PDA

View Full Version : What is the largest format camera that you have seen ever?



ryanchapman
5-Sep-2018, 08:19
Hello Photographer,
What is the large format camera that you have seen ever?

TIA

ericantonio
5-Sep-2018, 08:25
I live by the Tustin Airbase in Southern California. I didn't see it in person at the time, but there was an article in the local newspaper and I drove by hopefully to see it. It was before they started building homes and apartments around it. But it was considered THE LARGEST PINHOLE CAMERA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Picture

Bob Salomon
5-Sep-2018, 08:31
Including graphic arts process cameras?

Tin Can
5-Sep-2018, 09:00
Here is the longest and tallest I have ever seen in person. I own it.

The first pic is 5 years ago when I first assembled it and cut the uprights down from 13 feet to 7 feet. Originally they were 20 feet tall! As used by Mongomery Wards Catalog division in Chicago.

The second pic is after I installed 3 new bellows, allowing 6 feet of bellows extension, which I have used with a 900mm Jena shooting macro. That back is 5X7.

The third pic shows the Deardorff S11 with new Richard Ritter 11X14 back and my handmade DIY GG. The camera is upside down shooting an 11X14 X-Ray film macro in my cramped studio.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1858/44493828291_f9dd415197_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2aMLv1x)1-1-1-11x14 Deardorff (2014_11_19 06_51_07 UTC) (https://flic.kr/p/2aMLv1x) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1856/43584407045_e06cfd95bd_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/29pptKT)1-1929 S11 Deardorff (https://flic.kr/p/29pptKT) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7215/27064904555_aca44fc1b9_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/HeCHcr)Upside down (https://flic.kr/p/HeCHcr) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

Tin Can
5-Sep-2018, 09:02
Including graphic arts process cameras?

You are right Bob, our factory had a monster Process Camera, it took up 2 rooms. Perhaps 4X4 ft imaging door and 20 ft of bellows.

Bob Salomon
5-Sep-2018, 09:15
You are right Bob, our factory had a monster Process Camera, it took up 2 rooms. Perhaps 4X4 ft imaging door and 20 ft of bellows.

Our photo lab in the USAF had a big Robertson like that l could open the back in one room and actually walk into it and stand up inside it!

But there was also the Polaroid 20x24. It was also large format but it wasn’t a view camera. Would that be included?

ericantonio
5-Sep-2018, 09:24
Our photo lab in the USAF had a big Robertson like that l could open the back in one room and actually walk into it and stand up inside it!

But there was also the Polaroid 20x24. It was also large format but it wasn’t a view camera. Would that be included?

A 20x24? If it isn't a view camera, what would it be? Okay, now we have to define what a view camera is right? The 20x24 didn't have a bellows? I'm intrigued now.

Bob Salomon
5-Sep-2018, 09:29
A 20x24? If it isn't a view camera, what would it be? Okay, now we have to define what a view camera is right? The 20x24 didn't have a bellows? I'm intrigued now.

It had no camera movements, no tilt/swing/shift/rise. It had a big bellows that could be focused.

In other words, like the process cameras and the pinhole cameras, it was a very large box Brownie!

In my mind a view camera has movements that lets the user control the plane of focus and subject shape as well as direct displacements that let you shoot from one spot and make it appear that you were at a different spot!

ericantonio
5-Sep-2018, 09:37
In my mind a view camera has movements that lets the user control the plane of focus and subject shape as well as direct displacements that let you shoot from one spot and make it appear that you were at a different spot!

Ahhhh okay, good point!!

Mark Sampson
5-Sep-2018, 10:31
The largest view camera that I know of was made by Douglas Busch in the late 1980s. A field camera that took 30"x40" film; he had a lens specially made by Rodenstock. I read about it in 'View Camera' magazine, some people here may remember it.

ericantonio
5-Sep-2018, 10:37
The largest view camera that I know of was made by Douglas Busch in the late 1980s. A field camera that took 30"x40" film; he had a lens specially made by Rodenstock. I read about it in 'View Camera' magazine, some people here may remember it.

Wow! Imagine loading a film holder for that. Will need 2 people probably. And a room about a 5x5 to move around.

Leszek Vogt
5-Sep-2018, 11:25
A field camera that took 30"x40" film

Wow, now that's what I call a contact print.

