PDA

View Full Version : Wisner users working in 7x17/8x20



Robert Skeoch
12-Jul-2005, 17:33
I own a wisner 8x10 and am very happy with it. I've been considering getting a 7x17 but have decided to consider the 8x20 as well.

If you own either of these cameras, how do you like them? Pros and cons. I'm slightly concerned that the 7x17 is build around the 5x7 body. Is this frame a bit light/thin for a camera of this size?

-Rob

Oren Grad
12-Jul-2005, 17:41
Rob, you might try contacting Kerik Kouklis - if I recall correctly, his 7x17 is a Wisner:

www.kerik.com/email.htm (http://www.kerik.com/email.htm)

Daniel Blakeslee
12-Jul-2005, 18:00
I own a Wisner 7x17. I didn't buy it directly from Ron Wisner but got it from Fred Newman at the View Camera Store. Before I bought it Fred told me that it was one of the nicest Wisners he had ever seen. I've seen a few of Wisner's cameras myself, and sure enough, this one was a real winner. I've never had any problem with it at all. Of course I tighten everything up once in a while. I also own an Ebony 4x5 and an old Deardorff 8x10. The Wisner definately holds its own. It isn't an Ebony but it costs less than my SV45U and weighs less than the Deardorff. Ron Wisner is certainly capable of building a really good camera. I wish he would do that consistently.

Daniel Blakeslee
12-Jul-2005, 18:20
One more thing, Rob. The lighter frame that Wisner uses for the 7x17 is sufficient. The camera isn't as solid as a 4x5 Ebony or Linhof, but I don't expect it to be. Wobble and vibration aren't any problem at all. When you get into ULF cameras there have to be compromises or you will be carrying around a 75 lb ultra-solid, ultra-stable beast.

Roger Hein
12-Jul-2005, 18:28
I use a Wisner 7x17 (that's mine you see on Brian's site btw). I bought it because at the time it was significantly cheaper than what was available new from other manufacturers. When I was researching it I also considered the 8x20. I went for the 7x17 for the very fact that it *is* built on a 5x7 base - makes for a more compact and lighter package compared to the 8x20. Also as you go up in size the choice of lenses that will cover become few and far between. The 8x20 neg is nice but my darkroom space is limited and I could not accommodate the larger trays, etc needed to work with 8x20 (both in processing negs and in making prints)

robert_4927
12-Jul-2005, 20:24
Rob, I recently had Ron build me an 8x20 Expedition. This is an all cherry constructed camera. It is a fantastic camera. Mine has the new black sheepskin bellows and I must say this bellows blows away my older wisner 8x10 pocket expedition's red kids bellows. One of the nicest bellows I've seen. The bellows is 40" but the wisner has a double front bed that will give you 50" of rail stretched out in case for some odd reason you would need or want a bellows extension, Ron informs me my bellows was the one used for the picture on the Wisner web sight. This camera has all the movements of an expedition and the real surprise is it weighs only 14.5 lb. Now I have been shooting the 8x20 in the vertical format a lot so I had Ron build me a vertical back for this camera also. Here is where I learned a lot. The difference in size from portrait to landscape is greater in 8x20 than in any other format..... (12") ...This camera is built on an 8x10 bed with an 8x10 front standard to allow it to fold up into the transport position. When you change backs the small 8x10 front standard will not allow enough rise to get to the sweet spot in the center of the GG. Even with a radical bed tilt it still won't reach. After mulling over with Ron a solution that included a slick telescoping front standard that I was afraid would never materialize, I had Ron build me another front bed with the vertical rails from a 16x20 standard. This gives me more than enough rise with plenty of movement. When I change backs it only takes an extra 30 sec. to roll one front standard off and the other one on. I just have to carry an extra front standard with the extra back. Why not just use the one longer standard? Because when in the horizontal position the longer rails will not allow you to fold up into the transport position and I don't want to have to change back to the vertical format just to fold the camera up to transport it. When you carry an extra back trust me it's nothing to carry an extra standard with it. Now by no means am I suggesting you carry this all this around with you although at 14.5 lb it is possible to back pack this thing.( take two packs and a young strong photo asst.) Or you would just be limited to the format you have it set up for or turn it on it's side. ( I just have nightmares of the rails ripping out of the guides by doing this ) Plus you're movements are all entirely different by turning it on it's side. All in all I love this camera, it is beautiful and a joy to use. Ron Wisner can build a great camera. He may need a little work on his business practices but he'll be the first to admit that and at this moment in time I think that is exactly what he is doing, working on improving scheduling and service. If you are willing to put up with these kind of problems along with all the others that go along with shooting ULF than by all means go for it . You'll never look back. At least I haven't....Best of luck, Robert

e
12-Jul-2005, 22:27
My Wisner 7x17 is by far my most used and fave camera. It is small and light and provides a big neg and has been modified to take S&S holders and with two small metal brackets added for extra support in vertical use on the Ries. This was something Ron and I discussed as I needed to do a lot of verticals and the camera is rock solid now as can be. I did this to my 12x20 also. This 7x17 is a small ULF gem and if you are in the market a Wisner it is certainly worth considering. If you need extra beef in a camera get the 8x20 which has a longer bellows and you could also get a 7x17 reducing back for it if necessary. It took awhile to get my 7x17 exactly as I wanted it but Ron was more than happy to help out in all my needs as they developed. If you have any more questions please feel free to e-mail me. You may not know this yet but the Wisner Company has changed location. They are still in the same town but streamlinig the biz and things should be running much more efficiently in the near future. A new building is being built as we speak. Also...I'm waiting on a new Wisner 7x17 to be delivered (I'm a Wisner dealer) if you are interested. Cheers, Emile/www.deleon-ulf.com.

