Will be exciting to hear your report :-)Originally Posted by evan clarke
Will be exciting to hear your report :-)
Have you received your holders and can we get a report of your findings? We need to know......
I have the tracking info, they were shipped early in the week. The USPS info is always late..usually have the item days before the postal service says you do.
I'm pretty anxious, I'm $1200 into it..
You could be surprised... maybe the cheaper option could turn out to be the best one, who knows.
I don't shoot 11x14" (maximum 24x30cm.), but i have noticed the adapter backs for the Vageeswari 12x15" (and probably other almost identical indian-made cameras): they don't look badly made, quite the opposite, i'd say.
Believe it or not, sometimes you pay more and get even less.
Of course your opinion is welcomed as any other, the world would be such a sad place without differences!
I have a different inclination though, and i believe that there is much more fun if you take the old saying that "you get what you pay for" with a (big) grain of salt.
Nothing tragic, my friend, just different views... but i must confess that there is one thing i simply can't stand.
Why on earth LF photography should reserved to people with thick wallets?
I am sick of reading that "large format is not for the poor". Maybe the actual phrase is somewhat sweetened, but that's the idea.
There are people shooting large format, even 8x10", with cheap wooden cameras, shutter-less lenses, antique wooden holders, and x-ray film.
Most of the pictures made that way are technically correct, and some have very good aesthetical qualities... something that can't be said of many pictures made with top class gear, and posted on this Forum.
For the current economic situation, and for my own distressed finances, i am spending way too much money in vintage lenses, but i am not thinking for a single second that those lenses are some kind of magic bullets that would turn a lousy picture in a fantastic one. Simply i love 'em, and that's a joy in itself, no need to be rationally justified
There are many lurkers on this forum. Most of them don't own any large format equipment.
My advice is:
don't be scared by those who say that LF photography can't be done on the cheap.
Sometimes even ULF photography can be affordable.
I have seen "reisekamera" in metric sizes being sold at nice prices, especially those in need of small restorations, and i have purchased myself 100 sheets of 24x30cm. single side mammography film, at less than $1 a sheet.
It is modern ortho film, with tubular crystals, and NOT expired. It should be easy to adjust to it, because it can be developed by inspection.
There were 30x40cm. sheets too, but i decided that's best to buy the camera first!
have fun
CJ
WTB (and pay good monet for):
soft back cell for Ilex Photoplastic 5x7
disks for Imagon 420mm
5x7 back for Calumet C1
5x7 conversion for Bi-System
for sale
Photographica
I have two of these holders. They are not pretty. When I took them out of the box the first thing I noticed was how crude they looked. They looked like some students wood shop project. Also they were not packed well at all. the box was damaged and one of the darkslides was dented. But they work. They actually fit very snug and are light tight. We'll see how they hold up over time but for now I'm able to shoot me cobbled together 11x14 camera.
OK. So can state based upon direct experience that these holders fit tight and are light tight. Are you basing this upon actual produced negatives or shining light through the bellows and looking for leaks? If you are shooting negatives do you use a dark cloth over the camera back?
Second question. Have you checked the ground glass registration with the film, holder? Easy thing to do. Take the film holder back off of the camera and put a metal straight diagonal across a rear section of the ground glass back. Clamp a couple of toothpicks to the side of the straight edge just touching the back of the ground glass. Put one of the film holders into the camera with an exposed and developed waste negative in it and pull the slide. Put the metal edge with the tooth picks clamped to it from the previous step and see if the toothpicks just touch the film. One can then check the registration at a couple of points.
Have you done a critical focus test with a macro photograph precisely focused square at a middle point of a near, middle and far subject? Is the focus uniform?
I have completed this test with my 11x14 Fidelity Medical cassettes and my S&S wooden holders and they were absolutely spot on.
Cheers!
Michael,
Yes I have exposed film and it had no light leaks. And yes I do cover the back area with my dark cloth. I do that on my 5x7 and 8x10 also. Just habit I guess. As far as all those other tests? NO. Look, I shoot landscape type photos. I've focused on the scene as I saw appropriate, stopped down and exposed the film. The negs look good through my loupe on the lightbox and the contact prints I've made look plenty sharp. I am not here to say these holders are 100% the cats meow at half the price but from what I have encountered they are not crap either.
Rich
Great to hear.
One of the things I have learned the hard way is that it is a very good idea to have any ULF ground glass back precision checked for GG depth that is properly aligned with the film holders of choice. The reason is that while your images may in fact look acceptably sharp because of the inherent tendencies of stopping down to f45, macro images or images that do not need such high f stops could be adversely effected. It is just a good idea to have these proportions checked by a competent individual.
So, I have had my holders for about a week. they are a little crude, but I have touched them up. Unfortunately, I've spent then week trying to make sheets to no avail. Will keep you posted..
Checking in on this about a month later. Any luck? Really interested to know if these are viable. I want pretty (not crude) holders as much as the next guy, but I'm not sure that aesthetics alone are worth a ~$200 increase per holder. So I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you that these are working out!
Cheers!
--A
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks