Mounting a BIG Packard

Here's the problem:

1. I have a number of shutterless lenses that I'd love to try, and I'd love to move beyond the "black hat" shutter.
2. I have a Packard shutter that would solve this problem.
3. The next problem is that the outside dimensions of the Packard (6-1/2") is larger than the inside of my bellows attachment. (6")

What I need:
I need to construct a housing for my Packard shutter that will attach to the front standard (wooden) of my 8x10 Burke and James and will accept Technika and/or Calumet lensboards. (The B&J takes Technika boards, but I have a few lenses on Calumet boards which are just a tad larger.)

The final piece of this puzzle is that I have limited tools and marginal woodworking experience. I am not afraid of wasting a few pieces of wood, but I think I need a little guidance to get me past the starting line.

There may be further questions along the way.

Cheers

Your main consideration is do you need infinity focus? And do you use front tilts/swings etc. Setting the lens out front of the axis makes movements very troublesome to comprehend and manage.

Sad reality is to buy a camera that does/accomodates what you want/need without undue comprimise.
You could just mount the packard out front 'hat style" This might be the best solution, and you could use the camera in the meantime while you mess about with other rear mount options.
Have a great day.... cheers.

You may just want to get a smaller Packard and fit it inside the bellows, in the traditional way.
Other wise you need
a B and J lens board with a hole larger than your largest back end of lens
a smaller piece of quarter inch spacer that will fit within the B&J retaining clips,
A 7 inch spacer that will fit the back of your packard. These three get screwed together.
a second spacer to fit the front of the packard with hole for pin, tube and wires as necessary.
Fit the necessary clips to the front of this for your largest lens board and have a 2nd reducer to fit that for the second lens board. Close the sides of the spacer "box" around the Packard.
Or get an Ilexpo shutter and fit as above.
Really the cleanest neatest and lightest solution is a packard inside your camera

I'd suggest either putting it on the front of the lens, or selling it and getting one that will fit on the back of a lensboard.

Make a collar and put it in front of the lens.

Thanks for the replies. I agree that any adaptation of a camera involves compromises. (that seems to be the implicit message in most responses so far) The one consideration I need to keep in mind is that my solution is intended to satisfy a number of lenses with different diameters, so mounting on the front of the lenses might require more engineering than rear-mounting. Also, some of my lenses are process lenses, which rotate to select apertures. Again, this makes front-mounting of the Packard awkward.

I had not taken into account that extending the lensboard design would complicate movements on the camera, and I definitely would prefer to use most of these lenses at infinity if possible. The upside of this is that the Packard (a #8, if I am correct... it has two pistons) only cost me $15 so if I can't use it at this point, it is no great loss.

Still looking for ideas... I do have a rudimental design on paper. I'm just not sure I have the woodworking skills to make it happen.

Cheers

I've built a few "shutter boxes" before and they work pretty well. It is essentially a box about 8" square and about an inch deep. The shutter is mounted inside the box. The box has a panel on the back that is essentially a lens board that goes on the front of the camera and the front of the box has a recess to accept your standard lens boards. It will accommodate lenses that you mount on your standard lens boards. The overall depth of the box needs to be about 2" deep in order to accommodate the rear panel that fits into the camera front. You can buy the wood to build one at your local craft store and don't need anything more than 3/8" thick.

Couple of issues: First is that the box will not accommodate lenses that project any more than about a half inch through the lens board because they would hit the shutter if they did. Second is that there are a little design issues you need to figure out regarding how to activate the shutter (shutter release and adjustment pin) but they aren't really that difficult to work out. Last is that with the shutter box exending out in front of the camera, the weight of the lens is out farther than normal and heavy lenses will present a problem.

To build a shutter box, you really do need to have a certain amount of wood working tools like a drill and preferably a small table saw. Doing it without the table could be a real challenge.

I really do most of my exposures wtih my old shutterless lenses with the "Uncover the lens with the lens cap and then cover it back up" approach and can easily handle shutter speeds of 1/4 of a second that way. You can also do the Jim Galli dark slide approach and get faster speeds up to about 1/20 of a second (which is about what a packard is anyway). If your wide open aperature settings are requiring fast shutter speeds that make hand exposure difficult, you might consider either slower speed film or neutral density filters. If you are set on being able to use your lenses at infinity and also require shorter shutter speeds, this will present a problem.

Hope this all helps.

Dan

I made an accessory for my Cambo which does the job beautifully. I built a box to hold the shutter with a lensboard (home made) which stands off about 1/4" in front. The rear of the box has a recess that accepts a lens board. I made the box long enough to accept filters mounted into plywood panels as well. I can use large diameter glass filters (from aerial camera) and both 3" and 4" gelatin filters in the metal frames. The rubber tube goes through a hole in the bottom. I can mount it on the front standard both in front or behind and to the front panel of the bellows. Works fine with lenses from 200mm to 760mm.

Mount the shutter in front of the lens.

I built a box that attaches in lieu of the lens board. The big packard is inside the black box and the bigger lens board has plenty of room for a big lens flange. Here are a couple pictures of it mounted to my Improved Seneca 8x10.

R Shaffer said:

I built a box that attaches in lieu of the lens board. The big packard is inside the black box and the bigger lens board has plenty of room for a big lens flange. Here are a couple pictures of it mounted to my Improved Seneca 8x10.

Click to expand...

That's (almost) exactly what I have in mind. How does this work with tilts and shifts? Does it exaggerate the movement at the film plane?

Cheers,
Tom

Toffle said:

That's (almost) exactly what I have in mind. How does this work with tilts and shifts? Does it exaggerate the movement at the film plane?

Cheers,
Tom

Click to expand...

My Seneca only has rise & fall on the front standard. The back has enough tilt & swing for landscapes. So I don't know the answer to your question. I do still have the CAD drawings I made for it and I'd be happy to share. I only used a table saw and sander to build it.

R Shaffer said:

My Seneca only has rise & fall on the front standard. The back has enough tilt & swing for landscapes. So I don't know the answer to your question. I do still have the CAD drawings I made for it and I'd be happy to share. I only used a table saw and sander to build it.

Click to expand...

Thanks, now all I need is a table saw.

I'd love to see your CAD drawings. They are sure to be better than my pencil scratchings.

Cheers,
Tom

Toffle said:

Thanks, now all I need is a table saw.

I'd love to see your CAD drawings. They are sure to be better than my pencil scratchings.

Cheers,
Tom

Click to expand...

Here ya go, I added a few notes so it would make more sense. Can't help with the table saw

The problem with tilts and shifts is that the lens is abit of a ways down a tunnel, and the opening of the tunnel often vignettes the back glass. the bigger the shutter and the holes in the lens boards and the smaller the aperture the less vignetting but but this setup is a problem that way. also the tilt is now way away from the nodal point.

cowanw said:

also the tilt is now way away from the nodal point.

Click to expand...

This is the problem to which I was alluding. I wonder if this presents a serious problem or if it simply means that you will have to limit the range of movements.

R Shaffer said:

Here ya go, I added a few notes so it would make more sense. Can't help with the table saw

Click to expand...

Thanks, that looks really well made. I kayak with a cabinet maker who has offered to help with any construction. I'm sure he can smooth out some of my technical limitations.

Cheers,
Tom

Toffle said:

This is the problem to which I was alluding. I wonder if this presents a serious problem or if it simply means that you will have to limit the range of movements.

Click to expand...

I think you just have to pay attention to the GG