7 by 14 inch camera is there such a beast

[Monty McCutchen]

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.

[bob carnie]

Thanks Monty

I guess I am going to be looking for a 7 x17 kit some time in the future.

Bob

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.

[Oren Grad]

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.

The 7x17 Phillips is actually not ultralight for the format, although the weight is still not bad. IIRC it's somewhere around 12 lb. The Korona 7x17 weighs less than 10, and I think the current Chamonix is around there too. Mind you, the Phillips is a great camera - it's far more rigid than the Korona and it can handle a monster lens like the 480 Sironar-N without flinching, while the Korona would be crushed by it. But it does cost a bit of extra weight to gain that robustness.

Bob, if you're limiting yourself to horizontal compositions and you're expecting to crop in the enlarger anyway, you could keep an eye out for the 11x14 Phillips Explorer as well. That one's a bit lighter than the 7x17, though the advantage might disappear for the overall outfit depending on which holders you choose. You'd retain the option for squarer, non-cropped compositions on occasion, if that's of any interest. And FWIW, at least for now you can still buy 11x14 HP5 Plus off the shelf.

[Oren Grad]

IIRC Richard K had a Chamonix, but sold it.

Ack, now that I think about it, didn't he indeed have a Phillips 7x17 at some point? And/or the 8x16? I hope he's doing OK, and will be up to camera-schmoozing again soon...

< sigh >

[bob carnie]

Is something wrong with Richard? we are in the same city but rarely see each other.

Ack, now that I think about it, didn't he indeed have a Phillips 7x17 at some point? And/or the 8x16? I hope he's doing OK, and will be up to camera-schmoozing again soon...

< sigh >

[Oren Grad]

Is something wrong with Richard? we are in the same city but rarely see each other.

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...nt-for-a-while

[bob carnie]

I have been in touch with Richard and we may make an 11x14 with backs for both formats 11x14 and 14 x7.
Now I am truly entering the Large Format Game , just imagine only two years ago , I started with 4x5... I promise to stop at 11x14 , Monty' s Camera is too big for mere mortals as myself.


Now I need to research processing methods,, are there any stainless steel racks out there or does anyone custom make them?

[mdm]

Jim Galli has a 5x14 camera that was for sale for a long time, maybe he gave up, maybe he sold it, ask him. Would that would work for you?

[ic-racer]

I have been in touch with Richard and we may make an 11x14 with backs for both formats 11x14 and 14 x7.
Now I am truly entering the Large Format Game , just imagine only two years ago , I started with 4x5... I promise to stop at 11x14 , Monty' s Camera is too big for mere mortals as myself.


Now I need to research processing methods,, are there any stainless steel racks out there or does anyone custom make them?

Maybe John Powers will chime in here, but I believe he process a single 7x17 a time in a Jobo 2850.

Also, if you go the 'custom film holder' route, of 7x14, the image will be more like 13 and 3/4" plus I suspect your Durst negative glass is slightly greater then 14" so I'd think you'd get a larger usable negative surface by cropping 7x17. Also, if you are going to cut 7x17 film down to 7x14, it is easier to cut it after exposure and processing

[bob carnie]

That sounds very interesting

Jim Galli has a 5x14 camera that was for sale for a long time, maybe he gave up, maybe he sold it, ask him. Would that would work for you?