progress photos of my 8 x 20 camera

[Dan Dozer]

I've made some good progress on my 8 x 20 camera. Here are some photos (sorry about the quality, I was in a hurry). So far, the front and back supports, main bed and front, rear extension beds, and the camera back frame are done. I haven't had time to start putting any oil finish on anything yet. Left to go are the camera back, film holders and bellows.

 

[Colin Graham]

Sweet! That telescoping front is really cool! Nice idea

 

[Dave Wooten]

Thanks Dan, that looks really nice....

 

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Dan, that is going to be a beauty! Can't wait to see it. Keep up the great work . You are almost done!!

Jim

 

[barryjyoung]

Outstanding work Dan.

Is this design yours?

 

[Dan Dozer]

Hi Barry,

Thanks for the compliments. The design is mostly mine with a little help from Kodak. I used my 8 x 10 Kodak 2D as a starting point and made changes from there. Not having all the brass hardware that the Kodak has, I have had to deal with the adjustability my own way. The back has built in shift , swing, and tilt. The front has rise and fall. The back is removable/adjustable to work in both horizontal and vertical format. Because of the two formats, the front requires a double extension front standard to get the lens board up high enough for the vertical format.

The one thing that I have found out is that common to the extension bed cameras, when the front and rear beds are attached, they don't really sit firmly enough and exactly parallel to the camera bed. I plan on building two brace pieces to attach to the sides of the bed to straighten everything out for use with long lenses.

 

[RobertP]

Hi Barry,

Thanks for the compliments. The design is mostly mine with a little help from Kodak. I used my 8 x 10 Kodak 2D as a starting point and made changes from there. Not having all the brass hardware that the Kodak has, I have had to deal with the adjustability my own way. The back has built in shift , swing, and tilt. The front has rise and fall. The back is removable/adjustable to work in both horizontal and vertical format. Because of the two formats, the front requires a double extension front standard to get the lens board up high enough for the vertical format.

The one thing that I have found out is that common to the extension bed cameras, when the front and rear beds are attached, they don't really sit firmly enough and exactly parallel to the camera bed. I plan on building two brace pieces to attach to the sides of the bed to straighten everything out for use with long lenses.

Nice work Dan. Where did you get the idea for the telescoping front standard?

 

[Dan Dozer]

Robert,

The front standard design is my own design. However, it's not really very complicated. It is just two standards instead of one, and one fits inside the other. It is necessary because the difference in center of image height is too great when I change from horizontal to vertical format. With only one standard, I wouldn't have enough rise/fall amount. It could be made to work with only one standard, but the standard would have to be so tall, it might cause problems with stability and when folding up the camera.

 

[RobertP]

Robert,

The front standard design is my own design. However, it's not really very complicated. It is just two standards instead of one, and one fits inside the other. It is necessary because the difference in center of image height is too great when I change from horizontal to vertical format. With only one standard, I wouldn't have enough rise/fall amount. It could be made to work with only one standard, but the standard would have to be so tall, it might cause problems with stability and when folding up the camera.

Dan, Please go back and read your earlier postings on your progress of your 8x20. You'll see I have discussed it in detail already with you. But no thanks needed. Keep up the good work.

 

[barryjyoung]

Hi Robert, are you saying you designed Dans standard or that you discussed it?

Dan, Please go back and read your earlier postings on your progress of your 8x20. You'll see I have discussed it in detail already with you. But no thanks needed. Keep up the good work.

 

[Amund]

Hi Robert, are you saying you designed Dans standard or that you discussed it?

Looking at (there was a url link here which no longer exists) thread,it seems Robert gave Dan the idea of a telescoping front standard.

 

[barryjyoung]

Oh, I see, and Dan didn't take credit for the original thought but the design right? So why the upset message from Robert? Design and concept are different folks. Thinking something up is quite a lot easier than making it work. Look at all the concept cars that never make it to the dealers show room.

Looking at (there was a url link here which no longer exists) thread,it seems Robert gave Dan the idea of a telescoping front standard.

