Focus accuracy issue with Intrepid 8x10

[Sam L]

My friend and I set up some studio lighting and shot 12 portraits of each other using my Intrepid 8x10 and a schneider 360mm f/6.8 lens wide open on Fuji HR-U x-ray film.

We did our best to level the camera and make sure the standards were parallel. We carefully focused on the eye lashes with a loupe. The photos are good but they are uniformly slightly front focused -- the eyebrows are sharp instead of the eyelashes.

222260

I would think the model moved a half inch or there was focusing error except it affected 11 of the 12 photos in the same way. Two photographers, 3 different brands of film holders, 12 shots over 2 hours, refocusing after every other photo.

Thoughts?

[Ari]

I, too, always had a consistency problem when calibrating focus, so I bought this and it's worked out great: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1439588-REG/vello_lens_2020_af_lens_calibration_tool.html
No more guesswork or other variables.

[Sam L]

That looks like a useful tool. Can you calibrate the focus on one of these cameras? I assume you would move the ground glass resting position a bit, perhaps by shimming it?

[Bob Salomon]

Wide open is one of your problems. You should be at least 2 stops down. Best performance would be at 22.

[Kiwi7475]

Wide open is one of your problems. You should be at least 2 stops down. Best performance would be at 22.

Errrr…. For portraiture a lot of people shoot wide open. Maximum sharpness is not the goal. And it’s sharp enough, just not where they focused.

[Kiwi7475]

Do you change aperture after focusing? Some lenses do suffer a shift when stepping up or down, like Imagons, etc

[Sam L]

Indeed, I was going for shallow DOF on just the eyes. No change in aperture between focusing and shooting. But good to know about focus shift on some lenses.

I'm going to do a more controlled test with newspaper text taped flat to a at 45 degrees to the camera to eliminate the moving subject issue.

[Tin Can]

I try to focus on the closest eyeball highlight

I also made a rig for a head brace that is out of sightline, very often used by wet plate artists

[Sam L]

Tin Can, do you have a picture of your head brace?

[Bernice Loui]

Check the accuracy/precision of the ground glass location to film holder back plate with film thickness. This dimension is crucial to hold what is focused on the ground glass to be recorded on film. If the ground glass location is different (ideally in 0.0X inches or better) than where the film sits in the film holder this out of focus behavior will be the result.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?158697-Critical-height-placement-of-ground-glass

This aspect of any view camera becomes critical as lens apertures become large. Too many rely on "stopping" down the lens to gain apparent focus to make up for lack of accuracy/precision in the camera and lens mounting.

Given this is a modern Plasmat lens, focus shift will be nil.

As for portrait sitter moving, not likely given the number of missed focused images.


Bernice

[Sam L]

It appears the focus is off on the camera.

I did a more controlled test where I taped newspaper to my paper cutter set on edge at 45 degrees to the camera. I carefully leveled the camera, front and rear standards and focused on the vertical pen line I drew through the newspaper:

222272

As you can see, the focus is about 2 grid lines (1/2" grid) in front of the line I drew. Since the grid is held at 45 degrees to the camera, the focal plane would be about 0.7" in front of where I expected it to be based on the image on the ground glass. This is consistent with our portraiture experience where we got the eyebrows instead of the eyes.

My thinking was the next step is to adjust the camera such that the ground glass shows the center of focus is 2 grid lines in front, since that's the photo it takes. Or maybe I should be talking to Intrepid about a defective camera?

[nolindan]

From your newspaper test it looks like the ground glass is closer to the lens than it should be.

So, you are in luck: it isn't (or shouldn't be) hard to add some shims (i.e. bits of cardboard) to move the ground glass back a bit.

The thickness of the shims would be equal to the distance you have to move the back to go from one of the focus points in your newspaper/line/grid photograph to the other.

[Drew Wiley]

Don't forget that 8X10 film in a conventional holder (versus a vacuum or adhesive holder) can at times distinctly sag or bow in the middle. Most people making only small prints might not notice that risk, but it can certainly be there, and is obviously exacerbated when seeking very shallow depth of field.

Likewise, holders themselves can sometimes be warped or perhaps off due to wear, especially old wooden ones. To check film plane accuracy relative to both the ground glass and film position in the holder, I took an 18 inch bar of machinist's precision ground steel flat stock and drilled a central hole in it accepting a depth micrometer. You need to check not only for the correct depth, but consistent depth on all sides.

[Bernice Loui]

Take the time to read this previous discussion about Standard Distances for film holders.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150994-Standard-distances-for-film-holders

There is a industry standard for film holders and the camera MUST meet these specifications. If the camera does not meet these specifications (Ground glass to film holder seating area), this could be at the root of the focus accuracy problem which is essentially a defect in the camera.

Best way to check/test this is with a GOOD depth micrometer set up to make this precision measurement with good accuracy.



Bernice

[Ari]

That looks like a useful tool. Can you calibrate the focus on one of these cameras? I assume you would move the ground glass resting position a bit, perhaps by shimming it?

Yes, you'd move the seating of the ground glass forward or back, depending on how much you're off.
The tool I linked to would be able to tell you exactly how much you're off by, and in which direction to adjust your focus, or GG in this case.
I had it happen to a Kodak Master 8x10, which is made of aluminum, and had to remove material in order to get the GG closer to the lens.
And as some have pointed out, your film holders could be part of the problem, or entirely the problem.
As Bernice suggested, a good depth gauge will help determine if the camera or holder(s) is at fault. Then you can adjust accordingly.

[Lachlan 717]

Until you check it with another lens, your conclusion of it being the camera at fault has very limited credibility.

[Bernice Loui]

Explain why another lens would produce a different result?

Bernice



Until you check it with another lens, your conclusion of it being the camera at fault has very limited credibility.

[Tin Can]

Perhaps the easiest way for most, change one variable at a time

Few here have the tools and training to to check 'T', so they don't

I have many Starrett measuring tools and used them every day for decades

I have 3 straight edges, micrometer sets, vernier calipers', feeler gauges and more

Since we did work for USA Govt all our measuring tools were sent out for professional calibration at least once a year, then checked before and after each usage, recorded in writing. If the next usage of the tool failed pre checks all tests prior needed to be repeated. Very expensive, finger pointing, job loss

Gulf War I, I was testing our engine parts at Southwest Research San Antonio for the war effort

All the import parts were grossly out of spec, I failed them all

I soon found out they were all shipped, ignoring the tests!!!

