LF Camera dB

[alec4444]

I'm tired of searching all over hell's half acre for LF Camera and lens info, so I'm toying with the idea of building a public domain database where people can enter info, upload photos, etc for all types of LF cameras. Database could be searchable, and browseable with filtering and such. Fun, eh? It's stuff like this that whittles down my hours of sleep each night. I would host this on my domain for lack of anything else better to do with it at the moment!

Ok, so what would you want to know about a camera? Here's some info I've got logged into a schema thus far:

• Camera Make, Model (unique, so no duplicates)
• Camera Format (selected from a complete list)
• Year Built (Start)
• Year Built (End)
• Outer Depth (Closed)
• Outer Height (Closed)
• Outer Width (Closed)
• Max Extension (inches)
• Min Extension (inches)
• Weight (lbs)
• Movements (selected from a complete list)
• Lens Board Size
• Photos of the camera
• Description or Notes
• Website URL (if applicable)
• Rotating Back (yes/no)
• Contributor Name(s) (for those who want credit for supplying the info, pics)

Thought about the "degree" of movements, but realized this is too difficult for the avg person to measure. (30 degree swing? 35 degrees? who the hell knows!) Another problem that crossed my mind is that the max extension could vary depending on often-missing extension rails.

Anywho, thoughts or ideas appreciated. Gonna spec this out and send it to my tech team for pricing. I figure I'll start with the camera dB, then give the lens dB a go.

Cheers!
--A

[Ole Tjugen]

Making a database setup is the easy part. Getting all the data in is the difficult part. Also, LF cameras have been made for well over a century and many very old ones are still in use. They tend to be (or have been) hand made, making the number of possible variations as good as infinite.

Even with current cameras there are a lot of variations and options - like the Gandolfi Traditional 10x8" which can be had with or without front swing, with two different lensboard sizes, and in at least two different materials giving different weights. Even the front rise and shift depend on the lensboard type! There are more variations than that too - over the 80 years it's been in production - although the older ones (even more varied!) are called "Precision", not "Traditional".

If you do decide to go ahead with this, at least allow different sets of unit on entry and display: Use metric internally, then let each user select metric or imperial.

[Navy Moose]

I'm tired of searching all over hell's half acre for LF Camera and lens info, so I'm toying with the idea of building a public domain database where people can enter info, upload photos, etc for all types of LF cameras. Database could be searchable, and browseable with filtering and such. Fun, eh? It's stuff like this that whittles down my hours of sleep each night. I would host this on my domain for lack of anything else better to do with it at the moment!

Ok, so what would you want to know about a camera? Here's some info I've got logged into a schema thus far:

• Camera Make, Model (unique, so no duplicates)
• Camera Format (selected from a complete list)
• Year Built (Start)
• Year Built (End)
• Outer Depth (Closed)
• Outer Height (Closed)
• Outer Width (Closed)
• Max Extension (inches)
• Min Extension (inches)
• Weight (lbs)
• Movements (selected from a complete list)
• Lens Board Size
• Photos of the camera
• Description or Notes
• Website URL (if applicable)
• Rotating Back (yes/no)
• Contributor Name(s) (for those who want credit for supplying the info, pics)

Thought about the "degree" of movements, but realized this is too difficult for the avg person to measure. (30 degree swing? 35 degrees? who the hell knows!) Another problem that crossed my mind is that the max extension could vary depending on often-missing extension rails.

Anywho, thoughts or ideas appreciated. Gonna spec this out and send it to my tech team for pricing. I figure I'll start with the camera dB, then give the lens dB a go.

Cheers!
--A

Thank you for starting this. It is sorely needed.

[alec4444]

Making a database setup is the easy part. Getting all the data in is the difficult part.

Absolutely. That's why I'd set it all for anyone on the WWW to be able to enter data. Would take me forever to enter it all myself, but if everyone entered the cameras they own, presto! Insta-base.

Also, LF cameras have been made for well over a century and many very old ones are still in use. They tend to be (or have been) hand made, making the number of possible variations as good as infinite.

Even with current cameras there are a lot of variations and options - like the Gandolfi Traditional 10x8" which can be had with or without front swing, with two different lensboard sizes, and in at least two different materials giving different weights. Even the front rise and shift depend on the lensboard type! There are more variations than that too - over the 80 years it's been in production - although the older ones (even more varied!) are called "Precision", not "Traditional".