robert_4927
13-Jul-2005, 04:01
Emile, Alan Brubaker makes film holders to fit any Wisner, without any modifications being done to the camera. These are probably the best film holders on the market ( at least in my opinion). Ebony has contracted Alan to build the film holders for their new 20x24 cameras if that is any indication of the quality of work he does. Also Kieth Canham is building his ULF camera backs around the AWB filmholder specs. So instead of having to modify the camera you can have some of the best filmholders in the world made to your camera specs. Just another option to consider. I figure if I'm going to spend 6 grand on a camera I'll spend the extra couple of bucks for filmholders to fit it. Plus AWB holders are second to none in terms of quality.

Jorge Gasteazoro
13-Jul-2005, 04:09
I'll spend the extra couple of bucks for filmholders to fit it.

Kind of an understatement, no? The AWB holders are a tiny bit more than a couple of dollars :-) ....but I agree they seem to be the best on the market.

So Robert, tell me how much is an Ebony 20x24?...$40,000? Have thay actually sold any of these cameras? 2 years ago out of curiosity I e-mailed them and asked them how much was a 12x20....$20,000....LOL.... For that price the damn thing better come with a car to transport it... :-)

robert_4927
13-Jul-2005, 04:45
To tell you the truth Jorge I figured if I had to ask I can't afford it. But in talking with Alan I think he said around 24,000 for a 20x24. but don't quote on that I'm not sure. I know they are in production now but I don't know of anyone that has taken delivery on one. I agree, I think the Ebony 20x24 should at least come with a beautiful Geisha at those prices..

Robert Skeoch
13-Jul-2005, 04:51
Jorge, at those prices I think you should order two.

robert_4927
13-Jul-2005, 04:51
Jorge, Another point I'd like to make is...If you've ever waited on Wisner to make modifications to your camera then the price and quality of an AWB holder starts becoming a very attractive option.

robert_4927
13-Jul-2005, 05:00
Rob, You can see some of these holders by going to www.filmholders.com.

Paul_5696
13-Jul-2005, 05:25
Wisner makes and 8x20 conversion back for their 8x10 camera. Have a look here:

http://www.wisner.com/Page12.html

Paul

robert_4927
13-Jul-2005, 05:30
Now with all this said would I order another Wisner? You bet I would. They are a great camera. But I will speculate and say in the near future you will have to go through a Wisner dealer to get one. And if this improves customer service at Wisner I'm all for it. As a matter of fact I'll be placing another order for a larger camera as soon as they start taking orders in the fall. Keep in touch with Emile and he can keep you updated on these fine cameras better than I.

robert_4927
13-Jul-2005, 05:59
Yes Paul that is a more affordable option. But if you,ve ever turned one on it's side you'll understand what I'm talking about with stability. Put a 30" red dot on it and rack it out. You're heart will skip a beat as your bed rails will be screaming from torque. Even with an additional tripod for stability. Plus your camera movements are now all different. Your tilt becomes swing, swing becomes tilt. Also you won't have the double front sliding bed with the 8x10 conversion. I'm sure these problems can be dealt with with the appropiate brackets like Emile mentioned before. I just love being able to use my movements as they were designed for. By not having to turn this on it's side all my movements are the same and it is rock solid without putting any undue stress on the camera. Ron was great in working through these problems with me. My approach to this may not have been the cheapest way to go but in my opinion it was the best way to go as far as camera performance is concerned.

Diane Maher
13-Jul-2005, 08:23
Canham is also in the process of moving to a new building. As I understood it after talking with Keith Canham yesterday, the S&S and AWB holders are the same (except for price per holder).

George Losse
13-Jul-2005, 08:30
Rob,

Back to your question.

"I own a wisner 8x10 and am very happy with it. I've been considering getting a 7x17 but have decided to consider the 8x20 as well.
If you own either of these cameras, how do you like them? Pros and cons. I'm slightly concerned that the 7x17 is build around the 5x7 body. Is this frame a bit light/thin for a camera of this size? "

I was faced with the same thoughts ten years ago. I had an wisner 8x10 and bought an 8x20 conversion back. It has been great! I saved half the price of a new camera and got to work with both formats in one camera system.

I only have a couple of complaints, 1) it always seem that there is an 8x20 shot in front of you when the camera is set up for 8x10 (and vice versa) 2) I would have liked a second tripod hole in the base at 90 degrees of the centerline of the camera. That would make life much easier to turn the camera on its side.

The heaviest lens I shoot with is a 24 inch RD altar, I never worried about the camera supporting it. I might have if it were a 5x7 base instead of the 8x10.