A decade ago members here, 'experts' told me don't worry about my way out of 'T' 11X14 Deardorff back

I sent it to Richard Ritter to install his Bail Back and match a set of his holders to it

Flatness of all parts is also critical

[Tobias Key]

Perhaps this is a stupid idea, but have you tried inserting and removing a film holder then re-checking focus? Just wondering if the camera might be moving when you are loading the holder.

Also are you sure the film holder is seating properly to the camera?

Both easy things to check before you start taking the camera apart.

[Kiwi7475]

The easiest check would to measure with calipers the distance to the bottom of the film holder and see if it doesn’t match de distance to the ground glass. This has been discussed before, for example:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?3803-Measuring-depth-of-groundglass-and-film-plane

[Sam L]

Thank you all for the helpful ideas. I tried adding temporary shims between the camera body and the spring back to push the ground glass away from the lens. With about 0.09" of shim, the image on the ground glass matches the test photo. This is a big shim and makes me doubt my testing, though the preponderance of evidence does suggest I have a real issue.

The distances are very small and it's hard to be confident, but I'm an amateur machinist and happy to take some measurements.

The film holder I ran the newspaper test with is a Lisco Regal II (modern plastic, not wood). I do notice a bit of a rise in the edge just under where the logo is, but it's flexible there and it gets pushed flat by the rear standard when in the camera (otherwise it would leak light). I measured T for the film holder at the 4 corners where it's easy to measure using my old browne and sharpe depth gauge and gut checked the measurements with my modern mitutoyo digital vernier calipers. The corners measure 0.2670" and 0.2675" at the bottom. At the top where the rim bows up I get 0.2750", 0.2740". I believe these are all a little high but within the spec for an 8x10 film holder. I don't have an appropriate flat bar to check the center, but a 150mm machinist rule placed across the span of the septum does not show any light through peeking underneath. It is flat enough for my purposes and I think the film holder is not the issue. Anecdotally, I saw the same focus issue across all 8 of my film holders, which are various brands of modern plastic holders.

222297

Next, I pulled off the revolving back and measured the "T" at the left and right sides of the ground glass where it's easy: 0.211", 0.214".

222298

0.2600" (spec) - 0.2125 (average measured) = 0.0475". With the film holder's T being a little high, this accounts for about half of the focus problem.

The rest of the issue is a bit speculative. It could be user error or lack of precision in my test. However, I notice is that there's always a 1.25mm gap at the top of the spring back because the springs aren't strong enough to get a good mating surface:

222299

There is no gap at the bottom and even slight pressure closes the gap, e.g. from using a loupe against the glass. The gap doesn't explain the front-focusing problem because the gap would act like a shim and improve the issue. But, I also notice that when I apply enough pressure to close the gap, the top of the rear standard flexes towards the lens. it appears that the aluminum base of the camera between the tripod mount and the rear standard is not very rigid.

222300

Thinking through this requires some mental gymnastics, but I think it may explain the rest of the problem. If I push the rear standard towards the lens with my loupe, the focal point will move towards infinity. If I then focus on my subject while applying that same pressure, I will move the lens further away from the ground glass to compensate. When I release the pressure from the loupe, the image will be front focused but I won't know. This is a guess but could explain a 1mm to 2mm focusing error and could be worse if the focusing point is at the top of the glass, which flexes the most.

I think I will try adding 0.05" of shim under the ground glass and run the test again. I also reached out to Intrepid but they probably won't get back to me until after the weekend.

[knjkrock]

Is this why Mr Ritter offers a film plane calibration service?

[Sam L]

I added 0.05" and the focus improved a bit but not enough. Left is before shimming, right is after.

222301

In the ground glass, I focused on the word "the" in the phrase "celebrating the arrival." You can see the focus shifted from the beginning to the end of the word "celebrating" but not far enough. This lends weight to my temporary shimming experiment, which suggested I needed 0.9".

I wonder what intrepid will say. With this much shimming, the screws that hold the retaining springs for the glass will have to be replaced. I guess this stuff doesn't matter for landscapes at f/22...

[Sam L]

Knjkrock,

Could be, because this is really time consuming and tedious. My thinking is one of:

- My camera has a defective rear standard (manufacturing defect)
- They are using the same rear standard for cameras with and without a fresnel sandwich. A fresnel in front of the ground glass might take up 0.1"
- You get what you pay for. These cameras cost around 10% of nice name-brand ones.

[Tin Can]

You are learning many things

Keep at it, the springs must push/hold the holder snuggly

I have a NOS Detective camera for Police work, it had 2 leaf springs both sides, KODAK made in Britain

Very tightly held the DDS, too much, so I removed a leaf from each side

Now perfect

[Bernice Loui]

Back up to the original image goal of full lens aperture (f6.8 in this example) 8x10 portrait, focused on the eye then allowing the remainder of the portrait sitter's face to gradually go out of focus.

This style of 8x10 portrait has been around for a very, very very long time. Few appreciated the demands placed on the camera, film holder, film flatness and more to achieve the intended image goals.

Compounding what happened, low cost, low precision-accuracy, low stability-rigidity, lightweight field folder view camera being put into a very demanding image making need.

Possible defective camera, yet there will be more than a few that would have never revealed this problem in their 8x10 image making or un-aware of this problem until this camera got pressed into trying to meet these requirements-demands. Think f64 ideology-mind set, this camera might be ok with the lens stopped down to f64 making landscape images. That user could be absolutely happy with this camera as it has produced the expected results..


If one were to examine the overall system and what happened, could go like this:

~Idea to make 8x10 portraits could be great.
~Don't want to spend too much $ for a long list of reasons.
~Web driven fashion directs to this as being the low $ answer to what is most desirable in a 8x10 and popular view camera on the market today.
~Camera, lens, film holders, film and related is procured.
~Fueled by the newness and excitement of making the idea of this style of 8x10 portraits happen is strong.
~Much effort and resources get put into the image goal... only to discover the results did not meet the idealized image goal...
~Disappointment and related emotions set in.
~Find help..

Post to LFF notes this could be a ground glass to film in film holder dimension problem.
~Image maker has enough knowledge and measuring tools needed to assess this problem with some guidance from LFF and previous LFF post on this specific problem.
~Measurements made, specifications noted and compared to reveal there is a problem with this camera.
~Problem found passed in to the camera manufacture. Their reply will be very telling in many ways.