 

[RobertP]

Oh, I see, and Dan didn't take credit for the original thought but the design right? So why the upset message from Robert? Design and concept are different folks. Thinking something up is quite a lot easier than making it work. Look at all the concept cars that never make it to the dealers show room.

Barry, I fail to see where you get that I am upset. And please show me in my post where I anywhere make claims to Dan's design. I'm a photographer not a woodworker. But I do have extensive experience with an 8x20 camera with vertical and horizontal backs and the problems associated with the change in going from one format to another or one back to another. If you read back a little you'll see the question I posed to Dan was "where did you get the idea?" Not, "whose design is it?". Now I could very easily read something into his response very much like you are doing to mine but I won't. I simply reminded him we had already discussed it and left it at that. If you feel you need to make this confrontational then feel free to do so but you'll do it without any further response from me.

 

[Dan Dozer]

I wasn't planning on responding to this thread because it had really gotten out of hand. I feel that the recent comments require me to set things straight.

Robert - your earlier response to my first post was centered around the designs you had come up with for removable backs and fronts and how you dealt with the height issue. That is what you "discussed in detail" in your response to me. Your suggestion for a vertical adjustable front was only that - a suggestion/idea and nothing more and it did not include any detail suggestions or information.

In your reponse to this post, I assumed that you wanted to know about the design which is how I answered you. I'm sure that your response stating that it was your idea not mine was not intended as insulting or anything, but the way your phrased it, that is what I felt. The impression I got was that all you wanted was for me to tell everyone on the forum that you came up with the idea. Again, I don't know if that was your intent, but that is how it sounded to me. Obviously, others felt the same way, based on Barry's response.

Barry, thanks for your support. You have given me good advice in the past and I hope that you will keep responding to my questions in the future. I am no expert in designing and building cameras, and from what I have read from your posts, you know a lot more than I do. This is what the great thing about this forum is - the sharing of ideas helps us all improve.

For what it's worth, the new 8 x 20 is coming along quite well. I'll be posting more photos as I make more progress.

Please don't anyone else respond to this post. It has gotten off track from what it's original intent was.

 

[barryjyoung]

Barry, I fail to see where you get that I am upset. And please show me in my post where I anywhere make claims to Dan's design. I'm a photographer not a woodworker. But I do have extensive experience with an 8x20 camera with vertical and horizontal backs and the problems associated with the change in going from one format to another or one back to another. If you read back a little you'll see the question I posed to Dan was "where did you get the idea?" Not, "whose design is it?". Now I could very easily read something into his response very much like you are doing to mine but I won't. I simply reminded him we had already discussed it and left it at that. If you feel you need to make this confrontational then feel free to do so but you'll do it without any further response from me.

OK

 

[Colin Graham]

I dont think it would have been out of line for Dan to thank Robert for the idea...It is a great idea, after all. I'd be a bit plexed. And it's a bit bewildering, Barry, asking for permission to use his idea commercially in one post and dismissing him in the next? Design and concept are different? Well, yes, but without ideas all deign gets you is another rumble seat.

 

[barryjyoung]

Hi Colin:

Roberts' idea was a great one and I told him so when I asked if I could use it. I never said otherwise. Yes, you are right, design and concept are very different. They are both required, which was exactly my point. The idea would never have been developed without someone doing the work that converts the idea into reality. That is called design which is all Dan claimed to do.

I did not dismiss Robert at all. But Robert did not design the front standard, he conceptualized it.

I am now completely finished with this thread and will not answer any more posts related to it. I do not want to argue at all let alone over symantics.

Thank you Colin Robert and Dan.

I dont think it would have been out of line for Dan to thank Robert for the idea...It is a great idea, after all. I'd be a bit plexed. And it's a bit bewildering, Barry, asking for permission to use his idea commercially in one post and dismissing him in the next? Design and concept are different? Well, yes, but without ideas all deign gets you is another rumble seat.