There is a difference between the two formats and how hey have been used. Some people hike with the 7x17 size. The longest walk me and the 8x20 ever took was about a half mile.... but that was the total distance stopping to shoot along the way. After a couple of hundred yards, you start thinking, "I should have driven the Jeep in here" There are other advantages to the 7x17, more lenes cover the format, film and holders are a little cheaper. But I don't think those thing matter as much as the question "What type of work do you want to do with the camera?"

robert_4927
13-Jul-2005, 09:02
Diane, I think maybe your statement should be clarified. Yes S&S holders and AWB holders are the same in sizes up until 11x14 format . There are standard dimensions for all holders up to this size. I too spoke to Kieth at length two days ago and our conversation was about just that topic. That is why in the larger formats he is recommending AWB holders because his 7x17 and 8x20 are built to these standards. His comment was that He wishes that S&S and AWB could decide on a standard size in these formats because it would make it easier on everyone involved. (He also pointed out that Alan was here first and maybe he should set the standard for film holder sizes in the larger ULF formats.) Also by saying that an S&S holder is the same as an AWB holder tells me that you haven't done a side by side comparison. If you would have you would come to the conclusion that it is like comparing a volkswagon to a cadillac. An AWB holder has dual light traps on each side as a preventive measure against light leaks. I'm sure they are both great film holders and Sandy King is doing a great service by giving us a choice of a more affordable film holder. But I would rather have a film holder built to match my camera back than have to modify my camera back to fit a certain film holder. AWB will build film holders to fit any camera . That option is not available with S&S holders unless something has changed at S&S. And if that is the case they should have let Emile know that before he had to modify the back on his Wisner 7x17 to accept a S&S holder.

robert_4927
13-Jul-2005, 09:42
Rob, If you're in the market for an 8x20 camera . There is a camera that just went up for auction on ebay. It is a Deardorf v8 converted to 8x20 and restored. Looks like an interesting camera... check it out. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think the v8 was built on a 11x14 bed which if the case it would be quite beafy and stable. Someone help me out here, Was the V8 an 11x14 dorf?

robert_4927
13-Jul-2005, 10:14
George, Lois Conners rode all over China on a bicycle with a 7x17 strapped to her back. I've hiked with my 8x20 but like I said it is an expedition model weighing 14.5 lb. Now I didn't do this alone. In another pack was three film holders, extra film, large changing bag, lens, light meter, and a cable release. This was carried by the 23 yr. old photo asst. Oh and I almost forgot....A flask of 18 year old scotch. For this I left the ries at home and opted for the carbon fiber tripod. also i've seen a friend use a two- wheeled contraption that is used for hauling game out of the woods. He swears by it and hauls his 12x20 gear around on it. But I do like the Brett Weston approach. " If it's more than a hundred yards from the car there isn't a picture there anyway."

e
13-Jul-2005, 10:23
Actually Ron has most if not all the specs for the different S&S filmholders. So when ordering he will make the back to fit if it doesn't already. I have been sending him my S&S filmholders for the past couple of years so he could measure them exactly for myself as well as my customers. There was no extra modification needed on my cameras. He made them that way right out of the box.
Both filmholder companies are great and I heartily recommend them both. We are very lucky to have people committed to ULF enough to create these products for us.
I like the concept of having the back reversible/vertical so tripod gymnastics are lessened. Great idea Robert. This indeed puts a lot less strain on the camera and a nice height for the photographer too. I'm very cafeful with my approach though and it seems to work for me despite the movements being altered. The 7x17 is so light that the issue is not a relevent as in 12x20 etc.
The S&S holders are tough indeed. I recently had a spill with 5 holders in a light tight plastic bag (I keep them in this) careening 3 feet to the floor and bouncing on their way off a door....and they came through just fine. I tend to beat my holders up a bit so I'm glad not to have to spend too much on them....just in case. But if the AWB holders are just as tough then this is a mute point. Alan had I believe been a couple of years back looking into making a plastic version of his holders as well and this I think would be a welcome addition. I don't know if this is still in the works or not. Emile.

robert_4927
13-Jul-2005, 10:44
Emile, I know Alan still works in ABS plastics. He just made me some custom trays for my 8x20 film that will allow me to get 5 trays in a 5ft. sink. As far as plastic film holders I couldn't tell you if that is off the drawing board or not but Alan is a great guy to talk to and I'm sure you can find out with one call. I have a slew of 8x10 Lisco holders that I never use. I still use my old wooden kodak 8x10 holders. They seem to slide in so much easier than the plastic ones . It may just be me but every time i try to use the lisco holders they always chatter or hang up as I try to slide them in. I'm surprised Ron doesn't promote the Wisner holder more. Is there a reason you don't like the Wisner holder? I have three of them and they work just fine.

robert_4927
13-Jul-2005, 10:48
Let me add the only thing I don't like about the wisner holders is they have no dark slide locks so you have to be careful when pulling the dark slide that you don't pull the other one with it. It just takes some getting use to is all.

robert_4927
13-Jul-2005, 11:12
Emile, I just so happen to have a digital camera that was given to me by a friend who upgrades every time a new one comes out. The problem is I just went to a mac system and this older digital camera has no firewire feature. As soon as I pick up a cheap card reader I will send you some pics of the 8x20 expedition set up in both vertical and horizontal formats .

Michael Kadillak
13-Jul-2005, 11:41
About six months ago I sent Ron an S&S holder to make me an 8x20 reducing back for my 12x20 camera and even though they had a holder to size it to, it came back to me 3/8" to large. Right now it is with Richard Ritter getting fixed so I can use it.

All anyone would have had to do was just insert the holder before it left the factory to check it out. I do not think that it is asking to much.

