PDA

View Full Version : Choice of "Lightweight" 20x24 cameras....



Kodachrome25
14-Oct-2014, 09:31
I am starting to investigate possibly setting my self up with 20x24 for contact prints and massive black and white chromes so in addition to finding a decent lens that would over the format ( 760-900mm ) I have narrowed the camera choice to either the Ritter at 24 pounds or Chamonix convertible at 42.

Obviously either maker has a great reputation, it is just a matter of build preference, stiffness, weight, movements and bellows draw. The Ritter has really got my attention as being "Local" if any issues arise, 60" bellows standard, being convertible *and* 18 pounds lighter than the Chamonix.

Ritter's holders are also a bit cheaper but I am not sure of the weight yet, the Chamonix holders are 7.16 pounds each, I figure three is about what I would budget for in terms of money and weight liability.

Weight will be a consideration even with a crew of three people hauling this gear around, but if the Chamonix is a much better camera for some reason, I would like to hear why...

So there you go, ULF peeps chime in on what way you would go...

Louis Pacilla
14-Oct-2014, 09:56
I am starting to investigate possibly setting my self up with 20x24 for contact prints and massive black and white chromes so in addition to finding a decent lens that would over the format ( 760-900mm ) I have narrowed the camera choice to either the Ritter at 24 pounds or Chamonix convertible at 42.

Obviously either maker has a great reputation, it is just a matter of build preference, stiffness, weight, movements and bellows draw. The Ritter has really got my attention as being "Local" if any issues arise, 60" bellows standard, being convertible *and* 18 pounds lighter than the Chamonix.

Ritter's holders are also a bit cheaper but I am not sure of the weight yet, the Chamonix holders are 7.16 pounds each, I figure three is about what I would budget for in terms of money and weight liability.

Weight will be a consideration even with a crew of three people hauling this gear around, but if the Chamonix is a much better camera for some reason, I would like to hear why...

So there you go, ULF peeps chime in on what way you would go...


What's the largest format you have worked with up to this time? I ask because there are MANY considerations other then just weight of camera & coverage of lens. EVERYTHING gets BIGGER & MORE EXPENSIVE & HARDER to find.

BTW- I get your taking your time getting set up & that will help.

Kodachrome25
14-Oct-2014, 10:03
What's the largest format you have worked with up to this time? I ask because there are MANY considerations other then just weight of camera & coverage of lens. EVERYTHING gets BIGGER & MORE EXPENSIVE & HARDER to find.

4x5..

I understand this is damn near "On your own" territory that might include some custom work from the likes of S.K. Grimes, friends with machine shops, etc. I figure that if I commit to this, it might be closer to two years before I even expose my first sheet of film.

I did numerous searches and there really is no sticky or anything that is a guide to the larger formats, so here we are......the basic questions get asked first, the details file in behind.

Bruce Barlow
14-Oct-2014, 10:18
Richard can probably do most, if not all, the custom work you might contemplate. He's a wizard in most areas.

We once made a video of a 20x24 he made with an extra 3-foot section of bellows, for a total of 9 feet of extension. The 3-foot extension was removable so that it could be a "field camera," too. We made the video to show the new owner how to set it up.

Kodachrome25
14-Oct-2014, 10:23
Richard can probably do most, if not all, the custom work you might contemplate. He's a wizard in most areas.

We once made a video of a 20x24 he made with an extra 3-foot section of bellows, for a total of 9 feet of extension. The 3-foot extension was removable so that it could be a "field camera," too. We made the video to show the new owner how to set it up.

I saw that, pretty slick setup. I think 60" of bellows will be fine for what I want to do with it, landscape beyond 20 feet.

vinny
14-Oct-2014, 10:35
fwiw, I've handled the 8x10 chamonix but never a Ritter. I was about to pull the trigger on either an 8x10 Ritter or Chamonix so I consulted a friend who had owned both. He said the Chamonix was much more rigid. I understand carbon fiber is a very lightweight material but 18lbs lighter leads me to believe there has to be a compromise somewhere. Five feet of bellows is a pretty big sail. I would want to get my hands on both before laying down the $$$$.

Kodachrome25
14-Oct-2014, 10:47
I understand carbon fiber is a very lightweight material but 18lbs lighter leads me to believe there has to be a compromise somewhere. Five feet of bellows is a pretty big sail. I would want to get my hands on both before laying down the $$$$.