Point of this being, and example of image goals, lens then camera and all related to follow. The image goal was to create 8x10 portraits with large aperture lenses. This requirement puts very specific demands and requirements on the camera to support this requirement. Many who have never done 8x10 view camera images like this might have no idea or realization of the precision-accuracy required to achieve the image goals of large lens aperture portraits (as noted by shimming by 0.05" did not properly correct the ground glass to film in film holder dimension problem). These dimension numbers do provide some idea and reality of what is required to achieve absolute registration between ground glass image to film in film holder tolerances involved.


As for this camera being "10%" of nice name brand" cameras, not true. The Intrepid 8x10 list for 480 GBP or $637 USD.
https://intrepidcamera.co.uk/products/intrepid-8x10-camera

As of now there are two monorail 8x10 cameras with lenses for not much more:

8x10 Arca Swiss with 300mm convertible Symmar, $800 USD.
https://www.seawood.shop/acra-swiss-8x10-w-schneider-convertible-300-500-f5.html

8x10 Sinar P with 10" Kodak Commercial Ektar, $1600 USD.
https://www.seawood.shop/sinar-8x10-w-kodak-10-commercial-ektar-lens-good.html

For comparison, this is one of four ground glass to film in film holder locating pegs on a 5x7_13x18cm Sinar P2 film holder back. The entire assembly is made of cast aluminum then precision machined, calibrated to meet the industry specification for film in film holder specifications. These parts being made of cast aluminum will be stable, rigid and very durable.
222303

222304


And yes, there are plenty of GOOD wood cameras that meet this same requirement for precision-accuracy-stability. Think Century studio portrait camera (9A and ..) and many others.

More web shopping and waiting for a good deal often results in a better, nicer camera with none of these problem. The camera might need a proper service and fixing. Once done, that camera will be good for many years ahead. Both of these 8x10 view cameras are perceived as FAR less desirable due to them being ~monorail~ view cameras. Yet they are precisely the kind of camera that offers and has designed and built in the accuracy-precision-stability required to achieve the initial image goals. As for the extra $, consider the time, resources and more spent trying to deal with all that has happened so far.

Does what happened impact motivation and interest to continue on with the LF view camera journey?



Bernice












Could be, because this is really time consuming and tedious. My thinking is one of:

- My camera has a defective rear standard (manufacturing defect)
- They are using the same rear standard for cameras with and without a fresnel sandwich. A fresnel in front of the ground glass might take up 0.1"
- You get what you pay for. These cameras cost around 10% of nice name-brand ones.

[Sam L]

Hi Bernice!

I would say that is pretty accurate, though I bought the camera for less (about $500 USD new). The price has gone up a bit, the GBP was weak, etc. It seemed like a great deal at the time and it would sell at a profit on ebay right now so maybe it was.

I shoot 95% landscape on medium format and 4x5, so this very light and compact camera is ok for that kind work (as you say). However, the amount of shimming the ground glass needs to be in spec is a disappointment. I didn't expect precision, but 0.05" is a fat shim.

I have since figured out that I don't want to tote around an 8x10 camera for landscape work and I don't enjoy the attention that it draws when I take it outside. My friend and I have been practicing studio lighting and I thought it would be fun to use the big camera with the lights. I was indeed surprised by how much precision this style of photography demands. I guess I had taken for granted the inherent precision and rigidity of the technical 4x5 that I normally use. Focus changes in the millimeter range can easily ruin the image and this camera just doesn't have that kind of precision. The rear focus screw and linear rails are really good but it isn't rigid and the tolerances aren't tight. Even locked down, the rear standard has some play and the camera base allows for significant flex. The rear fiberglass springs don't hold the glass against the rear standard when there's no film holder in it. The gap is only a few millimeters, but that is the difference between focusing on the eye and the eyebrow.

If I decide to pursue 8x10 studio work, I will likely get a more appropriate camera for it.

As to your question about motivation to continue with large format photography, I don't think that's an issue. Everything I've experienced with learning large format is like this and every used camera I have ever (dozens) had needed some work. One big difference here is that this is a new camera -- the only new film camera I've ever bought, so it is disappointing.

[Sam L]

In other news, I have achieved good focus (on the vertical line).

222306

To get this, I:

1. Shimmed the ground glass to match the "T" of the film holder. For my camera this was 0.05" / 1.25mm. These are so fat that it required shimming the small springs that clamp the glass down as well.
2. Clamped the top of the ground glass holder to the rear standard while focusing. The clamp closed the 1.5mm gap at the top while not putting any pressure on the rear standard causing it to flex forward. I will also have to ask Intrepid about the springs.

222307

3. Screwed down all four of the rear standard nuts extra tight.

Even with these fixes, I found the focus moved around a bit between shots. I'm not totally sure where the movement is coming from but I suspect the rear standard slips a little when the film holder is inserted and/or removed. The movement is so small I can't see it on the camera, only as a slight focus change.

I'm not confident the camera can do this consistently but I believe the ground glass is now calibrated correctly.

[Bernice Loui]

Suggestion, if you continue with this LF view camera journey highly suggest getting a GOOD Sinar Norma or some variant of the Sinar system.
What is needed, a modular view camera system that can be made up as needed for your image goals in mind.

Personally, this would be absolutely intolerable behavior from any view camera.

Studio lighting can be LOTs of fun. For portraits "hot" lights can work GOOD. If strobe is used not too much power is needed even for 8x10 given this style of large aperture portraits. For table top with diffusion and other light modifiers, figure no less than 4000 watt/seconds of strobe power with more than one flash head. Larger the object to be images, strobe power demands goes up real fast. If color film is involved, strobes must have consistent color temperature (5000K +/- less than 100-300K) and consistent flash power adjustable to 0.1 f-stop and not vary per flash cycle.

Know as your experience, image making needs continue to develop and grow, they will greatly increase the demands placed on camera, lenses and every part-aspect of your view camera outfit. Even tiny bothersome things that were once easily tolerated become no tolerance at all once very specific expectations, demands and more are placed on every aspect of the view camera image making system.

No customer should need to "shim" any new view camera to get the ground glass to film in film holder dimension proper. IMO, this is a fundamental and basic view camera functionality. Again, most telling is how the manufacture responds to this problem.


Bernice





Hi Bernice!