Talking to Richard Ritter, he had doen the same thing on three other backs in the last several months and mine was the tightest "off" tolerance.

Just a reference point. I think that eventually, this situation will solve itself.

Cheers!

robert_4927
13-Jul-2005, 12:52
Michael, I'm just curious. Why not compose and shoot 12x20 then mask the negative to achieve 8x20? I know you must have a good reason for going to the trouble to add a reducing back just to shave two inches off each side of the negative but for the life of me I can't seem to understand why. I know it's not to save money on film because the prices are to similar for both formats. You could easily achieve the same thing during printing by masking or cropping . You just have to be conscious of your composition. I have a friend who shoots 12x20 and he does this by simply putting a few marks on his ground glass with a removable marker to indicate the width of the 8 inch format. Then masks the negative accordingly during printing. This way he has no added expense for a reducing back or extra film holders. And his prints look just like my 8x20 prints. When he wants to compose wider he just wipes off the marks. When printing he just cuts a 8x20 window out of a sheet of ruby lithe and masks the negative. I'm curious as why you would want to go to the trouble and expense to add a reducing back and more film holders is all for such a slight change in formats. I'm sure I'm missing something here.

Diane Maher
13-Jul-2005, 13:05
Robert,
Ooops, sorry about that. I was thinking 5x12, not larger. I haven't decided where I'm going to buy holders from yet. When I bought my film a couple of months ago, they asked me which holders I was going to use. I said S&S. Does this mean I can't use the film in an AWB? Sorry for my confusion.

robert_4927
13-Jul-2005, 13:18
The size of the film is not what differs between the two. It is where the rib locks are located on the holder. these seat into a grove to make everything light tight and stable. Of course an AWB and a S&S holder in 5x12 size will accept 5x12 film. But one might seat into your camera and one might not depending on where the grove is on your back in conjuction with the rib on the holder. You can use either one but you may have to have your back reworked to accept the S&S holder ( if they make a 5x12 i'm not sure) Or you can send your back to AWB and he will build your holders to fit your camera. Either way will work .

robert_4927
13-Jul-2005, 13:38
Diane, 5x12 is a strange format to me and I really don't know a lot about it. If there is a standard dimension for this format then you should be able to buy any film holder and it should fit your camera. Sandy King or Keith could probably answer these questions easier than I can . I don't want to tell you that you need a custom fitted film holder when you could easily buy any 5x12 holder and it will fit. Sorry I couldn't be more help

Diane Maher
13-Jul-2005, 14:55
Robert,
At this time, I don't have the camera yet (ordered from Canham) or the holders (not ordered yet). I will try and keep your comments in mind regarding the rib locks and ask when I'm ready to order them. They are not shown on S&S website, but can be ordered. AFAIK, there is no standard for 5x12 either.

Michael Kadillak
13-Jul-2005, 15:38
Robert:

I already have a lightweight Korona 8x20 so I already have a number of 8x20 film holders. The Wisner has a much longer bellows draw and with the extra number of holders it was about convenience. The back cost me about 1 1/2 times the price of a 12x20 holder so it is about economics from my point of view. Plus, I find that 8x20 film is much easier to handle when I tray develop. I can easly fit a 16x20 tray in my sink wheras as the 20x24 tray procedure is a challenge times two for me.

Cheers!

Oren Grad
13-Jul-2005, 15:38
Diane, here's a page showing how Keith Canham specifies dimensions for film holders in odd formats:

www.canhamcameras.com/Film%20Holder%20Specs.html (http://www.canhamcameras.com/Film%20Holder%20Specs.html)

He doesn't list 5x12, so you should call Keith and ask him for those dimensions, and when you contact the holder makers tell them you need to have your holders built to those dimensions, and find out the cost and lead time for doing so. Based on my own inquiries recently, I think that Lotus can build to order pretty quickly (within a few weeks), but you will likely have to wait months for Alan Brubaker, and possibly for S&S as well if they don't have a run already scheduled in the size you need.

robert_4927
13-Jul-2005, 16:10
Michael, I see you already had an exsisting 8x20 and numerous film holders, now that makes sense to me. But just one other question. Why can't you develope a sheet of 12x20 in a 16x20 tray? two inches of space on each side of the negative is plenty of room to allow for even develoment. I use trays 11 3/4 wide by 23 3/4 long for develoing 8x20 with no problems at all.

Michael Kadillak
13-Jul-2005, 16:26
To mitigate scratches (Efke PL100 - need I saw more) and maintain even development, I like to have enough room to slide the bottom sheet of film out from the bottom and "clear" the remaining stack on the way up at the other end of the tray away from the remaining sheets when I tray develop. I do as many as six sheets of film at a time and this procedure works for me like a champ. When I use tray dimensions as close to the film as you are talking about I find that I unintentionally raise the remaining sheets out of the developer on the far end (with my infrared monocle I can see this very clearly in the dark) when I cycle off of the bottom and it affects the results I produce and that is where the pavement hits the pedal.

Whatever works baby.

robert_4927
13-Jul-2005, 16:30
What I don't understand is why you can develop an 8x20 in a 16x20 tray and not a 12x20. If you're open for learning a very simple development technique I would suggest trying brush development. You don't need to handle the negative but twice and that's putting it in the tray and taking it out. I take it you're using the shuffling method? I agree when you start getting into negs. this size they start becoming a little harder to shuffle without scratching the emulsion.( at least that is the case with efke film) Now I was a little hesitant at first about dragging a brush across the emulsion side of a negative until I tried it and I was amazed by the results. Beautiful negs the very first time I tried it.

robert_4927
13-Jul-2005, 16:33
Sorry I must have been typing when you were posting.

