Question for rail camera users

[Clay Turtle]

I have been involved in revamping a mono rail as I recently acquired a 300/500 lens & noted to my dismay that I couldn't extend to 1:1 macro with the 3oo mm. So the problem of extension & bellows. Looking at bellows construction I came across a photo of an 8x10 field wearing an extended bellows, noting the addition of velcro strings to pull (gather) folds thereby vaguely giving usable (self-supporting) shape to the bellows.:eek: I had thought about adding a riser & bellows rather than having to deal with weak bellows having to be supported.
Any other suggestions or thoughts on either design?

[naturephoto1]

You may be able to use a top hat- extension tube attached to a lens board to provide sufficient extension.

Rich

[Vick Vickery]

My Cambo system lends itself well to the use of longer rails and bellows since all parts are easily changed...I have 12", 20" and 36" rails and the appropriate bellows for each.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Many long bellows much older than the invention of Velcro have straps to gather the folds toward the front standard. This keeps the bellows from sagging into the image path and reduces bellows flare by using more of the wide end of the bellows with shorter lenses and compressing the narrow end. It's a perfectly good system for a field camera, where you wouldn't want to have to carry extra standards and bellows extensions.

Studio monorails are often designed to be more modular, so you can string together as much rail, bellows extension, and as many intermediate standards as you need.

[Ted Harris]

The Horseman L system (and others) has both a variety of fixed length rails up to 1000mm and a variable length rail that extends from ~ 300mm to ~ 700mm. Bellows are available in two lengths and there is a bellows extension frame allowing you to couple two bellows.

[Bill_1856]

Why would you want to do such a thing?

[Clay Turtle]

Why would you want to do such a thing?
Well as I aquired the lense I wanted to put it to the test. Did had been offered with a glowing report as to its abilities. I had taken a few shots with it and thought 'why not do a macro landscape?' so went out in the yard to a potted plant & shot a b&w. As I was taking down the camera, I felt the bellows pop back into place. :p I wasn't for sure but processing showed that the negative had fogged. A 1:1 with the 300mm had streched the bellows to the point that it had pulled the bottom out enough to cause fogging.:confused:
Besides flowers arre wonderous things when you get up close & notice their design.

[Ole Tjugen]

I would suggest you get a shorter (and lighter) lens for 1:1 macro work. :)

My own camera has 60cm of bellows, and I don't think I would use anything longer than a 180mm for macro!

Well - all right. I could use a 240mm too, but that's because that one is in a symmetrical shutter (same thread on both sides), so I can reverse the lens and still have the shutter release on the outside.

In other words, I would use a shorter lens - as long as it's not in a #1 shutter. :)

[Clay Turtle]

Thank you for the info., which I have saved to file. I have 150mm & a 210 mm which has been in use but I had wanted a longer lense so when I saw the a 300/500 canvertable, I thought it would do nicely. Trouble was I had been shooting with a Cambo & the 210mm also used a copal #3 shutter. So to check it f/stop marking I shot it with a Bender kit 4x5 camera.
Recently I switched out the 210mm with the 300/500 mm to put it to some use but I think I am having trouble with some aspects of the convertable. The Bender was my first LF, so I guess that as my first love I still want to use it. I have been spending some time revamping the Bender. I like the light wieght & flexability making packing it into the field a better choice to me.