It's the Ritter that weighs 18 pounds less and none of the Chamonix cameras use a solid component of carbon fiber but rather wood that is laminated in it, not a bad thing as I own and use a 45N2. The bellows on the Chamonix max out at 36", not a lot of wiggle room depending on lens used, the 60" ones on the Ritter would be fairly ideal for a 30"-35" lens I would imagine.

As far as seeing both in person, that is going to be up to me finding people who own them, hence the inquiry via this thread...

ic-racer
14-Oct-2014, 11:04
It's the Ritter that weighs 18 pounds less and none of the Chamonix cameras .

I'd go with the more sturdy camera. Weight shouldn't be that much of an issue because you are not going to by physically carrying this right? You will use a golf cart or something to move the camera, the lens, filmholders and the massive tripod around, right? :)

You know my solution. Use a tiny format camera (8x10) and enlarge to what ever size I want. It is hard to imagine a darkroom with enough space to comfortably process 20x24 prints without enough space to house an 8x10 enlarger :)

If you are going to be doing UV based processes then just ignore the above...

Kodachrome25
14-Oct-2014, 11:08
I'd go with the more sturdy camera. Weight shouldn't be that much of an issue because you are not going to by physically carrying this right? You will use a golf cart or something to move the camera, the lens, filmholders and the massive tripod around, right? :)

You know my solution. Use a tiny format camera (8x10) and enlarge to what ever size I want. It is hard to imagine a darkroom with enough space to comfortably process 20x24 prints without enough space to house an 8x10 enlarger :)

If you are going to be doing UV based processes then just ignore the above...

I process 20x24 paper in a Jobo 3063 drum, will likely do the same for the film. If working from the vehicle, I would employ a crew of two people for the camera ( 24 pounds ), three holders ( 15 pounds ), lens ( 4-8 pounds ), Ries A100-2 tripod ( 14 pounds ), etc. If hauling it farther which is desired, then it will be a a crew of 3-4...so if the Ritter is rigid enough, you bet we will be moving this thing around up to 4 miles round trip.

As for printing it, contact only but most importantly, ULF B&W transparencies via reversal process...this last one needs to be sorted out and will be one of the biggest deciding factors of if I go for it or not.

Otherwise I will stick to 4x5 which is just fine for big enlargements and *very* portable....

Bruce Barlow
14-Oct-2014, 12:06
I've had no trouble with rigidity with either my Ritter 8x10 or 5x7...

My basis for comparison is my Sinar Norma 8x10.

Just sayin'.

angusparker
14-Oct-2014, 12:11
Here is my two cents. My experience is based on owning a Ritter 8x10, a Chamonix 45F1, and a Ritter converted Fatif monorail (8x10) which is now a 14x17. The Chamonix are beautiful, precise, and rigid but heavier especially in ULF sizes than their Ritter counterparts. Chamonix film holders may not be "standard" sized to allow for some weight savings. The Ritter on the other hand is super light weight and much more flexible in terms of max and min bellow sizes especially in ULF sizes. But when using my 760mm on the Ritter 8x10 I pray for a light and constant wind! My suggestion is to reconsider 20x24 as your format and consider 14x17 instead. Here is why:

14x17 is much more manageable in the field - smaller film holders and cameras
14x17 X-ray film is available easily and cheap so you can afford to experiment and learn (not so in 16x20 or 20x24)
14x17 B&W film is available via Ilford special order and from Fotoimpex in Germany http://www.fotoimpex.de/shopen/ - so that's the same as 16x20, but better than 20x24.
14x17 negatives contact print nicely on 16x20 paper so you have a more manageable darkroom or dimroom set-up

In any case, 14x17 will seem enormous compared to 4x5 and even 8x10 - and the contact printing will be a joy giving you a perfect size without enlarging.

Another option is shooting 8x10 and scanning and enlarging digitally to get you a digital negative on acetate that you can contact print. This route will be a lot easier and cheaper than going ULF at the camera and film level. One advantage of going digital in the PP stage is that you can adjust curves in Photoshop to you preferred output method (e.g. silver gelatin, versus platinum versus cyanotype) so your results will be more repeatable.