Jorge Gasteazoro
13-Jul-2005, 16:37
I agree with Robert, I have been doing brush development for about 15 years now. Barring the convenience of tube development, brush development gave me the best results. The caveat is you have to do one by one, so I have moved to tubes and now a Jobo. If anybody wants to try the tubes JandC is selling them for $15, the same tube that AWB sells for $80 bucks....

robert_4927
13-Jul-2005, 16:41
Michael, When I shuffle I always turn the stack 180 midway through the development. That way you are lifting the opposite end through the remaining development time. You know, equal time for both ends. That way one end is not being lifted out of the developer through the whole development process. Why doesn't this happen with the 8x20 you are shuffling it is the same length as 12x20 but you're using a smaller tray?

robert_4927
13-Jul-2005, 16:57
It also might help to increase the volume of developer in the tray....make it deeper and that makes shuffling a lot easier especially when you're doing 6 to 8 negs.

robert_4927
13-Jul-2005, 17:01
Jorge , I think you were one of the ones that convinced me to give brush development a try after I was pitching a fit about scratching my first batch of efke. Thanks by the way, it is a great way to develop.

Michael Kadillak
13-Jul-2005, 17:08
Point well made Robert. I got out the 16x20 trays and placed a 12x20 neg in it and it does not look as bad as I remember last time I tried it. I will give it a go with three sheets next time I process 12x20.

Cheers!

robert_4927
13-Jul-2005, 17:17
Michael, Maybe I should explain how I shuffle. I was taught to shuffle with the negs laying in the tray in the vertical format.( as you are facing and looking down at them) I always found I had better control of the neg this way. This is why I'm puzzled that you can shuffle 8x20 and not 12x20 in a 16x20. You may very well be shuffling with the neg facing you in the horizontal position. Is that the case? I always felt like i had a mile of negative flaping off each side of the hand that was pulling the bottom sheet in the horizontal position. but like you said ...what ever works for you.

sanking
13-Jul-2005, 17:18
I won't comment on discussions regarding the quality of S&S film holders versus other brands. However, I am very proud of the quality of the holders we are making today, both in terms of their aesthetic appeal and efficiency. Some may prefer the look of walnut holders but the fact of the matter is that cherry has a less porous grain and is more dimensionally stable, which makes it the superior wood in our opinion for this application. And if we did not believe that to be true we would use walnut since production costs are virtually the same.

As regards fit, some clarification is in order since there has been some misinformation conveyed in this thread. With the exception of 11X14 and 14X17 there are no ANSI specifications for ULF film holders. The S&S holders in these two sizes are made to ANSI specifications. Others, including 5X12, 7X11, 7X17, 8X20, 12X20, are made to the old Korona standard, and this is because there is a very large existing base of these cameras on the used market, and a fair number of the S&S holders that we sell are for older cameras. Unfortunately, Korona standard was not an exact science since. the actual size of backs of existing cameras varies considerably, with the result being that S&S holders fit some cameras well and others not. Same is true of holders by other makers. However, with some rare exceptions the only practical difference between holders of different make and age is the location of the rib lock, width and length tending to be standard.

If a new camera is being built it is usually made for holders of a specific brand, and this normally only involves placement of the groove for the rib lock. In most cases cameras can be made to accept holders of different brand by having more than one groove in the back, and putting a groove in a camera back is a very easy thing for anyone to do. I know for a fact that several Wisner and Canham cameras in ULF size have been made with backs that accept S&S film holders and it is just as easy to adapt them for S&S as it is for AWS or Lotus. In fact, I own 7X17 and 12X20 Canham cameras and both were made for S&S holders

As for the 5X12 size, the only recently built cameras of this size that I am aware are two Canham cameras and the recently introduced Shen-Hao, and all were made with backs for our S&S holders, which in turn were based on the standard of a 5X12 Korona holder that we used as a model. See Tillman Crane’s comments on the matter in a recent edition of View Camera. Also, the 7X17 cameras currently being built by Shen-Hao will have backs that accept S&S holders.

It would be easy enough for us to adopt the standards that Keith Canham has posted, but Keith is not the only game in town even in the new camera area. And, as I noted earlier, there is a large base of existing ULF cameras they were not built with backs to the standards Keith e proposes, and more of our business is selling to people who own these cameras than to new owners of Canham cameras.

robert_4927
13-Jul-2005, 17:59
Sandy, Can I send S&S one of my film holders and will they match the specs to my existing film holder? This would save me the time and expense of having to modify my camera back. I mean wouldn't it be easier for me to have the rib locks located to match my camera back while the filmholders are in construction than to pay someone to modify my camera back to fit a different filmholder?

sanking
13-Jul-2005, 18:17
"Sandy, Can I send S&S one of my film holders and will they match the specs to my existing film holder? This would save me the time and expense of having to modify my camera back. I mean wouldn't it be easier for me to have the rib locks located to match my camera back while the filmholders are in construction than to pay someone to modify my camera back to fit a different filmholder?"

