Choice of "Lightweight" 20x24 cameras....

[angusparker]

Here is my two cents. My experience is based on owning a Ritter 8x10, a Chamonix 45F1, and a Ritter converted Fatif monorail (8x10) which is now a 14x17. The Chamonix are beautiful, precise, and rigid but heavier especially in ULF sizes than their Ritter counterparts. Chamonix film holders may not be "standard" sized to allow for some weight savings. The Ritter on the other hand is super light weight and much more flexible in terms of max and min bellow sizes especially in ULF sizes. But when using my 760mm on the Ritter 8x10 I pray for a light and constant wind! My suggestion is to reconsider 20x24 as your format and consider 14x17 instead. Here is why:

14x17 is much more manageable in the field - smaller film holders and cameras
14x17 X-ray film is available easily and cheap so you can afford to experiment and learn (not so in 16x20 or 20x24)
14x17 B&W film is available via Ilford special order and from Fotoimpex in Germany http://www.fotoimpex.de/shopen/ - so that's the same as 16x20, but better than 20x24.
14x17 negatives contact print nicely on 16x20 paper so you have a more manageable darkroom or dimroom set-up

In any case, 14x17 will seem enormous compared to 4x5 and even 8x10 - and the contact printing will be a joy giving you a perfect size without enlarging.

Another option is shooting 8x10 and scanning and enlarging digitally to get you a digital negative on acetate that you can contact print. This route will be a lot easier and cheaper than going ULF at the camera and film level. One advantage of going digital in the PP stage is that you can adjust curves in Photoshop to you preferred output method (e.g. silver gelatin, versus platinum versus cyanotype) so your results will be more repeatable.

In 14x17 sizes I would probably look at these options in the following order:

Chamonix 14x17 (with several non-standard sized holders) with custom longer bellows
Cassiopedia 14x17 (comes with longer bellows but each is built to order) basically a cheaper Chamonix with not as nice finish
--> See: http://www.ebay.com/itm/331309134250...84.m1436.l2649
Ritter 14x17

If you go 8x10 and digitally enlarge I'd probably get the Ritter before the Chamonix because of the packability of the set-up.

[Kodachrome25]

Thanks for the tip but I am not at all interested in scanning, need to keep a 100% analog / wet print workflow. I considered 14x17 for a short time but when looking at the finished product size, especially in the selling of an original reversal black and white chrome, 20x24 is much better.

Like I said, I get nice 20x24 enlargements all day with my 4x5, for this next move up in format, the final product has to be truly remarkable in order to be a strong offering in the markets I work in.

[vinny]

I was referring to the carbon fiber rods on the Ritter. 36" bellows would be a deal breaker for me. Hell, my 8x10 does close to that w/o accessories. You aren't that far from Hugo's place but I don't remember if he has one or not.

It's the Ritter that weighs 18 pounds less and none of the Chamonix cameras use a solid component of carbon fiber but rather wood that is laminated in it, not a bad thing as I own and use a 45N2. The bellows on the Chamonix max out at 36", not a lot of wiggle room depending on lens used, the 60" ones on the Ritter would be fairly ideal for a 30"-35" lens I would imagine.

As far as seeing both in person, that is going to be up to me finding people who own them, hence the inquiry via this thread...

[Erik Larsen]

If you've got a vision of what you want the finished work to be, I say go for it and continue researching the potential liabilities in your choice of format size. It sounds like a fun endeavor, I wish I had the cash to give it a try as well. You can always sell off the equipment if the experience is not what you anticipated. I love my Ritter 8x10, but if I'm honest contrary to what Bruce said above it is not even in the same league with regards to rigidity as a sinar or chamonix for that matter, although I admire his loyalty to Richard If the additional 20lbs is gonna keep you from your goals, get the Ritter as I'm sure it will get the job done well. If ultimate rigidity is your concern I would opt for the chamonix. I look forward to seeing what you have planned, best of luck with the project!