I would say that is pretty accurate, though I bought the camera for less (about $500 USD new). The price has gone up a bit, the GBP was weak, etc. It seemed like a great deal at the time and it would sell at a profit on ebay right now so maybe it was.

I shoot 95% landscape on medium format and 4x5, so this very light and compact camera is ok for that kind work (as you say). However, the amount of shimming the ground glass needs to be in spec is a disappointment. I didn't expect precision, but 0.05" is a fat shim.

I have since figured out that I don't want to tote around an 8x10 camera for landscape work and I don't enjoy the attention that it draws when I take it outside. My friend and I have been practicing studio lighting and I thought it would be fun to use the big camera with the lights. I was indeed surprised by how much precision this style of photography demands. I guess I had taken for granted the inherent precision and rigidity of the technical 4x5 that I normally use. Focus changes in the millimeter range can easily ruin the image and this camera just doesn't have that kind of precision. The rear focus screw and linear rails are really good but it isn't rigid and the tolerances aren't tight. Even locked down, the rear standard has some play and the camera base allows for significant flex. The rear fiberglass springs don't hold the glass against the rear standard when there's no film holder in it. The gap is only a few millimeters, but that is the difference between focusing on the eye and the eyebrow.

If I decide to pursue 8x10 studio work, I will likely get a more appropriate camera for it.

As to your question about motivation to continue with large format photography, I don't think that's an issue. Everything I've experienced with learning large format is like this and every used camera I have ever (dozens) had needed some work. One big difference here is that this is a new camera -- the only new film camera I've ever bought, so it is disappointing.

[Graham Patterson]

Interesting, but scary. I have access to an original Kickstarter model of the 8x10. Measuring from the camera-side face of the frame to the GG surface in several places with a digital caliper I found:

0.227 in measured = 5.766mm

ANSI 8x10 holder
0.260 in = 6.604mm
+/- 0.016 in = 0.406mm

Discrepancy 0.033 in = 0.838mm or about twice the ANSI allowance.

In this case the ground glass needs to be moved away from the lens, either by sanding down the GG reference points (ouch!), or by adding material to the face of the GG frame, which would be simpler. Simplest of all would be a replacement GG frame to standard.

At least with this camera the ground glass frame seems mate evenly with the camera back.

[Bernice Loui]

Curious, has the focused image on GG -vs- film image been a problem (focus) and how has this camera been used, at what lens aperture, types of images made?


Bernice



Interesting, but scary. I have access to an original Kickstarter model of the 8x10. Measuring from the camera-side face of the frame to the GG surface in several places with a digital caliper I found:

0.227 in measured = 5.766mm

ANSI 8x10 holder
0.260 in = 6.604mm
+/- 0.016 in = 0.406mm

Discrepancy 0.033 in = 0.838mm or about twice the ANSI allowance.

In this case the ground glass needs to be moved away from the lens, either by sanding down the GG reference points (ouch!), or by adding material to the face of the GG frame, which would be simpler. Simplest of all would be a replacement GG frame to standard.

At least with this camera the ground glass frame seems mate evenly with the camera back.

[Graham Patterson]

I tend to work a couple of stops down from maximum, and at landscape distances, so DoF and tilt effects probably masked the error. I have certainly not done anything like a close portrait at a large aperture. I'll look at my negatives with a fresh eye now.

I'll decide whether to shim the GG or shim the face of the GG frame after some consideration. It will depend on the clamps - they might be better replaced with something using larger screws. This model has shockcord acting as the spring for the back, so it is easy to add a facing to the frame. I can probably 3D print pieces the right depth if I cannot find anything off the shelf. Film at this size is expensive enough when *I* make mistakes 8-)

[Sam L]

I have been doing all of these tests on x-ray film with homemade developer. Otherwise, I would have been outraged at the wasted money.

Adding facing to the back of the ground glass frame rather than shimming out the glass is a good idea.

I had not previously noticed the focusing issues when using the lens stopped down.

[Bernice Loui]

Consider how this camera might be most commonly used, it's user base and the types of images that would be made using this camera?
There in lies part of the answer as to why this problem could remain hidden for so long before it was discovered then posted here on LFF.

Back in the days when a 4x5 view camera was the prime means for color image printing and BIG $ ad media, there would have been zero tolerance for this kind of camera behavior. Working photographers would never tolerate it, their time & resources are FAR too valuable, the limited movement capability would not be appealing in any way, it's flimsy lack of precision-accuracy-stability would add to the non-appeal. Keep in mind, view camera folks back then came from a background and history of formal education and education of "hard knocks" real world being pressed to produce high quality images.

Then we have the cost of studio image production cost which could easily run four figures to five figures of U$D for color transparency image sets. Many hours spent on set up, cost of models_props and more.. ponder what the reaction would be to tell your paying client all that time and resources was wasted due to ~a camera problem~.

Having been at this view camera stuff for decades and lived under those previously described ways of living, any wonder there is about zero tolerance for less than absolutely proper Foto gear that does what is asked and expected from the Foto gear? Old habits often don't die, add to this well proven ways and means of achieving what must be is not so easily altered.

The user base of sheet film and view camera today has radically changed. Many come from strict digital image making histories and have become curious about this sheet film view camera stuff. All wonderful and excellent in many ways as if not for this current curiosity in sheet film and view camera the entire body of this specific kind of image making would have died long ago as digital ran it over flat-dead. Be the image maker comes from the place of "Ansel Adams" wanna be or just curious as to what this view camera stuff is much about, what IS important learning how this view camera stuff works, it's history and why things are done in the ways they are done with this view camera stuff. While there are MANY ways and methods to view camera, there are some very basic requirements that must be... like film in film holder to ground glass distance.


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

All good tips, but STILL compromised if the film sags - something easily 2mm or more if the sheet is thin and the camera at a downward angle. Add that to all those other anomalies present in a less than ideal camera and holder, and one could be a ridiculous 5mm off from correct 8X10 film plane in portions of the image. Yet ALL of those issues are preventable.

[Bob Salomon]

Consider how this camera might be most commonly used, it's user base and the types of images that would be made using this camera?
There in lies part of the answer as to why this problem could remain hidden for so long before it was discovered then posted here on LFF.

