Using and Modifying the Travelwide 4x5 camera

[plywood]

Just tried my 90 f6.8 Angulon and find opening about 3.3 mm larger than lens. Seems like there must be variation in '0' size mounts. The diameter of my threads is just over 32mm resulting in a bit of slop. Not being knowledgeable on these things I was wondering if this is common? As a manner of information the jam nut on my lens is labeled Burke & James and has a shoulder that is a bit too large for the opening on the 90 so I cannot just turn the jam nut around.

[Tin Can]

Just tried my 90 f6.8 Angulon and find opening about 3.3 mm larger than lens. Seems like there must be variation in '0' size mounts. The diameter of my threads is just over 32mm resulting in a bit of slop. Not being knowledgeable on these things I was wondering if this is common? As a manner of information the jam nut on my lens is labeled Burke & James and has a shoulder that is a bit too large for the opening on the 90 so I cannot just turn the jam nut around.

You have the wrong jam nut, most would have a shoulder that would fill that gap.

Improvise

[Drew Bedo]

I just found a 101mm Graflex Optar in a drawer… It won't focus to infinity on the Travelwide, but it could be interesting as a portrait setup. I'll give it a whirl and report back.

All this lens swaping is really interesting to read. Ben's post about the 101mm Graflex Optar got me thinking . . . .

What about one of the 110 lenses from one of the classic 6x9 folders from Agfa/Ansco, Zeis, Voightlander et al? Mount it and run the TW helical mount out till the lens is at infinity. Now focus with the lens' front element and scale as it was designed.

I understand the possibility of vignetting and questions of inherent sharpness . Its just a wild thought.

cheers to all

[plywood]

You have the wrong jam nut, most would have a shoulder that would fill that gap.

Improvise

Ah yes. Well for right now I've just centered by feel and eyeball, snugged up the jam nut flat side in and all seems well.

As a matter of curiosity has anyone else found that the focus scale as shipped was bang on correct? I set up outside looking at power poles at 1/2 mile for the inf position and found no better adjustment necessary. Tried indoors at measured 2m setting and again found image sharp with lens set to 2m on scale. That's measured from film holder, not lens.

[Tin Can]

What's a meter, is that music or somethin...

[plywood]

All this lens swaping is really interesting to read. Ben's post about the 101mm Graflex Optar got me thinking . . . .

What about one of the 110 lenses from one of the classic 6x9 folders from Agfa/Ansco, Zeis, Voightlander et al? Mount it and run the TW helical mount out till the lens is at infinity. Now focus with the lens' front element and scale as it was designed.

I understand the possibility of vignetting and questions of inherent sharpness . Its just a wild thought.

cheers to all

Drew, I've tried a 105mm f4.5 Kodak lens from a Tourist 6X9 on 4X5 and it vignettes severely. Corners completely black. I have used a 130mm f7.7 Kodak lens from a larger folder and it just covered 4x5 at infinity. The frame diagonal of the camera it came from was 127mm.

[Kuzano]

Sorry ... should have posted here instead of original thread.

I have 159 envelopes of usable Fujifilm and Kodak Quikload and ReadyLoad envelopes, frozen for some time now. I plan to start using them with the TW. I have the final version Kodak Professional Readyload film back which supercedes early problematic Kodak holders and delivers results as good as the Fujifilm Quikload holder. These backs slide into the same spot as a DDS holder and have the same setback on the film in the holder.

I plan to start using the inventory of envelopes I have.

Secondly, I plan to find a way to reload some of the 159 envelopes I will have left over, with any emulsion 4X5 I want to use. I have torn down these envelopes and played with some ideas. I have hoped over time, somone would see the value of either reloading quikload/readyload envelopes or provide a system.

If anyone here knows of a project or mfr reloading Quikload/Readyload envelope with film of choice, would like to hear about it. It's come up before, but all leads have lead to dead ends.

Personally, I think the TW is a perfect camera for use with preloaded film sheets. Carry a TW, a Quikload or Readyload back and a dozen envelopes.... Light, light, light Kit!!!

[wojszyca]

Just tried my 90 f6.8 Angulon and find opening about 3.3 mm larger than lens.

I didn't measure the difference but mine was also a bit loose in the opening, I even mentioned it before somewhere in this thread. I think it was a very small difference though, I just screwed it in place trying to keep it central, probably not super-precise, and it works fine, I don't see any problems...

[David Aimone]

Yes, me too:

The Good News:

The travelwide 90 is assembled, calibrated and working wonderfully.

The Bad News:

In converting to the travelwide 65 with my second body, 3 of the tiny screws came out fine; the last won't budge and in trying to remove it somehow I broke the thin plastic ring through which the screws go. So it's sitting there with three screws out, one stuck and the little retainer ring broke.

What do I do?

OK, so did anyone else break their camera in less than 5 minutes???

I managed to disconnect the internal helical from the front turning ring. There are four little protrusions from a plastic ring inside the camera that is screwed to the camera body making reconnection difficult.

I'm not sure how to reconnect everything without breaking one of the protrusions. It doesn't just screw back in.

Ben? Justin? Help!

[ImSoNegative]

I took my first shot yesterday.
Many first times here - my first ever large format shot, first time ever handling sheet film, first time ever developing it and scanning it. First time ever using the Travelwide and the sport finder.
Considering all that, I am happy I got any results. Framing is random, as I had no idea what area of the actual frame does the sport finder cover, so I just centered it on the subject and used the bubble level to level the camera.

The photo is not sharp. At full size, it is obviously soft. Either I did the calibration wrong, or it is camera shake (2 min exposure). Long exposure wasn't probably the best idea for the first test, but it was raining all day and only stopped after dark. And I was too eager to try to wait..

Here is the rough scan of my first attempt:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/wojszyca/22183041349/

That is a great shot