In 14x17 sizes I would probably look at these options in the following order:

Chamonix 14x17 (with several non-standard sized holders) with custom longer bellows
Cassiopedia 14x17 (comes with longer bellows but each is built to order) basically a cheaper Chamonix with not as nice finish
--> See: http://www.ebay.com/itm/331309134250?ssPageName=STRK:MESINDXX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1436.l2649
Ritter 14x17

If you go 8x10 and digitally enlarge I'd probably get the Ritter before the Chamonix because of the packability of the set-up.

Kodachrome25
14-Oct-2014, 12:27
Thanks for the tip but I am not at all interested in scanning, need to keep a 100% analog / wet print workflow. I considered 14x17 for a short time but when looking at the finished product size, especially in the selling of an original reversal black and white chrome, 20x24 is much better.

Like I said, I get nice 20x24 enlargements all day with my 4x5, for this next move up in format, the final product has to be truly remarkable in order to be a strong offering in the markets I work in.

vinny
14-Oct-2014, 12:41
I was referring to the carbon fiber rods on the Ritter. 36" bellows would be a deal breaker for me. Hell, my 8x10 does close to that w/o accessories. You aren't that far from Hugo's place but I don't remember if he has one or not.

It's the Ritter that weighs 18 pounds less and none of the Chamonix cameras use a solid component of carbon fiber but rather wood that is laminated in it, not a bad thing as I own and use a 45N2. The bellows on the Chamonix max out at 36", not a lot of wiggle room depending on lens used, the 60" ones on the Ritter would be fairly ideal for a 30"-35" lens I would imagine.

As far as seeing both in person, that is going to be up to me finding people who own them, hence the inquiry via this thread...

Erik Larsen
14-Oct-2014, 12:50
If you've got a vision of what you want the finished work to be, I say go for it and continue researching the potential liabilities in your choice of format size. It sounds like a fun endeavor, I wish I had the cash to give it a try as well. You can always sell off the equipment if the experience is not what you anticipated. I love my Ritter 8x10, but if I'm honest contrary to what Bruce said above it is not even in the same league with regards to rigidity as a sinar or chamonix for that matter, although I admire his loyalty to Richard:) If the additional 20lbs is gonna keep you from your goals, get the Ritter as I'm sure it will get the job done well. If ultimate rigidity is your concern I would opt for the chamonix. I look forward to seeing what you have planned, best of luck with the project!

Hugo Zhang
14-Oct-2014, 13:08
Daniel,

Tri Tran has two Chamonix 20x24 cameras and I have one 16x20. We have a get-together next month and you are welcome to join us and try these cameras. :)

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?117087-3rd-Annual-Southern-California-Large-and-Ultra-Large-Format-Photographers%92-%93Meet-and

I would love to meet you in person as well.

Hugo

John Jarosz
14-Oct-2014, 13:13
From someone who has experienced the small end of ULF (8x20), all I can say is 'good luck' . There are many things you will encounter that do not bother others, but will be an obstacle for you. And the converse is also true: you will not be affected by aspects of ULF that deter others.

I will say two things:
the types and sizes of sensitized materials will be an ongoing challenge as companies pop up or disappear as their bottom lines dictate.
and
As the format size gets larger it becomes more difficult to get exactly the composition you desire to appear on the film. It's really easy (comparatively) to contact print 8x10 full frame.

RichardRitter
14-Oct-2014, 14:06
On camera with over 40 inches of bellows it is a good idea to use a second tripod under the lens standard. I install one on all camera with bellow 43 and longer. I started doing this years ago when I was requested to put one a Wisner to make the front end more stable. No matter the size of the tripod or how rigid the camera is when you have 75 % of the camera hanging out over the tripod it is going to be unstable.

Put a brick on a broom stick and see how far you can extend it with out it wobbling around. that's why bridges have supports on both end.

Peter De Smidt
14-Oct-2014, 14:31
I agree with Richard. At one point I did some very long extensions with a Sinar P, approximately 5 feet. At first, I used the metal plate with two rail holders on one huge tripod. The resulting contraption was a bit too springy for my liking. Adding another tripod and rail clamp under the lens did wonders. I don't think anyone would accuse a Sinar P of being flimsy.