Back in the days when a 4x5 view camera was the prime means for color image printing and BIG $ ad media, there would have been zero tolerance for this kind of camera behavior. Working photographers would never tolerate it, their time & resources are FAR too valuable, the limited movement capability would not be appealing in any way, it's flimsy lack of precision-accuracy-stability would add to the non-appeal. Keep in mind, view camera folks back then came from a background and history of formal education and education of "hard knocks" real world being pressed to produce high quality images.

Then we have the cost of studio image production cost which could easily run four figures to five figures of U$D for color transparency image sets. Many hours spent on set up, cost of models_props and more.. ponder what the reaction would be to tell your paying client all that time and resources was wasted due to ~a camera problem~.

Having been at this view camera stuff for decades and lived under those previously described ways of living, any wonder there is about zero tolerance for less than absolutely proper Foto gear that does what is asked and expected from the Foto gear? Old habits often don't die, add to this well proven ways and means of achieving what must be is not so easily altered.

The user base of sheet film and view camera today has radically changed. Many come from strict digital image making histories and have become curious about this sheet film view camera stuff. All wonderful and excellent in many ways as if not for this current curiosity in sheet film and view camera the entire body of this specific kind of image making would have died long ago as digital ran it over flat-dead. Be the image maker comes from the place of "Ansel Adams" wanna be or just curious as to what this view camera stuff is much about, what IS important learning how this view camera stuff works, it's history and why things are done in the ways they are done with this view camera stuff. While there are MANY ways and methods to view camera, there are some very basic requirements that must be... like film in film holder to ground glass distance.


Bernice

Maybe you forgot all those photo studios and catalog shops that slapped those 810s out with old Deardorffs. Hardly high tech but they sure did a lot of jobs quickly and accurately!

[Jim Noel]

Maybe you forgot all those photo studios and catalog shops that slapped those 810s out with old Deardorffs. Hardly high tech but they sure did a lot of jobs quickly and accurately!

Iown and proudly use one of those "old Deardorffs". What's wrong with that?

[Bob Salomon]

Iown and proudly use one of those "old Deardorffs". What's wrong with that?

Nothing if it does what you want.

[Drew Wiley]

Jim, catalog applications often involved not enlargements, but actually reductions for sake of offset printing. The only point of large format film was the ease of viewing the shot on a light box back then, and the ease of handling and keeping it in register during the pre-press phase. Touting a Deer-dorff or Elk-Dorff or Moose-Dorff wouldn't make any difference relative to that; Heck, in terms of what was needed on the actual ad page itself, it could have been shot using a tiny Deer-Tick-Dorff and nobody would have known the difference. But if the same shot were needed for a big display window ad, well, that would have been a different story.

And in any high production catalog or tabletop studio setup, any kind of Dorff, Dear or Otherwise, would have been simply too slow to operate. A lot of those guys didn't get paid much, and needed quite a volume of thru-put in order to make a living at it. But someone in the Pony Express still needs a fast horse, so Sinar monorails were dominant. There were always plenty of used ones around if one couldn't afford new, or more often, the company studio itself owned them, for instance, the headquarters for some department store chain where the actual catalog shots were being taken.

[Bernice Loui]

Not a lot wrong with a Deardorff, they work. They remain among the nicer wood view cameras in many ways. Of the 810 and "baby Deardorffs" used neither had ground glass to film in film holder distance issues.


Bernice




Maybe you forgot all those photo studios and catalog shops that slapped those 810s out with old Deardorffs. Hardly high tech but they sure did a lot of jobs quickly and accurately!

[Bernice Loui]

Vast production catalog work in studio, Sinar P with a GOOD 120 roll film back, reliable, durable and rapid recycle strobe lighting is an absolute plus as the strobes really get a work out with vast image production. Catalog image quality is not that demanding, just LOTs of images.

Cover art ad images, BIG display transparencies, bill board and similar "high buck" ad images from back in the day are the images that demanded high quality color transparencies and similar to meet these needs.


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

Bernice -Depends on the vintage of the Dorff. If a back were replaced with something newer, or even a new Dorff built later, it's unlikely the same quality or degree of seasoning of the mahogany would be possible, and therefore the same reliability of dimensional stability. When I started out, I was trying to make up my mind whether to buy a superb condition 4X5/5X7 Dorff Special with the rotating back, or a new but entry-level Sinar 4X5 for the same price. I am very grateful I decided on the latter, because it proved far more versatile than a Dorff would ever have been, especially given its component interchangeability and thus ability to become all kinds of a newer camera itself.

[Kiwi7475]

Consider how this camera might be most commonly used, it's user base and the types of images that would be made using this camera?
There in lies part of the answer as to why this problem could remain hidden for so long before it was discovered then posted here on LFF.

Back in the days when a 4x5 view camera was the prime means for color image printing and BIG $ ad media, there would have been zero tolerance for this kind of camera behavior. Working photographers would never tolerate it, their time & resources are FAR too valuable, the limited movement capability would not be appealing in any way, it's flimsy lack of precision-accuracy-stability would add to the non-appeal. Keep in mind, view camera folks back then came from a background and history of formal education and education of "hard knocks" real world being pressed to produce high quality images.

Then we have the cost of studio image production cost which could easily run four figures to five figures of U$D for color transparency image sets. Many hours spent on set up, cost of models_props and more.. ponder what the reaction would be to tell your paying client all that time and resources was wasted due to ~a camera problem~.

Having been at this view camera stuff for decades and lived under those previously described ways of living, any wonder there is about zero tolerance for less than absolutely proper Foto gear that does what is asked and expected from the Foto gear? Old habits often don't die, add to this well proven ways and means of achieving what must be is not so easily altered.

The user base of sheet film and view camera today has radically changed. Many come from strict digital image making histories and have become curious about this sheet film view camera stuff. All wonderful and excellent in many ways as if not for this current curiosity in sheet film and view camera the entire body of this specific kind of image making would have died long ago as digital ran it over flat-dead. Be the image maker comes from the place of "Ansel Adams" wanna be or just curious as to what this view camera stuff is much about, what IS important learning how this view camera stuff works, it's history and why things are done in the ways they are done with this view camera stuff. While there are MANY ways and methods to view camera, there are some very basic requirements that must be... like film in film holder to ground glass distance.


Bernice

Not to defend the brand or to negate anything you’re saying, but it’s also possible that this is an isolated (or uncommon) QA slippage that didn’t detect one unit exceeding the spec, and as such it doesn’t translate to all of their cameras. I’d think the community would have found it much sooner if it were a systematic error!

