7 by 14 inch camera is there such a beast

I am lucky enough to own a 11x14 Devere Enlarger in mint condition with all appropriate lenses and mounts. I would like to take advantage of the glass I have and the width of the enlarger but I do not want to go down the path of a 11x14 camera,, the 8x10's I have are about as far as I would like to go.

I am thinking of making some 60inch wide murals or as large as my enlarger will offer.

I have been shooting 8x10 as late and really like the results.
Now I am on a quest for a panoramic style format and camera... 7 x14 which mimics the aspect ratio of 6x12 in medium format which I really like.

Any thoughts on what is available in the used market, with ample holders, also what is the situation on getting film if any ... I am most interested in Black and White.
I can process the film in our jobo tanks I believe but stainless holders or methods of processing this format would be of interest.

I am hoping Richard K will jump in here as he is local and I think he may have one of these beasts.

I'd bet you could have Richard Ritter to make on for you. I'd think the combination of the camera, the enlarger and the huge prints would be quite a sensation.

Or, even easier, would be to have him make a reducing back for a 7x17, but you would still need the $$ of custom film holders.

If I had that enlarger, I'd get a 7x17 and crop a little on the edges. I think it will be easier to get film holders, a camera and film in that larger size than the one-off 7x14 size.

The film area that you 'save' (14" across compared to 17" across) will probably cost you more $$ in the long run. So, I'd just get a 7x17 and some black electrician's tape for the edges of the GG and start shooting. http://www.largeformatphotography.in...7-film-holders

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ic-racer

Or, even easier, would be to have him make a reducing back for a 7x17, but you would still need the $$ of custom film holders.

If I had that enlarger, I'd get a 7x17 and crop a little on the edges. I think it will be easier to get film holders, a camera and film in that larger size than the one-off 7x14 size.

The film area that you 'save' (14" across compared to 17" across) will probably cost you more $$ in the long run. So, I'd just get a 7x17 and some black electrician's tape for the edges of the GG and start shooting.

---

Oh So +1

opps!

Simplest way is to take a 7 x 17 camera and add masks to both side of the back . Or mask off the ground glass and take a 17 inch image it would give you 3 inches of wiggle room when printing.

I am hoping to take every inch of the available glass the Deveere offers there for my quest for a 7 x14..
I honestly thought there was this camera on the market place...
I am not sure how many 11x14 enlargers are out there, I think a few and this really is a beaut.


For the project I have in mind...
The deveere glass carrier is 14 inch not 17 but I see where folks are going with the wiggle room. and it is interesting option .
basically I want to take the 14 inch to the max... I love the 1:2 aspect ratio...
The enlarger if you are familiar with has a drop table and can raise the head ... but remember I cannot turn this enlarger horizontal like I can with my Durst 184.
The focusing knobs are on the drop table which is beautiful , but I would have to strip the enlarger and that is not an option , therefore the durst for wall and the Deveere for vertical.

There for 8x10 negs for this project will be 48 inches by 60 inches approx.. as big as I can get with ilford warmtone.
for the pano format I have know I can project to about 30 inches on the height which would mean a 4.1 magnification which would take the 14 inch to 58 inches.
This makes me happy as both cameras then will fit into my project line and I can mix panos with the 8x10 format with both end prints being the same approximate width. the 8x10 would be about a 5x mag which is hard to quibble with.
I therefore am looking to design a 30 inch x 60 inch vacumn easel for the Deverre and I will wall project the durst.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dakotah Jackson

Bob, why not a 5x12 back for it? This format has holders and film both available.

---

Thinking about what can be fit into an 11x14 enlarger:

There are 7x11 cameras, both antique and modern. IIRC Richard K had a Chamonix, but sold it.

There have been some Indian panorama cameras that show up on eBay now and then - IIRC I've seen 6x15 and 8x15. Bearing in mind that the exposed area is always a bit smaller than the nominal format, those are close.

And finally, there's Jim Galli's one-of-a-kind 5x14 Chamonix.

If I had an 11x14 enlarger, I'd shoot 11x14, and have the option to crop to panoranic.

I thought about this , but I remember seeing John Powers camera set up and thinking how great it was, and I am sure yes/no his setup is less weight than a 11x14 setup.
But... I thought his camera was a 7 x14 not a 7 x17.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsphotog

If I had an 11x14 enlarger, I'd shoot 11x14, and have the option to crop to panoranic.

---

Bob,

John can of course pipe up here when he sees this but I am almost certain he bought Clay Harmon's Phillips 7 x 17. I would highly recommend the 7 x 17. I have that format and it is a great format. I would just shoot it as the complete 7 x 17, marking lightly the 7 x 14 dimensions on the ground glass with the ability to still see the entire frame and then cut the negative down when you wanted to enlarge it. The print you have stated you wanted of mine was a 7 x 17 negative cut down to 7 x 11 so that it would meet the requirements of the charity event. Having the 7 x 17 would allow for second negative to be shot, kept as a 7 x 17 and contact printed as well, which is a great contact print for pt/pd and other alternative process's.

As to the weight of the Phillips 7 x 17 it was definitely made for light weight field work. John's Phillips is the same one I own and although it has a somewhat short bellows it was designed with a minimum of weight as one of its defining characteristics.

Hope that helps

Monty

John please correct me if I have the make of yours incorrect. I posted on memory which is failing me at best these days.