Les

Dan O'Farrell
5-Sep-2018, 11:53
Hello Photographer,
What is the large format camera that you have seen ever?

TIA

I have seen, and own, several "Large Format Cameras".
Why do you ask?
Have you ever seen one?

Havoc
5-Sep-2018, 12:56
Wasn't a camera in the usual sense but it was a kind of horizontal repro camera to make masks for IC fabrication. Must have been late '90s close after the fall of the Berlin wall somewhere in previous east-Germany. It was sort of 2 rooms with an immense bellow between them.

faberryman
5-Sep-2018, 13:22
A Richard Ritter 20x24.

Drew Wiley
5-Sep-2018, 15:05
I was given a process camera 22 feet long. The bellows was large enough to walk through (but not strong enough). I cannibalized the lenses and easel. The rest went to the dump. It was Japanese, superbly made, and allegedly cost 200K originally. It would have been easy to turn into a stationary taking camera far bigger than anything Doug Busch made. Certainly not portable! But even this is tiny compared to some frontier cameras which required scaffolding to be built for each shot in lieu of a tripod. I've seen contact prints from a 40"x60" frontier camera, and a picture of a 4X8 FOOT plate camera in use. Of course, now there are those all-room pinhole cameras, entire trailers turned into backed-up, jacked-up point n'shoot cameras, and that blimp hanger stunt, if sheer size is all that counts.

Bob Salomon
5-Sep-2018, 15:31
“....Of course, now there are those all-room pinhole cameras,....”

Or a renaissance period camera obscura!

andrewch59
5-Sep-2018, 16:24
182202
I have not seen this in person, it belonged to the QLD Government, when it became obsolete the guy in the picture, Sandie Barrie aquired it and had it in his garage. When the 2010-2011 floods hit, his garage was flooded, and his camera was ruined, along with mountains of old negatives. Looters took a lot of his old camera gear, including some of his rare lenses. I met him when I was selling some film holders and he told me a bit of the story.
182203
This one is mine

Drew Wiley
5-Sep-2018, 17:26
Nice cell phone!

MAubrey
5-Sep-2018, 17:58
There's this fellow with a 36x14 camera. I think he chose it because it's the largest film size for X-ray film.

https://www.popsci.com/diy/article/2011-08/you-built-what-big-picture

Mark Sampson
5-Sep-2018, 18:44
Douglas Busch's photos can be seen at www.superlarge.com- a few of the pictures in his galleries were published in that 'VC' article long ago.
But the site offers no technical details or pictures of his 30x40 camera (that I can find).

Tin Can
5-Sep-2018, 18:59
This guy has been inspiring!


There's this fellow with a 36x14 camera. I think he chose it because it's the largest film size for X-ray film.

https://www.popsci.com/diy/article/2011-08/you-built-what-big-picture

Cameron Cornell
5-Sep-2018, 19:11
Lindsey Ross down in Santa Barbara shoots wet plate on a 24 x 32“ Chamonix.

https://www.instagram.com/thealchemistress/

Cameron Cornell
Washington State
www.analogportraiture.com

scheinfluger_77
6-Sep-2018, 04:31
Gee, and I was impressed by an 11x14 Deardorff in school long, long ago.

Tracy Storer
6-Sep-2018, 08:05
Full movements on the front, indirect movements on the back.
It sure FELT like a view camera for the last 30-something years...
G
It had no camera movements, no tilt/swing/shift/rise. It had a big bellows that could be focused.

In other words, like the process cameras and the pinhole cameras, it was a very large box Brownie!

In my mind a view camera has movements that lets the user control the plane of focus and subject shape as well as direct displacements that let you shoot from one spot and make it appear that you were at a different spot!

jp
6-Sep-2018, 08:15
https://penobscotmarinemuseum.org/maines-largest-pinhole-camera/

unknown if film was actually used in it, but it does work as I went in it. It had a bench or pew and we could sit down and watch the downtown upside down and backwards.

Mark Sawyer
6-Sep-2018, 10:24
In my mind a view camera has movements that lets the user control the plane of focus and subject shape as well as direct displacements that let you shoot from one spot and make it appear that you were at a different spot!