You can send me the specs of your existing back (or a holder that fits the back) and I can tell you if the S&S holders will fit your camera or not. If your holders are AWS they should be very close to the same as our S&S holders, except for the 7X17 and 12X20 sizes which have the rib locks spaced differently than AWS. From an economic point of view it makes a lot more sense to adapt the back to the holder rather than the other way around since only one modification, and a very simple one at that, is usually needed. We could of course build holders to fit existing backs but considering the fact that there are considerable differences in the actual size of existing backs this economic model does not make any sense to me. Many people ask us to make holders for Folmer and Schwing backs but once I explain how much easier it is to adapt a F&S back to Korona standard holders they generally see the light.

robert_4927
13-Jul-2005, 19:39
Sandy, Let me first thank you for the contributions you've made thus far to the large format community. Your Pyrocat is one of the finest developers I've ever used if not the finest. I also appreciate what your doing by offering us a choice in filmholders. I'm sure the are of fine quality and very affordable. If the S&S filmholder doesn't fit my camera I take it your answer to my first question is no. My second question was "wouldn't it be easier for me"? By having to pay someone to modify my camera back plus the down time of my camera is not easier for me. So I take your answer to my second question to be yes. You see as the consumer my interest is not what is the best economic model for any certain company. My interest is what product can you offer me that best suits my needs. If I can buy a filmholder to fit my camera I'm certainly not going to buy a filmholder that I have to fit my camera to. In talking with Keith Canham in no way did he suggest that all filmholders should be built to his specs. What he did say is why can't we come up with a set of standards that all filmholder makers can work to. It doesn't matter whose numbers we use your's or Alan's or whoever's. Now I know all about the old F&S and Koronas and their different size backs and various size filmholders and naturally their would need to be modifications done to these old cameras be it the rib locks or camera backs. But why can't we come up with a set of standards to go by for all new construction? That way when I buy a new camera I can use S&S or AWB or Wisner...ect...ect.. filmholders.

sanking
13-Jul-2005, 21:01
Robert,

"If I can buy a filmholder to fit my camera I'm certainly not going to buy a filmholder that I have to fit my camera to."

OK, but the point I have tried to make is that the S&S holders fit as many cameras, if not more cameras, than holders made by Lotus or AWS, and as much as you would like for there to be a command standard, that is not the case. And given the base of older cameras on the market, which greatly outnumber new cameras, there is *more* economic justification in building to the old Korona standard than to a new standard proposed by a contemporary camera maker.

And in the end it is purely an economic issue. Regardless of what you may choose to do many people will opt to save money when presented with two choices of equal value. Suppose for example that you are presented with two choices. One choice is that you can buy five B&B film holders at $600 each that fit your camera perfectly as is, for a total of $3000. The second choice is that you can buy five P&P holders that are of the same quality at $400 per unit, but you must pay Richard Ritter $100-200 to modify your back. You save $800-900 in the second scenario. As a customer, the choice is yours.

robert_4927
13-Jul-2005, 21:48
Ok how about if we use the old Korona Standard as a starting point and develop a set of standards from there for all other formats. Like I said it doesn't matter whose numbers we use whether it be from an old korona or a new Wisner holder. The point I'm trying to make is unless we develop a standard we will continue to make various sizes. Let's just say we will build every holder to Sandy Kings specs. This will be the standard that all filmholder makers will work to for all new construction. Now all the camera manufacturers can build their backs to match these specs. This solves the various problems like having to modify camera backs to accept a different film holder. This allows the consumer to chose and use what ever filmholder they want. Let's forget about the old Koronas and F&S's still floating around out there. These old cameras will aways need modification and you know even better than I that very seldom will you find two exactly alike. Forget about that camera that was made yesterday or a hundred years ago. What do you have against everyone getting on the same page and starting on such and such a date all filmholders and camera backs will be built to a standard set of specs? Now there's nothing you can do about cameras built before this date. But you can modify them to the new set of standards if you need to or if the customer chooses he can have a custom holder built to match his old specs. I'm sure he would opt for the standard spec modification knowing that he will be able to use any filmholder on the market. You know a standard set of specs is working in all the other smaller formats why can't it work in ULF? I mean S&S could do nothing but benefit from this. Now your film holder fits everything that the custom holder will fit and without any modifications or down time to the consumers camera. Plus it's cheaper

sanking
13-Jul-2005, 22:46
"Ok how about if we use the old Korona Standard as a starting point and develop a set of standards from there for all other formats. Like I said it doesn't matter whose numbers we use whether it be from an old korona or a new Wisner holder. The point I'm trying to make is unless we develop a standard we will continue to make various sizes."

Of course it matters whose numbers we start with because the person who changes standards will suffer a signifcant loss in production in the short run. And in my opinion the gain is not worth the pain because the greater market, now and in the future, is the base of exisiting Korona and F&S cameras in ULF size, not new cameras being made today.