[Hugo Zhang]

Daniel,

Tri Tran has two Chamonix 20x24 cameras and I have one 16x20. We have a get-together next month and you are welcome to join us and try these cameras.

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...92-%93Meet-and

I would love to meet you in person as well.

Hugo

[John Jarosz]

From someone who has experienced the small end of ULF (8x20), all I can say is 'good luck' . There are many things you will encounter that do not bother others, but will be an obstacle for you. And the converse is also true: you will not be affected by aspects of ULF that deter others.

I will say two things:
the types and sizes of sensitized materials will be an ongoing challenge as companies pop up or disappear as their bottom lines dictate.
and
As the format size gets larger it becomes more difficult to get exactly the composition you desire to appear on the film. It's really easy (comparatively) to contact print 8x10 full frame.

[RichardRitter]

On camera with over 40 inches of bellows it is a good idea to use a second tripod under the lens standard. I install one on all camera with bellow 43 and longer. I started doing this years ago when I was requested to put one a Wisner to make the front end more stable. No matter the size of the tripod or how rigid the camera is when you have 75 % of the camera hanging out over the tripod it is going to be unstable.

Put a brick on a broom stick and see how far you can extend it with out it wobbling around. that's why bridges have supports on both end.

[Peter De Smidt]

I agree with Richard. At one point I did some very long extensions with a Sinar P, approximately 5 feet. At first, I used the metal plate with two rail holders on one huge tripod. The resulting contraption was a bit too springy for my liking. Adding another tripod and rail clamp under the lens did wonders. I don't think anyone would accuse a Sinar P of being flimsy.

[Kodachrome25]

From someone who has experienced the small end of ULF (8x20), all I can say is 'good luck' . There are many things you will encounter that do not bother others, but will be an obstacle for you. And the converse is also true: you will not be affected by aspects of ULF that deter others.

I will say two things:
the types and sizes of sensitized materials will be an ongoing challenge as companies pop up or disappear as their bottom lines dictate.
and
As the format size gets larger it becomes more difficult to get exactly the composition you desire to appear on the film. It's really easy (comparatively) to contact print 8x10 full frame.

This is why I am doing gobs of research before actually committing to it. If it were not for FP4 and HP5 in 20x24, I would never consider it but I think it is safe to say we can depend on Ilford to keep offering the ULF run, they would have to be in dire straights to not be. But yeah....$35 a sheet, wha-bam is that expensive, LOL!

The last part you mention, I know it well, being stuck in one or maybe two focal lengths at most and wishing for something different...I actually thrive in that realm, a mind stretch. I estimate that around 1% of the possible shots I could do with 4x5 will be possible with a 20x24 camera, it ain't no Leica M3....;-)

On camera with over 40 inches of bellows it is a good idea to use a second tripod under the lens standard. I install one on all camera with bellow 43 and longer. I started doing this years ago when I was requested to put one a Wisner to make the front end more stable. No matter the size of the tripod or how rigid the camera is when you have 75 % of the camera hanging out over the tripod it is going to be unstable.

Put a brick on a broom stick and see how far you can extend it with out it wobbling around. that's why bridges have supports on both end.

I fully plan to do this, a heavy Ries under the main body and a good 7-10 pound tripod under the front standard.

Thanks for all the great info folks, I will run 4x5 reversal tests for awhile and see how I feel about it.

[Daniel Stone]

I'd be concerned about the process itself(especially the reversal process), and having absolute repeatability with the workflow and presentation prior to deciding on a camera and accessories.
Securing a stash of materials to meet and/or exceed the visioned "needs" down the line, along with materials/products needed for proper display of the finished works.

Just wondering, is there a way of exposing b/w film traditionally, then enlarging onto larger film and processing it out for a "reversal" of the negative in place of using a large(20x24) camera? Say, starting out with an 8x10 negative?

Not heckling, I'm totally supportive of the reversal process idea, but just wanted to ask nonetheless.

-Dan