Does this mean Carleton Watkins, Timothy O'Sullivan, and William Henry Jackson didn't use view cameras?

Bob Salomon
6-Sep-2018, 10:27
Does this mean Carleton Watkins, Timothy O'Sullivan, and William Henry Jackson didn't use view cameras?

If their cameras had view camera movements, then they did. If their cameras did not, then they just had big bellows focusing cameras!

Mark Sampson
6-Sep-2018, 10:39
Well, the OP was asking about 'large format' cameras rather than 'view' cameras. Lots of room for Talmudic scholarship, or just plain argument, there. I'll suggest that the largest camera known was the gigantic one made to photograph a locomotive, for a World's Fair c.1893. I read the story of it once, and have a postcard with a picture of the camera on it somewhere. But the name of the photographer who had the commission, built and used the camera, and the size of its glass-plate negative all escape me now. OTOH no one alive has seen that camera, so the question remains open.

Tracy Storer
6-Sep-2018, 12:38
George Lawrence.

Well, the OP was asking about 'large format' cameras rather than 'view' cameras. Lots of room for Talmudic scholarship, or just plain argument, there. I'll suggest that the largest camera known was the gigantic one made to photograph a locomotive, for a World's Fair c.1893. I read the story of it once, and have a postcard with a picture of the camera on it somewhere. But the name of the photographer who had the commission, built and used the camera, and the size of its glass-plate negative all escape me now. OTOH no one alive has seen that camera, so the question remains open.

Bruce Barlow
6-Sep-2018, 15:09
Years ago, Richard Ritter brought a 20x24 camera to my house to make an "Owner's Manual" video in my basement. The camera was going to Sweden, if I remember correctly.

It was a special one that he made a 3' non-tapered module for more bellows. In total, it had 9 feet of bellows extension.

The 3' module could be removed for field work.

It needed 3 tripods.

Dan Fromm
6-Sep-2018, 15:52
How quickly we forget! http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/archive/index.php/t-107862.html

Also see https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-163812-1.html (be patient, scroll down a bit)

Drew Bedo
28-Sep-2018, 05:44
A local collector's club visited a member's display room some years ago. Lots of good to great stuff in glass cases. In the middle of the room were TWO hugh studio or process cameras. I am guessing something larger than 11x14, but don't really know. I had a vision of The Guns of Navarone. The words, HUMONGUS and gIMONGUE came to mind.

At the time, (mid-1990s) I was working at a large hospital as a Nuclear Medicine Technologist, and had access to the large sheets of film used in MRI and CT scanning . . .and the darkroom they were processed in. I suggested that we could collaborate to make a few images.

He flatly refused.

Dan Fromm
28-Sep-2018, 06:10
Drew, are you sure that CT scans were ever done on film? CT stands for Computerized Tomography.

Tin Can
28-Sep-2018, 06:16
Drew, are you sure that CT scans were ever done on film? CT stands for Computerized Tomography.

I made wiring looms for EMI in the early years of CT machine production. (http://www.imaginis.com/ct-scan/brief-history-of-ct)

Drew Bedo
28-Sep-2018, 07:41
Drew, are you sure that CT scans were ever done on film? CT stands for Computerized Tomography.


In the beginning, CT stood for computed Tomography to distuingish the technology from analog, X-Ray tomogtraphy. The analog technique used a mechanical link, an arm, between the X-Ray film cassett and the X-Ray source which ocilated at randome to blur everything except at the plane of focus. The focal plane in this case is not considered where the film is. The FP was midway between the film and X-Ray source. A diagram would make t5his clear . . .sorry.

So the computed part of CT refers to the use of computers to capture and process large amounts of data to make the volume cells that are assembled into the slices we see.

In the early to mid-1990s, the hard-copy out put for both CT and MRI was to a film. Don't now remember the exact dimension, but pretty big. Digita capture l for sure, but 100 sheet boxes of film were loaded into a machine sitting in the darkroom and it fed directly into a Kodak Ex-Omat roller transport processor. The same for the MRI rooms. In Nuc Med we were still using standard 8x10 film holders, loaded with Kodak "Ektascan" and used the same dark room. Our films were unloaded in the DR and transferred by hand into a by-pass for the processor machine. The chemistry was compatible with Kodak Tri-X . These films casme out dry in about 90 sec.

