14x17 camera film and holders [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Tri Tran

27-Feb-2014, 20:55

Jim is right. 14x17 Chamonix is definitely light weight and compact. It looks a tad bigger than most 11x14 that I have owned. You have to use Chamonix holder though .The dark slide is a highlight of their product. Carbon Fiber is smooth as silk . Their holder dimensions and thickness are not ANSI standard . That's why is made it so compact .

Miguel Coquis

2-Mar-2014, 09:39

Is anyone looking to sell a 14x17 camera? It has to be on the light side.
Nick Nixon

Nick, a light 14x17? Try Chamonix.

why not Ritters, check:
http://www.lg4mat.net/1417.html

originalphoto

4-Mar-2014, 13:46

check this http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/AzoForum/one.asp?ID=13682&PgNo=&GID=13682&CID=10

angusparker

4-Mar-2014, 17:42

Ritter is lightest but Chamonix more precise and solid - it's a trade off. Bunch of 14x17 Chamonix being made now so you might get in on this production run if you reach out to Hugo.

drifty

10-Mar-2014, 11:03

Kodachrome25

10-Mar-2014, 13:38

angusparker

10-Mar-2014, 14:50

A bit off topic....

When it comes to ULF and I am talking *strictly* in terms of having a stellar eye in the composition, who is the rock star of ULF? Who fills the frame with a mind blowing shot with incredible light, tone and above all else, a flat out killer composition?

At times I think of planning to someday obtain a camera the size that this thread is based on, but I have yet to be inspired by a single image I see from them, uber basic & pedestrian it would seem....

All good points. I think 14x17 appeals to me because of the cheap film (x-ray), ability to contact print a large image, and relative (in ULF terms) sweet spot for size and weight. The format is squarer than 4x5, 8x10, 16x20 which I like and because you have so much screen/film real estate you can decide how you want to crop as you go along. One option that I'm considering is getting a 14x17 holder that can also take 7x17 film. In any case, I have several panoramic MF cameras in 6x17 which are better suited to wide compositions.

Kodachrome25

10-Mar-2014, 15:07

All good points. I think 14x17 appeals to me because of the cheap film (x-ray), ability to contact print a large image, and relative (in ULF terms) sweet spot for size and weight. The format is squarer than 4x5, 8x10, 16x20 which I like and because you have so much screen/film real estate you can decide how you want to crop as you go along. One option that I'm considering is getting a 14x17 holder that can also take 7x17 film. In any case, I have several panoramic MF cameras in 6x17 which are better suited to wide compositions.

That's cool, but who has a rock star eye for composition?

Mark Sampson

10-Mar-2014, 20:06

I believe that angusparker is referring to, and paying homage to, the original poster, Nicholas Nixon. Kodachrome25, if you're not familiar with Mr. Nixon's work, I suggest that you check it out right away.

Monty McCutchen

10-Mar-2014, 20:13

That's cool, but who has a rock star eye for composition?

Well if the OP isn't a big enough Rock Star in the photographic community for you (if indeed its the same Nick Nixon that did the Brown Sisters and has a long and valued body of outstanding work, and I like Mark believe it is, and am happy to think he might contribute here) then these are all wonderful and inspiring photographers who have all done significant work with larger camera's often to produce incredible alternative process prints that prior to the advancements in digital negatives weren't possible without large in camera negatives;

Kerik Kouklis

Dick Arentz

Steve Sherman

Sandy King

Clay Harmon

Michael Mutmansky

Michael A. Smith

Patrick Alt

Alex Timmermans

Matt Magruder

Your definition of Rock Star may be quite different than mine of course,

Monty

sanking

10-Mar-2014, 20:22

Monty McCutchen

10-Mar-2014, 20:40

This is the Nick Nixon who is OP of this thread.

http://fraenkelgallery.com/artists/nicholas-nixon

If anyone can do "rock star" compositions with the 14X17" format I believe Mr. Nixon has a fighting chance.

Sandy

I'm with you Sandy! Would love to see the work Mr. Nixon does with whichever camera maker he chooses.

Monty

Dave Wooten

10-Mar-2014, 20:46

I'm with you Sandy! Would love to see the work Mr. Nixon does with whichever camera maker he chooses.

Monty

Hear! Hear! Gentle readers!

nbbnixon

11-Mar-2014, 05:18

Hi..I have a 14"x17" Deardorff ( only one on the planet .. so I am told ) it was made for me a while ago but I spend most
of my time with the bigger process camera now...let me know if youre still looking.

Peter

Hi Peter,
Thanks for writing. My camera for years has been an 8x10 Deardorff, made lighter for me by both Jack Deardorff and Richard Ritter. So of course I am curious even though I suspect your price will be out of reach and the camera will weigh 40 lbs.
Can you weigh it and tell me what you will sell it for please? is there any chance of a picture or two?
Nick

11-Mar-2014, 06:29

Nice photos Nick!

My empire state doesn't come close to 40 pounds I don't think, and they tend to be relatively affordable. I haven't weighed it though.
14x17 http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?36782-Show-off-your-Large-Format-camera!/page167

Pete Roody

11-Mar-2014, 10:12

Add Kenro Izu to that list!

Well if the OP isn't a big enough Rock Star in the photographic community for you (if indeed its the same Nick Nixon that did the Brown Sisters and has a long and valued body of outstanding work, and I like Mark believe it is, and am happy to think he might contribute here) then these are all wonderful and inspiring photographers who have all done significant work with larger camera's often to produce incredible alternative process prints that prior to the advancements in digital negatives weren't possible without large in camera negatives;

Kerik Kouklis

Dick Arentz

Steve Sherman

Sandy King

Clay Harmon

Michael Mutmansky

Michael A. Smith

Patrick Alt

Alex Timmermans

Matt Magruder

Your definition of Rock Star may be quite different than mine of course,

Monty

andreios

11-Mar-2014, 10:29

Add Kenro Izu to that list!

