wfwhitaker
Member
As a few of you already know, I'm in the process of restoring an old Eastman 7x11 camera. It has a couple of decent old film holders with it. To supplement them I purchased some new ones as well. Contrary to expectations, the new holders have a greater distance between the face of the holder and the film plane (T-dimension). My first thought was to make a new ground glass carrier which would match the holders. I can do it and I do have some nice quarter-sawn mahogany on hand, but it's a lot of work. Then today another thought crossed my mind...
Suppose if, instead of replacing the ground glass carrier, I kept the original, but made a spacer which has the outside dimension of a film holder and has a rectangular cutout to match the format. The spacer (being a specified thickness) would offset the ground glass the difference between the two carriers and provide accurate focusing/composition for the new holders (which have the greater T-dimension).
The advantages seem obvious:
1.) I would be able to use both new and old holders, increasing my useful number of holders,
2.) the old Eastman would remain original.
Disadvantages:
1.) Another piece to add to the kit, adding complexity.
Further thoughts:
The spacer frame could be machined from HDPE or Delrin. (The machining is not an issue.) Either material would be lightweight, resistant to damage and easily slide into/out of the back.
The spacer could double as a frame viewer composition aid.
Have I missed anything? What are your thoughts?
Suppose if, instead of replacing the ground glass carrier, I kept the original, but made a spacer which has the outside dimension of a film holder and has a rectangular cutout to match the format. The spacer (being a specified thickness) would offset the ground glass the difference between the two carriers and provide accurate focusing/composition for the new holders (which have the greater T-dimension).
The advantages seem obvious:
1.) I would be able to use both new and old holders, increasing my useful number of holders,
2.) the old Eastman would remain original.
Disadvantages:
1.) Another piece to add to the kit, adding complexity.
Further thoughts:
The spacer frame could be machined from HDPE or Delrin. (The machining is not an issue.) Either material would be lightweight, resistant to damage and easily slide into/out of the back.
The spacer could double as a frame viewer composition aid.
Have I missed anything? What are your thoughts?