Of course today and for the last 20 years or so, the entire process is digital with no hard copy at all.

Andrew O'Neill
28-Sep-2018, 08:51
I've seen 20x24 cameras on the internet, but not in person. The biggest I have seen in person is my own 14x17 that I made. Piece of crap, but it does the job!

Dan Fromm
28-Sep-2018, 09:22
Drew, thanks for the explanation.

Drew Bedo
28-Sep-2018, 09:26
I've seen 20x24 cameras on the internet, but not in person. The biggest I have seen in person is my own 14x17 that I made. Piece of crap, but it does the job!

You mean because it doesn't look like a piece of antique Victorian era furniture?

As long as you get technically excellent images, it is a great camera. Two sliding boxes and heavy-mil black plastic might be made to work . . . . and who would know from viewing the images?

Andrew O'Neill
28-Sep-2018, 11:46
It looks like a pile of wood.:D Actually, more like a 1950's television.

Tin Can
28-Sep-2018, 12:07
It looks like a pile of wood.:D Actually, more like a 1950's television.

I used to have an old round Zenith like this https://goo.gl/images/kMnkkm

I threw out the old guts and put a modern 13" CRT inside.

Visitors loved my old TV and often commented on how it worked very well.

They never said, 'Why is it in color?'

John Kasaian
28-Sep-2018, 16:04
Hello Photographer,
What is the large format camera that you have seen ever?

TIA

First? Or largest?:confused:

ryanchapman
28-Sep-2018, 21:40
Including graphic arts process cameras?

No. only show that camera, that you have seen ever.

Bob Salomon
29-Sep-2018, 05:07
No. only show that camera, that you have seen ever.

In the USAF I used to operate a camera whose lens, bellows and lights were in one room and whose back and film supply and darkroom were in the room behind it. Had a huge vacuum back, a metered focusing system to determine focus, a bank vault lock type wheel to operate the focus. It was a Robertson. Is that large enough?

John Kasaian
29-Sep-2018, 05:40
In the USAF I used to operate a camera whose lens, bellows and lights were in one room and whose back and film supply and darkroom were in the room behind it. Had a huge vacuum back, a metered focusing system to determine focus, a bank vault lock type wheel to operate the focus. It was a Robertson. Is that large enough?

Bob, I've been in one of those. Amazing!
That was in a reprographics shop in the early 70's
They also made prints using engraved stone slabs---I don't remember what the process is called.
It was quite a shop! I wonder if it survived into the digital era?

Bob Salomon
29-Sep-2018, 06:24
Bob, I've been in one of those. Amazing!
That was in a reprographics shop in the early 70's
They also made prints using engraved stone slabs---I don't remember what the process is called.
It was quite a shop! I wonder if it survived into the digital era?

For what we used it for at Shaw I doubt it would have survived! I used it in 1962 and back then it looked on its last legs!

Tin Can
29-Sep-2018, 06:30
My employer's huge 2 room camera was an industrial secret with very limited access. It may still be in use as it made very precise stencils for automated silk screening to apply RTV to automotive gaskets. Which can be as large as 24X72".

Millions of gaskets per week.



Bob, I've been in one of those. Amazing!
That was in a reprographics shop in the early 70's
They also made prints using engraved stone slabs---I don't remember what the process is called.
It was quite a shop! I wonder if it survived into the digital era?

Oren Grad
29-Sep-2018, 07:05
In the early to mid-1990s, the hard-copy out put for both CT and MRI was to a film. Don't now remember the exact dimension, but pretty big.

I have an MRI scan that was written to 14x17 film.

Drew Bedo
30-Sep-2018, 06:05
My employer's huge 2 room camera was an industrial secret with very limited access. It may still be in use as it made very precise stencils for automated silk screening to apply RTV to automotive gaskets. Which can be as large as 24X72".

Millions of gaskets per week.

Wow,

The optical component must have looked like a port hole!

So what was the sensitive medium and how was it processed?

Tin Can
30-Sep-2018, 06:53
Wow,

The optical component must have looked like a port hole!

So what was the sensitive medium and how was it processed?

I don't know the details. I got an after-hours tour from a former tech who had moved to my department. This was 20 years ago, long before I got into LF and when I was beginning my DSLR years.