I think he uses 14x20, his own invention, a "shaved 16x20".

Dave Wooten

11-Mar-2014, 10:45

My 14 x 17 wisner is about 35 lbs.
I think (flying camera) Scott Davis has Rob Kendricks former 14 x 17 canham. Maybe he can relate weight.

Kerik Kouklis

11-Mar-2014, 11:38

Nick,

I don't know if you remember, but I bought a bunch for 14x17 Azo from you many years ago. I shot 14x17 for about 10 years. Mine was a early-1900's Anthony and Scoville. The camera itself weighed about 19 lbs. Total extension was about 30". It had front rise/fall/tilt and rear tilt and swing. It's now with a new owner in Jerusalem. Good luck in your search!

-Kerik
www.kerik.com

Kerik Kouklis

11-Mar-2014, 11:39

And thanks for the kind words, Monty!

Kodachrome25

11-Mar-2014, 13:55

Well if the OP isn't a big enough Rock Star in the photographic community for you (if indeed its the same Nick Nixon that did the Brown Sisters and has a long and valued body of outstanding work, and I like Mark believe it is, and am happy to think he might contribute here) then these are all wonderful and inspiring photographers who have all done significant work with larger camera's often to produce incredible alternative process prints that prior to the advancements in digital negatives weren't possible without large in camera negatives;

Kerik Kouklis

Dick Arentz

Steve Sherman

Sandy King

Clay Harmon

Michael Mutmansky

Michael A. Smith

Patrick Alt

Alex Timmermans

Matt Magruder

Your definition of Rock Star may be quite different than mine of course,

Monty

Thanks for the names, I looked through a fair amount of them, I know Clay Harmon, bought a Leica off of him some years back.

As I expected, some of the work had some more dynamic compositions than others, some were nothing more than glorified dead-center studies that we have seen in the thousands since the turn of the century, not my cuppa...

I'll take another look through and if I find the kind of socks-knocking-off composition I am talking about, I will provide a link.

Miguel Coquis

11-Mar-2014, 13:59

Ritter is lightest but Chamonix more precise and solid - it's a trade off. Bunch of 14x17 Chamonix being made now so you might get in on this production run if you reach out to Hugo.

...so relative concepts, precise/solid,
both are well constructed, some would like engineering endless calculations, others just appreciate the making of a photograph using creative tools,
Ritters cameras are for creative photographers use, to my taste and opinion, and light enough for my old arms ;-)
that say, the assumption that "it's a trade off" doesn't mean much...is just an ordinary subjective value judgment.
thanks

Jim Fitzgerald

11-Mar-2014, 16:21

I built my 14x17 a few years ago now and if I had to do it over I would use the Chamonix design. I built my 8x10 using the Phillips/Chamonix designs and made it my own with my adjustments. My 14x17 is more a studio camera but I pack it out in the field. Since I redesigned it I think it weights less. Maybe 26lbs? Has all of the movements you need and is very solid. I would buy a 14x17 Chamonix because the build quality is first rate and it is not that heavy at all. I've never used or seen one of Richards marvels so hard for me to compare. This is a great format for a contact/carbon printer such as myself. Good luck.

11-Mar-2014, 18:11

My bathroom scales say my empire state 14x17 is 13.7kg which translates to about 30 lbs.

nbbnixon

12-Mar-2014, 06:17

Hello Kerik,
Of course I remember you.
Yes, this will be my second shot at 14x17. I also failed the first time with 11x14 but it has stuck the second time and is now my main camera. My new book Close Far is all 11x14.
Sometimes older is better...I hope it is so with you as well.
Best, Nick

drifty

12-Mar-2014, 08:49

Hi Peter,
Thanks for writing. My camera for years has been an 8x10 Deardorff, made lighter for me by both Jack Deardorff and Richard Ritter. So of course I am curious even though I suspect your price will be out of reach and the camera will weigh 40 lbs.
Can you weigh it and tell me what you will sell it for please? is there any chance of a picture or two?
Nick

Hi Nick...cant weigh it here I am, but its a 14x11 chasis with a bespoke rear frame, with ground glass etc, so essentially, a fraction
heavier than a 14x11. It has a rotating 14x11 reducer incorporated into a 14x17 board so will immediately accom. all reducers.
I had it made specifically as a portrait camera, so the rear frame is actually portrait rather than square.
Holders are by Sandy King out of Walnut.The are bits and pieces with it also. New to the forum so not sure about picture attachment protocol, so failing all else send me an address to forward same to.

Peter

trundrumbalind

7-Sep-2014, 11:37

are you selling the deardoff?

Hi..I have a 14"x17" Deardorff ( only one on the planet .. so I am told ) it was made for me a while ago but I spend most
of my time with the bigger process camera now...let me know if youre still looking.

Peter

drifty

8-Sep-2014, 03:45

Hi Nick...cant weigh it here I am, but its a 14x11 chasis with a bespoke rear frame, with ground glass etc, so essentially, a fraction
heavier than a 14x11. It has a rotating 14x11 reducer incorporated into a 14x17 board so will immediately accom. all reducers.
I had it made specifically as a portrait camera, so the rear frame is actually portrait rather than square.
Holders are by Sandy King out of Walnut.The are bits and pieces with it also. New to the forum so not sure about picture attachment protocol, so failing all else send me an address to forward same to.

Peter
Yes Still for sale....

Peter