[Graham Patterson]

This thread has two instances noted (so far), and they are not identical. But at least these are just cases of increasing the GG distance, which is just a case of adding spacers. Decreasing the GG distance would be harder to do accurately.

[Lachlan 717]

Conclusions based on a minute sample size and poor scientific methodology.

[Bernice Loui]

n=2 is not relevant in this discussion about this camera.

What IS relevant, how does the manufacture respond to these findings.

No study needs to be made here, the information needed is easily found in the manufacture's drawings used to produce this camera in production, their quality assurance/quality control process and standards this camera has been designed to. All of which can be provided by the manufacture of this camera.


Bernice



Conclusions based on a minute sample size and poor scientific methodology.

[Bob Salomon]

n=2 is not relevant in this discussion about this camera.

What IS relevant, how does the manufacture respond to these findings.

No study needs to be made here, the information needed is easily found in the manufacture's drawings used to produce this camera in production, their quality assurance/quality control process and standards this camera has been designed to. All of which can be provided by the manufacture of this camera.


Bernice

And are probably proprietary!

[Drew Wiley]

There are also certain incorrect assumptions involved about the nature of quality control; for this can differ significantly between wooden components and die-cast metal ones. Even with my Ebony wood folder, reasonably reputed to be the ""best machined" of all wooden field cameras, I detected a film plane error on the holder rabbet significant enough to affect at least roll-film scale of enlargements, and it wasn't even due to any mistake in the shaping of the wood itself - just a big bubble in the dried varnish afterwards! I don't take anything for granted. But my specific minor Ebony problem was easily corrected by myself.

Not only having a background selling precision tools to machinists, but later dealing with world-class woodworkers and being in a position to test all kinds of prototype tool designs, I learned quite a bit. For example, a certain pioneering kind of tool prototype tested out well and then was put into mass production based on using their own in-house prototype battery in it. But afterwards they subcontracted the barrel battery manufacture itself to someone else, providing the subcontractor company with the precise diameter specifications. And those mass-produced batteries just got packed into the kits for sale, assuming everything was OK. But none of those batteries would even fit into position because someone had forgotten to account for the mere thickness of the label on the outside diameter. I could repeat hundreds of analogous stories from personal experience. And those were related to big manufacturers with huge R&D budgets. Even individual dies for such tool components might cost around 40K apiece to make, at least until junk "pot metal" casting started becoming routine in cheap knockoff import gear.

So I would hardly expect some low-budget small shop wooden view camera to necessarily involve precise or consistently repeatable workmanship, regardless of what the hypothetical specifications were - which themselves might not have been ideal either. And the naivette of certain outfits over how to finish their cameras, sealant-wise, and the less than ideal substrates involved, makes long-term dimensional stability and alignment yet another potential issue.

[Bernice Loui]

Any wonder why wood view cameras have not been in the view cameras used to make images for decades?
IMO, wood cameras simply do not have the precision/accuracy and stability of a GOOD metal camera, like Sinar.


Bernice



There are also certain incorrect assumptions involved about the nature of quality control, and how it can significantly differ between wooden components and die-cast metal ones. Even with my Ebony wood folder, reasonably reputed to be the best "machined" of all wooden field camera, I detected a film plane error on the holder rabbet significant enough to affect at least roll-film enlaregment scales,

[Bernice Loui]

Manufacture's response to this very real problem is not, should not be proprietary.

Bernice



And are probably proprietary!

[Bob Salomon]

Manufacture's response to this very real problem is not, should not be proprietary.

Bernice

Not drawings of a current product.

[Drew Wiley]

Who draws anything anymore? It's all CAD now. But industrial spies have far more tempting things to make duplicate thumbdrives of than view cameras.

But the mere fact something can be prototyped completely in computer, and then simply sent off to mass-manufacture on a completely different continent, and then mass volumes sent directly back to sell, without any true physical product quality-control testing being involved in between, is one of the plagues afflicting consumer confidence today. You can't have it all - cheap products instantly made, yet reliable at the same time.

[Lachlan 717]

n=2 is not relevant in this discussion about this camera.

What IS relevant, how does the manufacture respond to these findings.

No study needs to be made here, the information needed is easily found in the manufacture's drawings used to produce this camera in production, their quality assurance/quality control process and standards this camera has been designed to. All of which can be provided by the manufacture of this camera.


These points are not what I question.

One camera with one lens wide open on unspecified mount with undocumented user skills should not be the basis to tar the product.

[Bernice Loui]

Lens mounting is irrelevant to the documented problem of ground glass to film in film holder distance.
~How would ground glass to film in film holder distance be related to lens mounting?

~User experience is again totally unrelated to the problem of ground glass to film in film holder distance, if yes, explain how they are related?

~~ Explain these trolling confrontational words.~~


Bernice



These points are not what I question.
One camera with one lens wide open on unspecified mount with undocumented user skills should not be the basis to tar the product.

[Lachlan 717]

Lens mounting is irrelevant to the documented problem of ground glass to film in film holder distance.
~How would ground glass to film in film holder distance be related to lens mounting?

~User experience is again totally unrelated to the problem of ground glass to film in film holder distance, if yes, explain how they are related?

~~ Explain these trolling confrontational words.~~


Bernice

That you choose to accept unsupported, arbitrary and non-controlled methodology as being empirical evidence of systemic failure speaks volumes.

In simple parlance. “One swallow does not a summer make”.

Capish?

[interneg]

One camera with one lens wide open on unspecified mount with undocumented user skills should not be the basis to tar the product.

Agreed - especially as there's a lot of (rather didactic) assumptions that the only allowed way seems to involve hauling a Sinar around - without considering for a second that the Intrepid's popularity owes a fair bit to it not being a Cambo/ Toyo/ Sinar monorail chunk of excessive weight and movements. That said, I think it's not a great idea to stick a big 360mm plasmat on a lightweight folding camera & expect high precision wide open without a little give & take being needed.

[Bernice Loui]

After this episode with Intrepid lens boards any respect/creditability has been totally dissolved.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?160403-Disastrous-Consequences-(solved-fog-with-Intrepid-lensboard)

This fiasco could have been completely avoided by simply leaving the copper on the FR-4 pc board material. Very telling about the folks at Intrepid.


Bernice

[LabRat]

Without seeing it in person, the camera seems well designed/sturdy enough by itself, but for a "new" camera, the T distance should be dead-on... If not, it's the makers problem to fix...