I think the lens was locked up. The whole thing only operated during 1st shift. We were 2nd shift.

He didn't want to linger. He was a Vietnam helicopter mechanic whose skills were best used in the 24/7 engine test lab.

I suppose the operation could now be done with DSLR and Inkjet printer.

Duolab123
2-Oct-2018, 21:26
I helped to scrap a huge process camera. I saved some film, 36x48 inches. I had the 2 lenses 1 was a 60 inch Rodenstock. I traded them to someone. My 11 X14 camera has 60 inch bellows, not long enough to use that lens. The copy board must have been at least 4x6 feet. My dumbest act was not taking the table top UV plate burner. They had a almost new 2 stage Ilford processor that passed through the wall for film. I got a nice Pako mixing valve and some other goodies. Graphic arts darkrooms are pretty boring. No big sink or trays because of the processor. I have a friend with a baby 16 x 20 Robertson, he copied historical photos with that camera. I loved playing with process cameras. Vacuum back, big ground glass. If I was young and foolish I would cut off about 5 feet of rail and build a 16 x 20 camera on a trailer :-)

Tin Can
4-Dec-2018, 08:40
I think it's time to be old and foolish.

Trying hard myself...


I helped to scrap a huge process camera. I saved some film, 36x48 inches. I had the 2 lenses 1 was a 60 inch Rodenstock. I traded them to someone. My 11 X14 camera has 60 inch bellows, not long enough to use that lens. The copy board must have been at least 4x6 feet. My dumbest act was not taking the table top UV plate burner. They had a almost new 2 stage Ilford processor that passed through the wall for film. I got a nice Pako mixing valve and some other goodies. Graphic arts darkrooms are pretty boring. No big sink or trays because of the processor. I have a friend with a baby 16 x 20 Robertson, he copied historical photos with that camera. I loved playing with process cameras. Vacuum back, big ground glass. If I was young and foolish I would cut off about 5 feet of rail and build a 16 x 20 camera on a trailer :-)

ryanchapman
4-Dec-2018, 22:17
Including graphic arts process cameras?

No, I want to see the real Largest camera that you have seen ever.

ryanchapman
4-Dec-2018, 22:19
First? Or largest?:confused:

First and largest both.

wmlaven
13-Feb-2019, 16:07
The largest view camera that I know of was made by Douglas Busch in the late 1980s. A field camera that took 30"x40" film; he had a lens specially made by Rodenstock. I read about it in 'View Camera' magazine, some people here may remember it.

I'm an old friend of Doug's and remember that camera. One summer I helped him roll his 20x24 around on a movie dolly and take portraits in Downtown Denver. A woman with a small kid came up to us and asked for a bag. Doug asked a bag of what and she said, Popcorn. When Doug said "This is a camera," she said she thought it was a popcorn popper.

Bob Salomon
13-Feb-2019, 16:37
I'm an old friend of Doug's and remember that camera. One summer I helped him roll his 20x24 around on a movie dolly and take portraits in Downtown Denver. A woman with a small kid came up to us and asked for a bag. Doug asked a bag of what and she said, Popcorn. When Doug said "This is a camera," she said she thought it was a popcorn popper.

Doug and I had adjoining booths at a lot of trade shows, seemed the show organizers liked to group similar product suppliers near each other. At one show they placed the original RRS next to Kirk. They screamed to the organizer to move them apart. But the show was sold out!

Carsten Wolff
16-Feb-2019, 01:53
Bob, I've been in one of those. Amazing!
That was in a reprographics shop in the early 70's
They also made prints using engraved stone slabs---I don't remember what the process is called.
It was quite a shop! I wonder if it survived into the digital era?

....dunno whether engraved, or etched ones, but there is an old reproduction technique using stone slabs, appropriately called lithography.
Re: Largest camera:
As far as I know: A quasi camera-obscura style pinhole camera with a "film" format of 111ft x 32ft.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Picture
Alas, I didn't see it myself.

Peter Gomena
20-Feb-2019, 09:17
First one I ever saw was a Crown Graphic. Largest was an old 16x20" studio portrait camera. I remember it clearly!

pepeguitarra
20-Feb-2019, 10:15
8x10 Horseman.

