing!

 

[Nick Zentena]

Beseler IIRC made a copy setup to mount on 4x5 enlargers in place of the light source. I think it included a graflok back and took standard 4x5 film holders. OTOH the bellows on any 8x10 camera will go further then likely any 4x5 enlarger. Unless you use a big old process camera?

 

[keithwms]

Beseler IIRC made a copy setup to mount on 4x5 enlargers in place of the light source. I think it included a graflok back and took standard 4x5 film holders. OTOH the bellows on any 8x10 camera will go further then likely any 4x5 enlarger. Unless you use a big old process camera?

I think my 4x5 enlargers go about 2 feet, but I guess one could extend that. That stuff is so inexpensive now.

A process camera would definitely be the best overall performance! Say, I have a 600mm process lens and you only need ~2m of bellows draw to do macro!

 

[ZachInIsrael]

Just a note on Sonotube (Which someone suggested) It should work quite well as long as you flock the inside (flat black paint will probably work). a lot of people have used sonotube as the basis for homebuilt telescopes, so I don't see why a camera would be a problem.

 

[Dave Wooten]

build the slide in box, and mount on the front a small bellows with standard...these are available often 50.00 or less, ex a toyo rail front standard..then you have some movement and an easy lens mounting platform

 

[Philip Taylor]

Thanks again everyone. I don't think an enlarger will be transportable enough for where i want to take it, but I'm thinking of throwing on a homemade bag bellows just behind the front standard. I'm thinking of using this mainly for toadstools etc so I'll be using it at ground level mostly. I think i'll do away with a tripod and just have permanent threaded rods attached which will support it. Also, has anyone needed to shoot through a mirror in order to get underneath fungi or something like this? With 8x10, even at best I'm going to be 4in. or 5in. above ground, usually above the toadstool. I understand focussing at 5:1 or so will be hard but I can't think of another way. I don't fancy digging holes for every shot!

 

[dogzbum]

If you use a standard rear-surface mirror you will get ghosting of the image due to internal reflection. You will need to pick up a front surface mirror from an optical surplus outlet. These have the silvering on the front surface instead of the rear. You can probably get away with a small one as you are macroing (Is that a word??). Alternatively you could grab the mirror out of an old slr or tlr as these are front surface.

 

[freygr]

If you use a standard rear-surface mirror you will get ghosting of the image due to internal reflection. You will need to pick up a front surface mirror from an optical surplus outlet. These have the silvering on the front surface instead of the rear. You can probably get away with a small one as you are macroing (Is that a word??). Alternatively you could grab the mirror out of an old slr or tlr as these are front surface.

There are companies which sell first surface mirrors with protective coatings. Depending on the grade(flatness spec.) they can be reasonable to very costly. For this use you can use the lowest grade so it is not that costly. I'm sorry but I don't have the links any more.

 

[Philip Taylor]

Thanks for that, I'm sure I can pick up a mirror from an old SLR from a repairer for almost nothing. I'll give that a go first. Thanks for the info, I did know it but had it stuck in the depths of my brain and it never came out