When restoring old cameras, little issues grow into these antiques and a restorer has to check carefully for them... Things like light leaks, warpage, binding, etc can almost be expected to be dealt with... But for many of new production cameras, they shouldn't be beta-testing them on new buyers (entry-level or experienced)... What will people say online??? ;-)

Seems to me a big issue is many items are designed on a monitor, and not in a shop now... And not field tested by actual users well in advance of release... One observation of mine is maybe not a wise thing to buy the latest camera offering on Kickstarter etc until well proven beyond doubt when the CNC nerds release one...

Steve K

[Tobias Key]

Without seeing it in person, the camera seems well designed/sturdy enough by itself, but for a "new" camera, the T distance should be dead-on... If not, it's the makers problem to fix...

When restoring old cameras, little issues grow into these antiques and a restorer has to check carefully for them... Things like light leaks, warpage, binding, etc can almost be expected to be dealt with... But for many of new production cameras, they shouldn't be beta-testing them on new buyers (entry-level or experienced)... What will people say online??? ;-)

Seems to me a big issue is many items are designed on a monitor, and not in a shop now... And not field tested by actual users well in advance of release... One observation of mine is maybe not a wise thing to buy the latest camera offering on Kickstarter etc until well proven beyond doubt when the CNC nerds release one...

Steve K

I guess the two questions I would ask is just how accurate is the CNC manufacturing process and what QC checks are undertaken once assembly is complete? Accuracy costs money of course and these cameras at the value end of the market. Historically view cameras are hand assembled and checked. The use of modern manufacturing methods is how Intrepid are trying to get around this, but what is the acceptable variation from unit to unit with the CNC process?

[Lachlan 717]

. Very telling about the folks at Intrepid.


Bernice

Also, very telling about your prejudices in relation to the brand. It helped me to place where the bias and vitriol in this thread stemmed from.

Pity you didn’t mention their apparently stellar customer service in sorting the problem out quickly, including sending a box of film. Guess that doesn’t suit your narrative…

[Sam L]

Thanks everyone for your help.

Intrepid got back to me quickly and the customer service person was very friendly. I had heard that they have great customer service and I would agree so far. They agreed that the rear standard on my camera is defective, apologized about the issue, and offered to send a replacement rear standard. The person who contacted me also offered to personally check the tolerances on the replacement before sending it out.

It is obviously not the right kind of camera for this kind of photography (wide open, heavy lens, close range focus). It is designed to be a lightweight and inexpensive field camera that you put in your backpack. However, that consideration is independent of incorrect ground glass spacing, which does affect every photo, and is independent of the lens. Even using a small lens stopped down for a landscape there would be a circle of confusion penalty due to improper focus.

Intrepid cameras are made of high-quality plywood which should be very dimensionally stable -- much more than hardwood in fancier cameras. High quality plywoods are often more expensive than hardwood. The cameras are CNC milled, so tolerances should be good. The linear rail for the front standard and rear-focus mechanism create a better focusing experience than I get with my Wista technical camera. The compact folding package, light weight, and extremely low cost (for a new camera) are what got me to buy one.

That said, assuming their designs are correct, mine has several quality-control issues. This is the 4th generation of their camera design, so it's not really fair to call it a kickstarter project anymore. They do seem to be overwhelmed by their popularity and it seems that quality control is not up to the task.

If I do pursue studio photos, I may indeed be in the market for a Sinar or equivalent studio camera. However, I would still take this one out in the field. I'm not sure if I'll keep the Intrepid, but I'll make sure it's perfect before passing it along if I do sell it.

[BrianShaw]

Well that certainly is the beginning of a happy ending!

[Bernice Loui]

GOOD _!_

Intrepid's response to this problem is a good response. Part of my real "work" is related to start up companies, how they are funded run, technical challenges , how they service their customers and much more. Small companies liver or die based on their product, their quality of product (quality can be defined as meeting customer expectations), customer service and how they treat their customers. It is absolutely essential ~product Oooop_isies~ like this never get out the door and if they do every aspect and ability of the company must be applied to make it good for all involved.

For Intrepid to remain a viable small company their response was essential for a long list of reasons including the near instant world wide communications via the web and various means of communications today. This is nothing like years past when manufactures can hide behind their distribution and other marketing facades.

~This is precisely why I've been SO hard on Intrepid here on this specific issue. Think of this as ~tough love~.

What Intrepid has offered to the view camera market is a low cost light weight view camera that can be had by many that are interested in doing the view camera thing. It remains a good and viable means to the world of view camera. It must be made very clear and precisely what the very real limitations of the Intrepid view camera is and where it fits in the current world of view camera image making. The Intrepid is NOT the ideal camera for all needs and it goes back to what has been mentioned time and time again, image goals first, lenses and related process required to achieve those image goals, then camera choice that properly supports these specific needs and demands. This is an example of how the camera of choice did not meet the demands of the image goals and properly support the lens needed to achieve these image goals. Granted this specific example (and one other) Intrepid camera was defective and was revealed by proper testing by it's user making this discovery of a defect-problem less common.. Question is, how many other Intrepid cameras went out the door with this same defect or design problem and it's user-customers have no idea why or what is happening.

Sinar is not the only high quality 8x10 or similar view camera, it remains one of the most modular, available at modest cost, adaptable and proven effective view camera to support the needs of the image maker's goals. Plenty others like Cambo (Calumet), Toyo, Linhof, Horseman and ...

Of the metal field folder 8x10 cameras, the fave remains Toyo 810M.

If not for the current growing interest in film photography and sheet film images, the ability and supply of film based images would have died long ago. In this way low cost cameras and related is one of the means to keep film based images alive.



Bernice















Thanks everyone for your help.

Intrepid got back to me quickly and the customer service person was very friendly. I had heard that they have great customer service and I would agree so far. They agreed that the rear standard on my camera is defective, apologized about the issue, and offered to send a replacement rear standard. The person who contacted me also offered to personally check the tolerances on the replacement before sending it out.

It is obviously not the right kind of camera for this kind of photography (wide open, heavy lens, close range focus). It is designed to be a lightweight and inexpensive field camera that you put in your backpack. However, that consideration is independent of incorrect ground glass spacing, which does affect every photo, and is independent of the lens. Even using a small lens stopped down for a landscape there would be a circle of confusion penalty due to improper focus.

