The best 11X14 field camera...

Mark Sawyer said:

One aspect of modern ULF field cameras I don't like is the smallish lens boards. For some of us, the field camera does double-duty as a portrait/studio camera, and it's quite necessary that it take some rather large old lenses (and the large Packard Shutter that goes along with them).

Click to expand...

That's one reason I went with the 171mm front standard on my Franken-ARCA. The newer 141mm front format frame would have been a little smaller and lighter, but I already had the 171mm format frame, as well as 171mm/Sinar, 171mm/110mm, 171mm/Technika lens board adapters. Plus, as mentioned above, the 171mm size allows me to use my exiting 171mm 38cm bellows with an intermediate standard to get another 15" of extension when needed.

I use the smaller 110mm ARCA-SWISS lens boards on my 4x5/4x10 cameras. The 171mm/110mm adapter lets me share these lenses with the Franken-ARCA. I can also barrel mount lenses on Sinar boards to use with, or without, my Sinar shutter. My main set of 7x17 lenses (240mm Computar, 305mm G Claron, 450mm Fujinon C and 600mm Fujinon C) are all small enough to mount on 110mm ARCA boards (or even Linhof Technika size boards) I just normally leave the 171mm/110mm adapter mounted on the camera and carry the lenses on the smaller 110mm boards. This keeps the weight and bulk down.

However, I have visions of super sizing my Franken-ARCA to 14x17 and plan to use my 42" Red Dot Artar on it. That lens is too big for the 110mm boards. It will barely fit on a Sinar board, but requires modifying the flange to fit on the board. The 171mm ARCA-SWISS board handles it with ease.

So, I have the best of both worlds - small, compact boards for my small, compact lenses, but also the option to use huge lenses as I move up in format.

For ULF use, I recommend, at a minimum Sinar size boards. Even if you use smaller lenses, the ability to accept Sinar boards allows the use of the Sinar shutter - which is a great solution for using a whole slew of affordable barrel mount lenses capable of covering ULF sizes - without going to the expense of getting them mounted in individual shutters.

Kerry

What would be the maximum bellows extension for an 11x14, 40",48", other?

Curt said:

What would be the maximum bellows extension for an 11x14, 40",48", other?

Click to expand...

Depends on your intended use. For landscapes, you might be able to get away with as little as 26 - 27" (I think the 11x14 Phillips Explorer has a max. extension of about 27"). This will let you use a 24"/600mm lens for distant subjects. 32-34" of extension will let you use a 30"/760mm lens for general landscape use.

For portraits or still life shots, you'll want something longer. It depends on how long a lens you want to use and how close you want to focus.

For my 14x17, I'm contemplating limiting the bellows to about 32 - 34" to allow the use of my 760mm APO Ronar, but keep the weight and bulk down to be able to carry it in the field. When I'm shooting close to my truck, I could still use the 42" Red Dot Artar (which is too heavy to carry around on my back with a 14x17 camera, film holders, other lenses, suitable tripod, etc.) with an intermediate standard and the 38cm ARCA 171mm bellows. Of course, the only real weight savings would be in the bellows, as I can custom tailor the rail lengths to match the application and lens choice.

Kerry

My Gundlach Wizard has about 40" of bellows. It came with an 18"/29"/39" triple convertible lens, and so I'd just barely be able to use the 39" element at infinity with it.

TheFlyingCamera said:

My Gundlach Wizard has about 40" of bellows. It came with an 18"/29"/39" triple convertible lens, and so I'd just barely be able to use the 39" element at infinity with it.

Click to expand...

What convertible lens is that? Sounds like it would be a real user for ULF.

As to how much bellows you might need, what Kerry said is right on. You need a lot more for portrait work than for landscapes.

Another consideration is DOF. If you want wall to wall sharpness on your prints, which is one of the reasons some of us like ULF, you will need to use relatively wide angle lenses to get as much DOP as possible. For that reason alone many ULF users tend to favor wide angle lenses with landscapes.

Course, it depends a lot of where you photograph and your objectives. Out west with big scenes where you put your camera on a hill and the nearest object in the scnes is 200-300' away long focal length lenses are very useful.