Justin K
20-Feb-2019, 20:29
Check out this custom made 30x36 camera. Surely one-of-a-kind, like the photographers who created it...

https://youtu.be/x-q2SnY-12U

Tin Can
21-Feb-2019, 02:06
The song lyrics are fantastic and Freudian by intent.

Hilarious!

And makes me want to make a bigger camera.

Gotta have goals...said the Zen Master...........




Check out this custom made 30x36 camera. Surely one-of-a-kind, like the photographers who created it...

https://youtu.be/x-q2SnY-12U

atmomedia
30-May-2019, 10:22
This one ;-) my 35x35inch " Lady in Red "

Tracy Storer
30-May-2019, 16:30
This one ;-) my 35x35inch " Lady in Red "

Hi Kurt !

Ron_in_Alaska
30-May-2019, 17:20
35" x 35" = 1,225 square inches. Although Lawrence's camera was 22" by 55" my camera was designed to use 24" roll film.
The George Lawrence reproduction panoramic camera is 24" x 60", that's 1440 sq inches.

Story and photos here:

http://www.ronkleinphotos.com/lawrence2010a.html

Tin Can
30-May-2019, 17:29
You win!

Very interesting!

Where are the 2 cameras now?

Ron_in_Alaska
30-May-2019, 18:38
The original Lawrence camera used in San Francisco was acquired by a California photographer named Waters. He used it for a few years and then it disappeared. Smaller versions do remain with family members, but I have seen photos of even bigger pan cameras that Lawrence made for a trip to Africa that are gone forever. His big camera that was used to photograph a train and often considered the biggest in the world was slowly recycled in his studio, probably into other smaller cameras. There are photos of his workshop with what was left and gathering dust.

My camera sits in our living room, possibly becoming a coffee table once the 500 feet of film I have gets used up.

Ron_in_Alaska
30-May-2019, 19:00
Another camera to consider is the #16 Cirkut. With a 36 inch lens a full circle image is 18.85 feet long. That makes it 3619 square inches of film exposed. Only 97 of these cameras were made, and my camera has a weak spring and could probably only pull 12 or 13 feet of film. Another panoramic camera made custom for a photographer named Floyd Sheelor used film 22 inches high. I have the incomplete remains of this wonderful device that he advertised as "The largest panoramic machine in the world". He took his first photo with the camera in 1913 of Tonopah Nevada. As far as I can figure the lens used was a 19 inch dagor with one cell removed. This would give an image that would be approximately 4976 square inches if he could make a full circle.

Drew Bedo
31-May-2019, 05:34
Back in the 1990s, a group I belonged to toured a mamber's collection. He had converted a room over his garage into a display area for all his cameras. Glass display cases on three wals held excellent examples of just about any type of camera. Cabinets below the displays held his seconds and more.

In the middle of the room was a wooden camera on a fixed stand with yards of bellows supported by intermediate standards . . .with some huge lens on the front. And right next to it was another just as large differing only in details. They dominated the room looking like The Guns Of Naverone!

At the time, I was enough of a nood to not know what I was really looking at or what questions to ask (like, "How did you get them up the stairts?)

Format? I JUST DON'T KNOW. Looking back, well over 11x14 I think. At the time, I had accerss to MRI film at work . . .and the automatic processor for it too. When I suggested that he and I could collaborate to do some ULF imaging, his eyes began to scan the air just over my head like he was speed reading and he broke out in a cold sweat then said something like, "You mean TAKE PICTURES?

Tin Can
31-May-2019, 05:49
Good for you Drew and i like that you saw the cameras first hand.

Pictures of cameras do not meet the OP question.

What have we actually seen?

My biggest seen is in view to me now. Deardorff S11 on it's stand.

And i use it!

Mark Crabtree
31-May-2019, 10:06
Some crazy guy brought his #16 Cirkut Camera from Alaska to Osage, W.Va. (and beyond). Ron might know how big the final negative was. 16" x some crazy width.