Intrepid cameras are made of high-quality plywood which should be very dimensionally stable -- much more than hardwood in fancier cameras. High quality plywoods are often more expensive than hardwood. The cameras are CNC milled, so tolerances should be good. The linear rail for the front standard and rear-focus mechanism create a better focusing experience than I get with my Wista technical camera. The compact folding package, light weight, and extremely low cost (for a new camera) are what got me to buy one.

That said, assuming their designs are correct, mine has several quality-control issues. This is the 4th generation of their camera design, so it's not really fair to call it a kickstarter project anymore. They do seem to be overwhelmed by their popularity and it seems that quality control is not up to the task.

If I do pursue studio photos, I may indeed be in the market for a Sinar or equivalent studio camera. However, I would still take this one out in the field. I'm not sure if I'll keep the Intrepid, but I'll make sure it's perfect before passing it along if I do sell it.

[Drew Wiley]

Sabeluc - even the finest layered, marine-glued plywoods are NOT dimensionally stable. Where on earth did you get that idea? They'd either have to be impregnated with marine epoxy (which still wouldn't prevent heat-related warpage), or specially fabricated of other kinds of layers (like Phillips did laminating cherry veneers with fiberglass, or now like Chamonix laminating wood with carbon fiber). Material science has come a long ways, but specialty laminates are not cheap to make if subcontracted out, or quick, easy, and inexpensive to do in house. And some of the most stable high-layer-count specialty plys I have worked with involved glues making edge fabrication a nightmare; there are trade-offs.

What the better quality wooden folder cameras once used is something called pattern grade mahogany. It was a type of Caribbean mahogany specially cut, and cured up to 20 yrs before us. No more exists unless it's either been hoarded or salvaged from a prior usage. Far more common hardwoods like black walnut do well, but again, only if one understands the personality of the wood and how to cure and finish it for a critical use. What I see with quite a few of these DIY projects and start-ups is a complete lack of understanding of those basics.

CNC cost reduction began in view cameras quite awhile back, especially with Keith Canham doing the hardware that way. It has Pros (like ease of mfg) and cons (certainly not as tough as diecast alloys); but Keith has a track record for doing it correctly.

Of course, people are welcome to have all the fun they want making and using any kind of camera they want, even if it's made from a cardboard shoebox. And it's nice to see people helping interested new people get into the game by offering budget LF cameras. But one should still be aware of what they potentially give up as well as gain.

[Sam L]

WRT plywood and dimensional stability, I thought that was basically the point of plywood! It sounds like you have significant domain expertise and I know we're not talking about furniture but I do believe that (in general) plywood is more dimensionally stable than hardwood and that there are some particularly good plywoods. So whoever reads these things knows I'm not crazy, here's the first result from google on the subject:

https://www.woodmagazine.com/materials-guide/lumber/what-you-need-to-know-about-plywood

"Hardwood plywood can cost about as much as an equal quantity of solid hardwood, depending on grade and appearance.
But plywood has many advantages:
*Dimensional stability. Crossbanded layers and balanced construction mean that hardwood plywood won't shrink, swell, or warp as much as lumber."

I'm not sure exactly what Intrepid is using but it has a lot of thin layers (~20 / inch) alternating blonde and dark wood with grain in alternating directions. It feels particularly dense and smooth. The blonde layers appear to be maple or birch. There's a milled spot underneath where a patch of dark layer is exposed. It has a linear grain that suggests mahogany or equivalent tropical wood. Here's a photo showing the surface veneer and internal blonde and dark layers:

222496

[Drew Wiley]

It's all relative. What is dimensionally stable enough for a floor nailed down and properly gap-spaced between sheets (because it's not anywhere near entirely dimensionally stable) is not good enough for cabinet work. And that in turn won't be good enough for model making, which in turn won't be worth a rat's rear for making a reliable lensboard. It's not like just linking some web article, which might be OK for a start, nor is it a "hardwood vs plywood" generic terminology contest - you might have to apprentice under a master for ten years just to understand a few kinds of hardwood really well, if you could even get those same wood cuts today. Even the name "mahogany" can mean a hundred different things, many different species and cuts from different parts of the world, often unrelated except vaguely by color. It's fun to learn, but a far more complex topic than most people realize.

I had a friend who specialized in plywood sales, so nice to get a deal now and then. I specialized in selling the fabrication equipment, finishes, and architectural technical consultation. Worked with the best of the best. Glad to be retired now, however.

And yes, every camera ever made is some kind of compromise itself. Just depends where that compromise is weighted, and what the target market for any specific model lies. Don't worry too much about all this. Forums can he informational as well as boxing rings. Enjoy the camera you already have!

[interneg]

Drew - I think Intrepid use the void free birch ply that tends to get called 'laser ply' currently.

[Drew Wiley]

Void-free helps, but still not as good as wood/synthetic composites. Like I said, the whole game is way more complex than the over-simplified generic talk on this particular thread, and all relative, just like I also clearly stated. It's also obviously price related, and compromises are needed relative to lower any price point. Treatment afterwards is also an issue. The pioneer of composite ply cameras, Dick Phillips, treated the relevant components with plenty of penetrating marine epoxy. That made things way more dimensionally stable than a conventional wood finish would have done.

But epoxies have an Achilles heel : UV. Unless they're protected with an opaque topcoat of paint, a clear epoxy finish will start to embrittle, crack, and peel within a year or two if exposed to sunlight. And they're nasty to work with. I should know; I sold more of that kind of epoxy than the factory itself down near our giant Marina and Harbor district. And the UCB Forestry Products lab which technically tested all those products was right down near the shore where I hope to shoot today if it warms up enough. I was in constant contact with all of that R&D. Gosh knows how many projects I inspected in person, whether architectural or marine. But as yellow as the epoxy is on my early Phillips 8x10, it exhibits no sign of stress yet, because it's nearly always either in storage in a pack or under a darkcloth outside. So no worries there.

But just acquiring specialty plywoods can be challenging at the moment due to the pandemic-related mfg and shipping backups, and the price has gotten astronomical, up to three times the price of pre-pandemic levels. Fortunately, cameras don't need a lot of material. Some of the very dense multi-ply types simply can't be made in this country anymore due to the formaldehyde or other hazardous glues used - not a serious problem in a cabinet shop with advanced dust control (a big topic in its own right); but a real health issue at the manufacturing level. So most of the actual manufacture is now done in China, where safety standards are much lower.