Kodachrome25
14-Oct-2014, 14:32
From someone who has experienced the small end of ULF (8x20), all I can say is 'good luck' . There are many things you will encounter that do not bother others, but will be an obstacle for you. And the converse is also true: you will not be affected by aspects of ULF that deter others.

I will say two things:
the types and sizes of sensitized materials will be an ongoing challenge as companies pop up or disappear as their bottom lines dictate.
and
As the format size gets larger it becomes more difficult to get exactly the composition you desire to appear on the film. It's really easy (comparatively) to contact print 8x10 full frame.

This is why I am doing gobs of research before actually committing to it. If it were not for FP4 and HP5 in 20x24, I would never consider it but I think it is safe to say we can depend on Ilford to keep offering the ULF run, they would have to be in dire straights to not be. But yeah....$35 a sheet, wha-bam is that expensive, LOL!

The last part you mention, I know it well, being stuck in one or maybe two focal lengths at most and wishing for something different...I actually thrive in that realm, a mind stretch. I estimate that around 1% of the possible shots I could do with 4x5 will be possible with a 20x24 camera, it ain't no Leica M3....;-)


On camera with over 40 inches of bellows it is a good idea to use a second tripod under the lens standard. I install one on all camera with bellow 43 and longer. I started doing this years ago when I was requested to put one a Wisner to make the front end more stable. No matter the size of the tripod or how rigid the camera is when you have 75 % of the camera hanging out over the tripod it is going to be unstable.

Put a brick on a broom stick and see how far you can extend it with out it wobbling around. that's why bridges have supports on both end.

I fully plan to do this, a heavy Ries under the main body and a good 7-10 pound tripod under the front standard.

Thanks for all the great info folks, I will run 4x5 reversal tests for awhile and see how I feel about it.

Daniel Stone
14-Oct-2014, 14:32
I'd be concerned about the process itself(especially the reversal process), and having absolute repeatability with the workflow and presentation prior to deciding on a camera and accessories.
Securing a stash of materials to meet and/or exceed the visioned "needs" down the line, along with materials/products needed for proper display of the finished works.

Just wondering, is there a way of exposing b/w film traditionally, then enlarging onto larger film and processing it out for a "reversal" of the negative in place of using a large(20x24) camera? Say, starting out with an 8x10 negative?

Not heckling, I'm totally supportive of the reversal process idea, but just wanted to ask nonetheless.

-Dan

Kodachrome25
14-Oct-2014, 14:36
Tri Tran has two Chamonix 20x24 cameras and I have one 16x20. We have a get-together next month and you are welcome to join us and try these cameras. :

Darn, I will be in Northern Cali for Thanksgiving, I don't think it will work out with the schedule...

Thanks for offering though!

Kodachrome25
14-Oct-2014, 14:41
R
I'd be concerned about the process itself(especially the reversal process), and having absolute repeatability with the workflow and presentation prior to deciding on a camera and accessories.
Securing a stash of materials to meet and/or exceed the visioned "needs" down the line, along with materials/products needed for proper display of the finished works.

Just wondering, is there a way of exposing b/w film traditionally, then enlarging onto larger film and processing it out for a "reversal" of the negative in place of using a large(20x24) camera? Say, starting out with an 8x10 negative?

Not heckling, I'm totally supportive of the reversal process idea, but just wanted to ask nonetheless.

I agree, that is why I am going to play with it for up to a year and then look at the camera. I may get a lens going as a place holder but that is about it.

Nada on the enlarging an 8x10 neg, I don't have the hardware and not likely to get it. Uber worst case is I find I like reversal in 4x5, go to a meet up, shoot someone's 16x20 or larger and then soup that and if it sings, I take the plunge, if too problematic, I pass. Also, even if I do get the whole thing going, I could work with it for 2-5 years, create a body of work and then move on.

Ilford says that FP4 does well in reversal but HP5 does not, that is my starting point for now. So I'll see how that goes first...it looks to be a complex and touchy process to begin with.

vinny
14-Oct-2014, 15:33
Dr5.com says hp5 is their highest volume film:http://www.dr5.com/blackandwhiteslide/hp5dev-1.html for what it's worth. I've only reverse processed fp4 so far myself and I was getting the hang of it when I moved across the country.

Kodachrome25
14-Oct-2014, 16:12
Dr5.com says hp5 is their highest volume film:http://www.dr5.com/blackandwhiteslide/hp5dev-1.html for what it's worth.