Perfect, that's the kinda info I need! Unless I build the flexibility in, it'll be useless. Thanks, Ole, this is a great start.

If you do decide to go ahead with this, at least allow different sets of unit on entry and display: Use metric internally, then let each user select metric or imperial.

Done. Now since I'm funding this personally, I may need to drop a feature here and there in the order of necessity. But I think this one would be kinda cheap.

This is going to take some time to design properly, and then the negotiations of the implementation begin. Not quick. But if you have ideas about what you'd like to see, please send me an email or post here. (PMs are a little full)

Cheers!
--A

[Graham Patterson]

Weight is at best a guide, unless you add a flag for 'as factory specification'. My Wista has a personal custom central tripod mount that adds a little to the weight, for example. There are a lot of standard lensboard sizes and adapters. Casual measurement will give you some variation, so the more preset options the better.

Resign yourself to omitting something useful!

[Ralph Barker]

While it's desirable from a database perspective to have something unique, Camera make/model may not be the best choice, considering the variations that aren't reflected in the model designation. I'd suggest designing in an arbitrary sub-model designator, something like A-Z, perhaps, to allow for different combinations of the variables.

Using the Wiki approach of public data input would minimize the level of centralized effort, but it can also lead to data errors unless there is some sort of vetting process. I haven't fully explored how Wiki works, so I might be off base in that respect, but it's something to think about in advance.

Also, while I think the resulting database would be highly useful, maintaining it will be a huge, long-term effort, not to mention enticing those who have gone to great pains to accumulate their own data to share it. For example, we tried to accumulate data on camera weights a while back. Initial response was fairly good, but interest diminished fairly rapidly, perhaps due to the fact that we didn't have a "monk" who had dedicated his life to the effort.

[Bob Salomon]

As an idea of what you are getting into The Linhof Camera Story book lists 91 different production Linhofs. This does not include three Linhof cameras introduced since the last version of the book was published or any new cameras that might be announced this month at Photokina.

This list does not include prototypes but does include very short run cameras like the Kardan GTI.

Now add all the Arca models, Toyo, Cambo, Plaubel, etc. cameras and you have a massive job compiling all the info - even if you can find owners for all sizes and models of the cameras.

Then, while Linhof does not break the sub-models down, there are lots of users looking for particular production changes and will claim that they have a Technika III model or series X. So if that is included in your db this becomes endless.

[Oren Grad]

It doesn't have to be perfect to be very useful. This site, for example, is worth its weight in gold, despite not having a lot of the details you're considering.

Allow for flexibility to accommodate the broad variation that you'll see in hand-made and short-run models, and put in some text explaining the facts of LF life for users who would otherwise harrass you with "but you said it was 8 pounds 3 ounces, not 8 pounds 7 ounces!". Beyond that, don't sweat it.

Perhaps it would be more practical to do as a wiki, like this.

[alec4444]

Thanks, guys. Yeah, it was that site, and the LF lenses page on graflex.org that gave me the idea.

As far as variations, I was thinking about allowing several versions of "Custom" under model. So for example, let's Joe owns a custom Wisner Tech Field 5x7 that has less extension. Jack owns a custom Wisner Tech Field 5x7 that has no rear center-axis tilt. I own the regular one. The filtered view of Wisner Cameras might look something like this:

CameraID                  Make                  Model               Format
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10001                     Wisner                Tech Field          5x7
15896                     Wisner                Custom              5x7
12578                     Wisner                Custom              5x7

...Thus, there can be as many "custom" cameras with the same Mfr and Format as needed. "Unknown" might be another model with that allows duplicates, in the event there was no name for the model.

Of course, that does allow duplicates, but I'm thinking flexibility over perfect accuracy. Ralph, your idea for allowing a third level within this "taxonomy" (if you want to call it that) is an interesting concept....I wonder what I would name that?

A wiki is another interesting way to approach this, but you'd lose tools such as filtering and advanced search. That would be a bummer, I think, because if I wanted to see all 8x10s under 10 pounds I'd have to surf....

--A

[Ralph Barker]

FWIW, I think "Model" should follow whatever the manufacturer designation was, and then augment that with several "options" fields (5? 10?) in the schema.