But if AWS want to change to S&S standard that is fine with me.

robert_4927
14-Jul-2005, 05:58
Of course I'm not suggesting that all of your numbers be used or all of AWB's. It's called compromise. The loss that is suffered in the short run could easily be recovered in a slight increase in filmholder price and with increased sales. You see if I don't have to pay to modify my camera back I can pay a little more for that holder. If all other filmholder makers are willing to set down and work out a set of standards they will suffer the same production loss in the short run as S&S. It would be a level playing field. Your unwillingness to do this is only hurting the consumer because it limits us to our choice of filmholder to use. What if the other five or six filmholder manufacturers decide on a standard set of specs. When I the customer go to buy that new camera and five different holders are being made that will fit it don't you think I'm going to consider those five before I look at your's? Have you looked at the lead times on ULF cameras from other manufacturers. ULF is alive and well and soon there will be more newer cameras is use the the old rickity F&S's and Koronas. And this will only increase over the years. Just Like there are more new Fords on the road than there are model A's. Your unwillingness to even consider a standard set of specs. and statements like " but if AWS ( which I think you mean AWB) wants to change to S&S standards that is fine with me" can only be described in one word...Greed. On principle alone that is enough for me to take my business elsewhere

sanking
14-Jul-2005, 07:20
Robert,

Perhaps in your haste to express your own opinions you failed to read, or understand, what I believe to have made clear in several previous messages. I have indeed considered carefully the advantages and disadvantages of a common set of standards for ULF holders as it pertains to our business, and my conclusion is that after more than five years of making holders to a certain standard it would not be in our interest to change standard, for several reasons: 1) my assessment of the situation is that ULF cameras that have already been built greatly outnumber those that are being built now or that will be built in the future, and thus the greater market is with these cameras rather than for new cameras, 2) we have a fairly large base of existing customers who expect that S&S holders that they buy in the future will be of similar quality and fit to those they purchased in the past, and 3) people who buy new ULF cameras can choose whatever brand of holder they like and have the back fitted for the holder, and typically this is how it is done.

I could be mistaken in my assessment but having been involved in ULF photography for over 20 years I think I know and understand this market at least as well as you.

robert_4927
14-Jul-2005, 10:57
Sandy, In no way is anyone expecting you to give up your customer base. You can continue to build to your specs to supply your existing customers. All I'm saying is for new constuction build to a standard spec. Wherein lies the problem of offering both of these features. Retooling? It would be a matter of repositioning the router blades to cut the rib. Yes when we buy a new camera we buy film holders made to fit it. But typically how it is done is after paying 5 to 6 grand for a camera maybe we'll buy two or three holders. Typically we add to our filmholder collection over the years. Now with a standard spec for new construction the camera manufacturer can build his back to a standard. Now the consumer can buy his film holders from who he wants when he wants because they all will fit. I bought 3 8x20 film holders when I had my camera built. I added three 8 months later when I recovered from the initial investment. I would have considered S&S holders but the problem is I use my camera. Now I'm not going to have my camera down and have someone route another groove into it so I can have three more film holders when I can pick up the phone and call my dimensions into someone and have my filmholders at my door and no extra grooves cut into my brand new 6000 dollar camera. With a standard spec I could have just picked up the phone, called Quality Camera and ordered S&S holders with no down time whatsoever because with a standard spec they would have fit. Also in no way will I question your intellect in market awareness. I'm sure you are very well informed. But let's just take a look at a few market indicators. ULF sales have over doubled in the last five years. Canham Cameras have a lead time of over 20 months. Never before has Canham had such long lead times . I know for a fact that this is due to the amount of orders coming in . They just can't keep up with them. God only knows how long it will take me to buy another Wisner. This is also true with AWB. He is swamped with orders. These are market indicators that do not support your assessment. " ULF cameras that have been built greatly outnumber those that are being built now or that will be built in the future"Now that is a pretty bold statement considering there is no way for anyone to predict which way the maket will go in the next ten years or especially where it will be in the year 2106. The future ( I hope) is a very long time. ULF has survived a lot and it is even striving in the digital age. Sales are up, lead times are long. I will be more than happy to agree to disagree with you and end this debate right here. Keep up the great work you're doing, your pyrocat is as they say " the cat's ass" my best to you, Robert

Paul_5696
14-Jul-2005, 11:30
Robert,

Where did you get your 11.75 x 23.75 inch trays?

Thanks,

sanking
14-Jul-2005, 11:43
Robert,

OK, we will just have to agree to disagree on some issues.

The one thing I think we can agree on is that we would like to be able to continue to obtain materials and supplies for ULF work well into the future. There is, as you say, a very good market at this time for ULF cameras and holders. Right now the film situation looks pretty bleak but hopefully this can be resolved, at least for another 5-10 years.

robert_4927
14-Jul-2005, 11:46
Paul. I had AWB build them. He will build custom trays to any size. these are made from abs plastic and would survive a bomb blast I think. hell they make car bumpers and football helmets out of this stuff. It took about 8 weeks to get them but then again i was in no hurry for them. For these size trays....and I don't have my invoice in front of me... were between 50 and 60 bucks if I recall correctly. I have a 60x24 inch sink and I wanted to be able to put 5 trays into it for film development. I like smooth bottom trays but he will also make them ribbed or dimpled bottom if you want and I think that is at no extra charge but don't quote me. At the time I think he was in the process of expanding is work force so the lead time for plastics may be even shorter now

robert_4927
14-Jul-2005, 11:48
Paul, go to......www.filmholders.com

robert_4927
14-Jul-2005, 12:02
Sandy, Film is an area at times that really confuses me. What I can't seem to understand is why the great Yellow God will not sell a master roll of tmax 400 to vendor and allow them to cut it into ULF sizes? Is it the fact they are afraid that someone will start cutting it into smaller formats and undercut their prices? If so wouldn't it be easy for Kodak's Attorneys for put strict stipulations on this? Like i've said before I have a check book and two chest freezers at the ready if someone could pull this off. Hell Kodak would probably take 50- 60 percent of the market share in ULF by doing this and never have to cut a single master roll. What we need to do is come together and pool our resources. Kodak is not even going to answer the phone for 15 to 20 thousand. But you approach them with 6 digits and watch their ears go up

Michael Kadillak
14-Jul-2005, 12:28
I am on the road with Kodak and ULF film you are making reference to and all I can say is that you are speaking from a generalization "logical" point of view that has no foundation in the real business world.