Sandy King

Sandy- it's a Manhattan Optical rapid rectilinear, an f7. It's in a dial-set pneumatic shutter, all the speeds of which work, and while some are not accurate, they're pretty consistent up and down. I haven't made an image with it yet, but at least in the unconverted length, it looks to be a real keeper. Beautiful transitions from sharp to soft.

As far as using tape, the key is to reduce the "stickyness" slighty. I use a double sided tape from 3M that has moderate tack on one side and less tack on the other. The less tacky side is still a little to sticky for a thin film like Efke. After putting the tape down I take a clean cotton cloth and genty rub the tape with alcohol. A few swipes reduces the tackiness enough to hold the film securely but allow for easy removal.

I put down several one inch peices of tape down all four sides and a make a small square of tape closer to the center. I lay the film down and gently tap on it (using clean cotton glove) to get it to set. I have a couple of half circle indents on the inside of the frame that allows me to get my finger under the film. Tape on that side is a couple inches away from the edge so I can get a smooth lift. I shoot 6 sheets and then replace tape.

Some folks will think the tape is to big of a hassle, but when I can build several of mine for the cost of a new standard holder, the extra work is more than an adequate trade off.

Some folks will think

Some folks will think the tape is to big of a hassle, but when I can build several of mine for the cost of a new standard holder, the extra work is more than an adequate trade off.

Click to expand...

Jim, what size holders have you made and what have you found better for the slide, aluminum or acetal?

Curt

I've made 11x14 and 7x17 holders for cameras I made and also a 12x20 but don't have a camera for that one.
For darkslides I use a material called Garolite. I use .060. It is a composite that I can get locally, but you can get it mail order from McMaster Carr. I like it better than aluminum because it's easier to work with and does not kink or bend if you drop it.

I went to my bookmarks on McC and found I bookmarked XXGarolite, Delrin and Acetal Copolymer. The problem with aluminum is it needs to be coated or painted. I have two older 11x14 wood holders and the only thing they have in common is the slides, they both have the same dimensions.

Garolite XX is what I usefor the darkslides. I do use aluminum for the septum. I have had them powder coated and also painted them myself. If you paint aluminum, you have to dull it with very fine wet/dry sand paper, prep it with a dillute muratic acid, rinse and paint immeadiately. If you wait even a few minutes the aluminum will oxidize and the paint will later flake off.

I have a rough layout for the camera base of 18" square with 40" to 44" of total extension front and rear as in a field camera. The wood choice is still up in the air, cherry, mahogany, maple, a lighter wood or what ever I find interesting or lighter in weight. The hardware, brass, stainless steel, plastic composite, lots of choices here too. It could just be wood and brass with a powder coating.

Curt, my layout is very similar. about 17 1/2" square with a guesstimate on the bellows of about 40". I have some of the Walnut cut and finished. I'm using the same design idea from my 8x20 by laminating thinner pieces together to make the rails and joining pieces. In the very early stages right now. I'm intending on using as little brass as possible. Racks, rods will be brass and the rest I'll make up as I go. My 8x20 is 14lbs. and I hope to keep this one light as well.

Jim

Curt, my layout is very similar. about 17 1/2" square with a guesstimate on the bellows of about 40". I have some of the Walnut cut and finished. I'm using the same design idea from my 8x20 by laminating thinner pieces together to make the rails and joining pieces. In the very early stages right now. I'm intending on using as little brass as possible. Racks, rods will be brass and the rest I'll make up as I go. My 8x20 is 14lbs. and I hope to keep this one light as well.

Click to expand...

Interesting enough I was thinking that the size is too large and was going to look at reducing it some. I was figuring the rails would have an extension of 11 inches with a 7 inch over lap which would make it very stable. I would need four 12 inch racks or 48 inches and four pinons which is right around a hundred dollars. If I reduce the base size then little changes in the design. With some thought about what I have, a Kodak 2D in 5x and 8x, a Seneca in 5x and 8x, a Shen, a Calumet 4x and 8x, the maximum bellows is 32 inches. Since I intend to use the camera as a land/seascape and nature etc. I can't see needing more than 40 inches. I am giving some thought to a revolving back. Wouldn't that be keen? I might make a mockup and see how it functions. This is where a little drafting or CAD might be helpful.