Taking the plunge into ULF ! Building my own...

[Sidney Cammeresi]

After moving up from 35mm to 6x6 to 4x5, when the time came to go larger, I went straightaway to 11x14. In retrospect, I'm glad I had the sense to skip 8x10 since a contact print at in that size is nice, but I would have eventually wanted something larger. You can always print only smaller part of a larger negative or get a reducing back if you want to save some cash on film, but printing 11x14 of an 8x10 negative is quite a bit more difficult. Yes, the camera is larger, but I wheel my 11x14 camera around, and I doubt I would have carried an 8x10 very far without a similar apparatus.

It's definitely a different beast than 4x5, but once you get to 8x10, I don't think the technical problems get much different as you go even larger, the biggest problem being very long exposures; I often have to account for reciprocity in the middle of the day.

[Justus Schlichting]

Jan,

Just a thought for you: the graphic arts (commercial printing) business has just undergone an enormous upheaval, switching from analog to digital. As a result, there are a surprising number of fine surplus "process" cameras, both horizontal and vertical, of various sizes, available for incredibly low prices. I recently acquired a 20"x24" process camera complete with two gorgeous commercial Hexanon lenses (240mm and 105mm), vacuum back, xenon lamps, exposure computer, spare parts, etc, complete for $78 from a print shop in Oakland, CA. If I hadn't bought it, the owner was planning to junk it! While the bulk and weight of a camera like this can be daunting, if you plan to stay in studio, and you have the space, it can be a nifty tool as is. Or, cannibalize the parts you need and re-assemble in the form you want.

[Paul Kierstead]

Ok, I am still pretty much a newbie. But...

Is it really viable to shoot 11x14 on paper (which I understand has an ASA in the single digits) of non-static objects (i.e. people)? I would think this would be close to hopeless unless you have heavily drugged your subject. Or perhaps have some huge bank of strobes. I am just imagining trying to shoot F/64 on ASA 4 with a person involved....

[Jan Van Hove]

I Actually took Justus's suggestion seriously and sent a few e-mails to printing companies around town, and one guy actually offered me a process camera, he said that he previously had another camera that he tried to sell and never found a buyer, and since he needed the space this monster took, he junked it, it's been taken apart for scrap metal !

I would get it in a few weeks, and by then I should have figured out what parts to junk and what parts to keep....

Now, i just have to find a place to put it and a way to move it, it's 10 feet long !

From 4x5 to 20x24 is a little further than I ever envisioned to go, but i guess you can't look a gift horse in the mouth...

[John D Gerndt]

I have reciently built a 12x20 for Very little money. Though mine is specialized (read: simplified) for landscape I have learned a few things about the building endeavor. As with most things, you must decide about what your output with the device is going to be. You seem to know the parameters so build to suit and don’t worry too much about what you are missing.

That said, I think in your case the easiest trick, even with a process camera on the way, is to build an extension back for an 8x10. I bought my quite serviceable 8x10 for $250. As you build the camera think about its integration to the tripod and head that you own. Think about balancing and stabilizing that weight. Think too about its transport. How might you break it down and haul it whatever distance you anticipate. These things seem to be overlooked until the task is at hand.

Getting more technical, the spring back for 11x14 can be a tug-of-war even with the best of fits to a given holder. I gave up on springs and designed holders and back that are interchangeable: remove and replace. It is slower but so what?

Remember how far you will need to back up to see that much GG. You’ll need a large dark cloth. I made mine integral to the GG back.

Make your own GG. Look for the article in phototechmag.com

Lastly, how long ARE your arms? You may need a system to focus by moving the GG or some sort of remote gearing to move the front.

It took me a year to come up with the film holders. The camera was relatively easy. I may yet post an article on it when I am sure it works well enough to mention. More testing…

Cheers,

[Donald Brewster]

Well, if you really want to go cheap, how about a couple of 11x14 box cameras -- one for infinity and one for portraits? Simple to make, though obviously a little more bulky.

[Emile J Schwarz]

You might try doing a search for an Argyle Process camera on ebay. While its not a field camera or made of wood, they are comparitvely sturdy and light weight. It is made from anadized al. extrusions and has a twin rail design. I have a 14" in storage for a future project. I know they made an 18" and possable larger sizes.

Both the the camera and the attached base are made from the same extrusions. With a little work, you could detach the base and use the parts to widen the twin rail frame up to about 30". If you find one with the origional timer box, you could connect up to around a 1000 watts for hot lights.

[Ernest Purdum]

Thoughts regarding possible rack and pinion replacement:



A "timing belt" cut and flattened out might do as a rack.



A small version of a bicycle type chain would seem like a possibility.



In either instance, the snag might be finding a small enough "pinion" (sprocket in the case of the chain.)



I don't know of anyone having tried either of these and would be very interested to hear if anyone has.

[Terence Spross]

The process camera sounds like an opportunity, many process cameras have vacuum film holders that are usually serviced from an adjoining integral dark room. That might be part of the 10ft length. If you could keep the back and adapt a changing bag that is large enough to hold a two boxes of film/paper and use a small vacuum cleaner to generate sufficient vacuum you could avoid otherwise limiting film holders. One box for unexposed and the other for exposed film. With pegs to mark the location of 11x 14 you can predictably place the film/paper by hand in the 20x24 back. Usually process cameras are used with film that can be used with a safelight and the operator places the film by sight. With Illfochrome paper that won't be an option.

Paul Kirstead's comment about the speed of paper with a live subject is a real concern. I know some people who expose paper directly push process the paper to double its speed but then you are usually talking about souping your own first developer because a color shift will begin to occur that will require a filter that would defeat the pupose of purpose of push processing. So apparently this can be avoided by changing the ph slightly.

Are your subjects going to be intidated by something that reminds then of the xray machine?

If you want to shoot infinity where will it be done? Do you need to put this freeby on wheels or can you use just enoguh parts to make a smaller version that better suits your needs?

[Terence Spross]

The process camera sounds like an opportunity, many process cameras have vacuum film holders that are usually serviced from an adjoining integral dark room. That might be part of the 10ft length. If you could keep the back and adapt a changing bag that is large enough to hold a two boxes of film/paper and use a small vacuum cleaner to generate sufficient vacuum you could avoid otherwise limiting film holders. One box for unexposed and the other for exposed film. With pegs to mark the location of 11x 14 you can predictably place the film/paper by hand in the 20x24 back. Usually process cameras are used with film that can be used with a safelight and the operator places the film by sight. With Illfochrome paper that won't be an option.

Paul Kirstead's comment about the speed of paper with a live subject is a real concern. I know some people who expose paper directly push process the paper to double its speed but then you are usually talking about souping your own first developer because a color shift will begin to occur that will require a filter that would defeat the purpose of push processing. So apparently this can be avoided by changing the ph slightly.

Are your subjects going to be intidated by something that reminds then of the xray machine?

If you want to shoot infinity where will it be done? Do you need to put this freeby on wheels or can you use just enough parts to make a smaller version that better suits your needs?