I had part of one around for a while. This is with a short lens; you should see the thing with the bellows racked out for the 36" Turner Reich cell.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47973344502_e53d3deba3_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2g6eVXm)Ron and Doug with #16 (https://flic.kr/p/2g6eVXm) by Yew Piney (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90951949@N02/), on Flickr

Nodda Duma
31-May-2019, 14:10
During an optical design conference on the Big Island Hawaii in 2014, I was provided an exclusive tour of Gemini North Observatory on Mauna Kea. The primary mirror (i.e. the lens) is 26.6 feet in diameter. The focal length is 182 meters. There are f/6, f/14, and f/32 camera positions. At the image plane, the resolution is 1.610 arcsec / millimeter. So that's the largest camera I've ever seen. However, the image plane is only 3" x 3".

The largest format camera I've seen is a 12" x 20" camera.

Tin Can
31-May-2019, 14:42
Well, here is a good link to how the dern thing works. I didn't know until now.

https://walkclickmake.com/2017/03/16/camera-tales-the-cirkut-panoramic-camera/

How wide was the slit?

And why didn't the image blur?

I love that is entirely mechanical and must be a Devil of a device to see in motion.

How long was a rotation in time?

Mark Crabtree
31-May-2019, 18:16
The slit on my #10 Cirkut is around .3 inch. The Cirkut pulls the film in sync with the projected image so that it does't smear. It is not a perfect system and the narrow slit is necessary for sharpness, which can be quite good. Speed of the pan controls your exposure time. Probably about 30 seconds for an outdoor shot with a moderate lens. Focal length also effects this since you have to pull more film per degree for longer lenses.

My usual shot was a negative about 10" x 56" for a bit more than 180 degree view with a 16 1/2" lens. The #16 takes up to 16" roll film so longer lenses and wider negatives.

pjd
1-Jun-2019, 00:13
This one ;-) my 35x35inch " Lady in Red "

Ye gods. The (main) tripod particularly interests me. As would the darkroom!

Duolab123
1-Jun-2019, 06:54
I helped loot the old print shop where I worked. I brought home some 3 x 4 foot film. The camera was immense. I brought home the lenses the shortest was a 60 inch. Both Rodagons. I swapped them to some nut that probably sold them for a kings ransom. I should have kept them. There was an enormous Ilford roller processor. Bunch of stuff I left. I got the thermostatic mixing valve. I looked like a rock, covered with like. Cleaned up works perfect.

Big process cameras were fun to play with.

stawastawa
1-Jun-2019, 11:25
I was shot inside a human sized box for making contact prints of human forms.
I looked inside a u-haul camera obscura.

I have a kodak 2d 7x11

I think I saw an 11x14 once out at crown point outside of Portland Oregon.

Drew Bedo
1-Jun-2019, 14:41
Hi Randy . . .AND I wanted to use one or both of them. The owner was a true collector though, and couldn't imagine any scenario where light exposed film through them.

My opportunity to get a few sheets of ULF film and get it properly developed at no cost was not relevant in his mind.

LabRat
1-Jun-2019, 15:23
The one you just carried on a 50 mile hike... ;-)

Steve K

Tin Can
1-Jun-2019, 15:37
Imagine his surprise when he finds few will buy them for what he thinks they are worth.

I have no such illusions.

But I am always wrong...:)


Hi Randy . . .AND I wanted to use one or both of them. The owner was a true collector though, and couldn't imagine any scenario where light exposed film through them.

My opportunity to get a few sheets of ULF film and get it properly developed at no cost was not relevant in his mind.

Ethan
1-Jun-2019, 15:59
Never seen it myself, but I've seen photos of a camera made by Dennis Manarchy called the "Butterflies and Buffalo" camera. I think it holds the record for the largest film camera, shoots on 8x10 negatives, 8x10 feet that is.

Drew Bedo
1-Jun-2019, 17:48
Imagine his surprise when he finds few will buy them for what he thinks they are worth.

I have no such illusions.

But I am always wrong...:)


Reminds me of the old joke:

"I had a bad dream where I had died and my wife sold off all of may cameras/guns/fishing gear for what I had told her I'd paid for it all"

Tin Can
1-Jun-2019, 17:55
I almost wish I had a wife, but too late now for me.