It's a different process than dr5, Dave has an informative albeit scathing comparison of his process VS Ilford's in this review (http://www.dr5.com/blackandwhiteslide/ILFORDTEST.html). The largest he can do is 11x14. I have had a couple of 30' x 30' landscapes printed on Ilfochrome shot on Techpan 120 souped in dr5, it is rather nice output to say the least.

Ideally I would be able to shoot 4x5 test frames of each take to help put things in my favor, which I would like to do regardless of it being neg or chrome.


I've only reverse processed fp4 so far myself and I was getting the hang of it when I moved across the country.

Did you find you were able to get decent D-Max with it?

Jim Fitzgerald
14-Oct-2014, 16:17
As some of you know I just finished my 2024-1417 camera. I have the reducing back on the camera now because I only have 1417 holders. My camera is 31 lbs and is based on the Chamonix design. It is very stable and I can manage it alone. Now I only have about 34" of bellows as my bellows was free.... hence I built the camera. I would have loved to have another 6", but wouldn't we all..... of bellows. I have no intention of doing close ups with it.

I will be in the Redwoods starting Friday the 17th. Jed Smith, Prairie Creek, and Humboldt and back to So Cal on the 26th. If you wish to take a look at the camera look for me in those areas. I think I'll be hard to miss.

Kodachrome25
14-Oct-2014, 16:26
I will be in the Redwoods starting Friday the 17th. Jed Smith, Prairie Creek, and Humboldt and back to So Cal on the 26th. If you wish to take a look at the camera look for me in those areas. I think I'll be hard to miss.

For what it is worth, I will be in Death Valley and then the Eastern Sierra & Yosemite for the month of November. If you, Tri Tran or Hugo are inclined to do some ULF in those areas, I would be happy to meet up.

Come on up Jim, I am a 20 alumni of Ventura County, we could swap all kinds of stories!

Hugo Zhang
14-Oct-2014, 16:43
I will be in Death Valley Nov. 20-22. Part of of Michael Gordon's workshop there. If you can be in in DV that time, I will bring my 16x20. I plan to shoot my 11x14 camera mostly.

Kodachrome25
14-Oct-2014, 16:51
I will be in Death Valley Nov. 20-22. Part of of Michael Gordon's workshop there. If you can be in in DV that time, I will bring my 16x20. I plan to shoot my 11x14 camera mostly.

Ding, Ding, Ding! We have a winner, I already planned to stop in and say hi to Michael for sure, I'll email you my details..:D

FrancisF
4-Jan-2017, 17:15
I tried some 4x5 reversals with the Photo Formulary kit and really liked them

I would like to try it with my Ritter 20x24 with FP4.

You mentioned in this post that you were considering this. Did you try it? How did they turn out? Any advice?

Greg
4-Jan-2017, 17:41
Look for an Improved Empire State View Camera. They were made around 1910. Owned one of them and they are by far the highest and most compact ULF camera out there in my opinion. Regret selling mine to this day. I owned an 11x14 but have corresponded with a person who had a 20x24 years ago and he just loved it.

Luis-F-S
4-Jan-2017, 18:27
I'd go with the more sturdy camera....You know my solution. Use a tiny format camera (8x10) and enlarge to what ever size I want. It is hard to imagine a darkroom with enough space to comfortably process 20x24 prints without enough space to house an 8x10 enlarger :) If you are going to be doing UV based processes then just ignore the above...

Pretty much what I'd do. But if you really want a 20x24, why not call Richard, or go visit him. I'd sure do that and handle the beast before plunking down some serious change! Just saw this was a very old thread. Curious as to what the OP ended up doing? L

angusparker
5-Jan-2017, 06:51
Look for an Improved Empire State View Camera. They were made around 1910. Owned one of them and they are by far the highest and most compact ULF camera out there in my opinion. Regret selling mine to this day. I owned an 11x14 but have corresponded with a person who had a 20x24 years ago and he just loved it.

I think this is the best solution should you be lucky enough to find one. I have a great 11x14 from 1895 that weighs far less than a Chamonix (a little more than a Ritter) but is quite rigid if not super precise. It's completely manageable as a one man set-up.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

MAubrey
5-Jan-2017, 09:43
I wonder what the OP's final decision was...