In as few words as possible, what price would you be willing to pay for a 12x20 sheet of T Max 400 sheet film? $9, $12, $15. How may 10 sheet boxes would you be willing to buy at that price? 50? 100?

Would you be willing to mortgage your house or dip into your personal reserve account for $100,000 to make this happen (your sixs figure anology) ? If the answer is yes, then you need to take my extensive notes and contact listing and run with this one.

Reality check. The market is bigger than you or I. The capital to accomplish this is reasonable and grounded in the financial alternatives even if these alternatives are less desirable. If common sense and an economic criteria cannot be reasonably met, then sit down in your chair because there is no way in hell that this is going to happen.

My point is that the forces of any free market are diverse and are not required to have a foundation in logic or common sense. And that includes film holders and film.

Get over with it and get on with life. It is not a perfect world.

sanking
14-Jul-2005, 13:10
Robert,

BTW, I just realized that you are using the 8X20 fiormat. The S&S film holders in this size happen to be the same width and length as AWB holders, and the rib-lock is also in the same place. The two types of holders should interchange in the same back. The Korona holder that we used as a model for this format appears to have been close to identical to the AWB holders.

Jorge Gasteazoro
14-Jul-2005, 13:15
what price would you be willing to pay for a 12x20 sheet of T Max 400 sheet film? $9, $12, $15

Badger graphics is selling 50 sheet boxes of 8x10 for $175. This comes to about $3.50 per sheet or 80 sq inches. A 12x20 is 240 sq inches, so the price per sheet should be around $10.50. If we allow another .50 cents for special cutting I figure $11 per sheet is a fair price. This includes the profit for Kodak and the reseller. A 50 sheet box would cost $550 dollars, I would max out my credit card and buy at least 6 boxes.

What I dont understand is that they are willing to cut tri x in 12x20 but flat out refuse to do it for Tmax 400. Even if the minimum order was 50, 25 sheet boxes I think there is enough of us out there to buy them, but Kodak just wont budge. Why is that?

Michael Kadillak
14-Jul-2005, 13:46
Jorge:

When I go the Badger web site I see $147 for a 50 sheet box of T Max 400 in 8x10. Are you using a net delivery to Mexico as your base cost?

Anyway, to answer your questions about Tri X I can only tell you that if you had zero knowledge of photography then film is film. Therefore, if no differentiation is made by the business people offering any 12x20 film is their way of meeting demand. Wanting another film is to far out of the box for the uninformed. That is my view of the situation.

Jorge Gasteazoro
14-Jul-2005, 14:02
Is it that cheap now?....no, shipping the film to Mexico adds another $80 bucks to the price.

Anyhow, I guess you are right and to the bean counters film is film......shame you would think even them would have enough interest to learn just what the heck they are supposed to be selling .....

Sal Santamaura
14-Jul-2005, 15:31
I suspect there was at one time a catalog number for 12x20 Tri-X, but not for TMY. If that's the case, it's simply a matter of bean counters being unwilling to incur the cost they allocate to each SKU number for a new special-order product. I don't know what today's figure is, but at one time heard $25k/year/number bandied about.

CP Goerz
15-Jul-2005, 17:48
To answer the original question I own both a Korona and a Wisner(8x10 covertible), while the Wisner is a lot sturdier you pay for it in the weight department which is always the fly in the ointment. A Korona with the rail braces and possibly even the Brubaker Stabalizer kit make it as rigid but its a lot of fussing. If you are fit enough for the weight go with the Wisner, if not brace the Korona. In either case though the 8x20 is a MANS camera!!! ;-)



I have old Korona holders and new Brubakers, I was fortunate to get the older holders in almost new condition and they work very well. I have had Wisner holders that were.......lacking in certain respects but the AWB holders are just beautiful. I don't worry about light leak, T distance or whatever, they are well made and worth the extra. There are few large format film holder makers around...for a reason! Making holders is FAR more difficult than making a camera. Just spend a day in any of the makers workshops and you'll see that the price you pay is a really really good value, for proof try making one of your own!



I don't mind spending a little extra in an area where others may be willing to spend less but thats the choice we all make as LF guys. I plan to use my 8x20 for as long as I can get my ass off the chair and I want a holder that will be there when I need it.

CP Goerz

robert_4927
16-Jul-2005, 17:11
Andrew, My Wisner 8x20 Expedition weighs 14.5 lb....Today I was shooting with Bob Herbst. His 12x20 Tech. Field felt like lifting an anvil in comparison . I would Guess at least 28 to 30 Lb. Also if you check Wisner's old Prices his film holders are only 50.00 less than AWB holders. In quality it's a no brainer I'll buy Alan's any day. It's refreshing to see someone in this day and age so committed to quality. His double light trap design alone is worth the extra 50. I agree , I feel that it is a lifetime investment so I'll opt for the best I can get.