2 are deceased. RIP


Reminds me of the old joke:

"I had a bad dream where I had died and my wife sold off all of may cameras/guns/fishing gear for what I had told her I'd paid for it all"

reddesert
6-Jun-2019, 23:40
During an optical design conference on the Big Island Hawaii in 2014, I was provided an exclusive tour of Gemini North Observatory on Mauna Kea. The primary mirror (i.e. the lens) is 26.6 feet in diameter. The focal length is 182 meters. There are f/6, f/14, and f/32 camera positions. At the image plane, the resolution is 1.610 arcsec / millimeter. So that's the largest camera I've ever seen. However, the image plane is only 3" x 3".

The largest format camera I've seen is a 12" x 20" camera.

The Gemini telescopes are designed more for high angular resolution than wide field of view, and so they don't have very large (physical) cameras at the image plane. Other instruments such as the Dark Energy Camera https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/the-des-project/instrument/the-camera/ and the camera for the under-construction Large Synoptic Survey Telescope https://www.lsst.org/about/camera have physically larger detector arrays covering very wide fields of view (meaning several degrees, which is wide for a telescope). Even the LSST detector array is "only" about two feet in diameter.

The pioneering camera of multiple CCD arrays used by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey was the predecessor to many of these. It was retired in 2009 or so and donated to the Smithsonian. I believe it is not currently on display, but may be someday. https://www.sdss.org/faceplat/ and https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/camera-imaging-digital-sloan-digital-sky-survey-ccd-array

Interestingly (to me anyway), the SDSS camera surveyed the sky efficiently by moving the telescope during an exposure and clocking the signal across the CCDs to match the motion of the images on the focal plane. This is very similar to how a Cirkut camera works by scanning the lens and driving the film to match the image motion.

HMG
7-Jun-2019, 10:32
Years ago I visited a photographer's studio. Basically a rectangular space. At one end, he had his darkroom. That darkroom also served as a big box camera with a lens board built into the wall (looking out to the studio) and a stand for a film holder. 20 something by 30 something film.

Bernice Loui
7-Jun-2019, 11:49
Tektronix was involved with CCD imagers during the 80's.
https://vintagetek.org/charge-coupled-devices/

One of them ended up on Hubble...
https://vintagetek.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/BloukeHubbleCCD_FocusOnTek_V6_3_1990.pdf


-Digital camera at Eastman Kodak 1975, Steven Sasson.
https://youtu.be/wfnpVRiiwnM


Bernice





The pioneering camera of multiple CCD arrays used by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey was the predecessor to many of these. It was retired in 2009 or so and donated to the Smithsonian. I believe it is not currently on display, but may be someday. https://www.sdss.org/faceplat/ and https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/camera-imaging-digital-sloan-digital-sky-survey-ccd-array

Interestingly (to me anyway), the SDSS camera surveyed the sky efficiently by moving the telescope during an exposure and clocking the signal across the CCDs to match the motion of the images on the focal plane. This is very similar to how a Cirkut camera works by scanning the lens and driving the film to match the image motion.

tgtaylor
9-Jun-2019, 22:29
I never saw this and larger cameras have been made but during the 1860's "Louis E. Walker was 'constantly busy' copying drawing and maps for the Office of the Architect and other federal departments. In his work with the direct paper-negative process, Walker made duplicate prints at least as large as 24-1/2 x 36-1/2 inches in size."

Thomas

Andrew O'Neill
10-Jun-2019, 08:46
The biggest camera I've ever seen and used is a 14x17.

jon.oman
10-Jun-2019, 09:13
I worked on a reprographic camera at Ford Motor Company in the mid 70's. The copy board was about 20 feet long by about 7 feet high. The film board was about 8 feet long by 6 feet high. We could put a full engineering drawing on the copy board. The standard size of the drawing was about 4-1/2 feet high, by 16 feet on length. We would shoot the drawing in sections, with a 'shrink factor' that was measured in thousands of an inch. The negative was about 4-1/2 feet square. We would process these by hand, and then splice them together. The negative would go to another area of Ford to have the stamping molds made for the body parts. The reason for the shrink factor was to allow for the size difference when the part was stamped, and then cooled to room temperature. The camera took up two rooms, with the copy board and lights in one room, and the film board and processing sinks in the other room.

Jac@stafford.net
15-Jun-2019, 16:37
Randy, who is the babe? :)

Tin Can
15-Jun-2019, 17:03
You mean Plastica or Plastika?


Randy, who is the babe? :)