Shoot 4x10 with an 8x10 camera

[Ling Z]

Having shot 617 for over five years, now I am thinking to move onto 4x10 with my 8x10 camera. I don't wanna buy a dedicated 4x10 camera for three reasons: First, 4x10 cameras and film holders are not cheap; Secondly, cutting the 8x10 film is a hassle; Thirdly, 4x10 format has its limitations.

I know some photographers have tried shooting 4x10 with a 8x10 film holder and a 4x10 dark slide. Below are the procedures I have learned:

1. Compose the image using the bottom half of the 8x10 ground glass;
2. Insert the 8x10 film holder;
3. Replace 8x10 dark slide with a 4x10 dark slide to cover the top half of the film holder;
4. Shoot 1st image;
5. Rotate back 180 degrees;
6. Repeat 1 to 3 to shoot 2nd image.

I would like to have your inputs if you have tried the above solution. Thanks!

[Nick_3536]

I've got a 4x10 back for my 8x10. While you've still got the holder issue new 4x10 holders are less then new 8x10s now that Fidelty is out of holder business.

Use the L darkslide you'll have different issues. 8x10 holders are bigger and heavier. Others have talked about needing more coverage to handle the fact you're composing at the bottom/top instead of the middle.

So all that's really left is cutting film. Some companies actually sell B&W 4x10. So it's only colour you need to make the one cut.

[Vaughn]

An 8x10 darkslide cut to expose a 4x10 portion of the film might be better than a 4x10 darkslide. This way one has the light trap "filled" and less likely to leak light thru there.

Rotating the back 180 degrees for the second shot usually does not work for verticals, but fine for horts.

Also, you forgot the important step 4a -- remove modified 8x10 darkslide and install full 8x10 darkslide before rotating back 180 degrees. (unless one has a rotating, light-tight 8x10 back...which I don't think there are many of.)

I like having two format to use at the cost of the weight of a modified darkslide.

Do a search here -- there have been discussions about this before.

Vaughn

PS...warning...7x17 is the same proportion and you might find yourself desiring one!


PS#2 -- I use the the rise/fall of the front standard to center my lens on the portion of the film being exposed -- using the sweet spot of the lens.

[al olson]

I do something similar with 4x5. The plastic dark slide is easy enough to cut. I simply measured it out and drew lines with a pencil where I wanted to cut. Then I took a pair of household scissors to make my cuts. (Note that it is best to dedicate a spare darkslide for this ;) )

Below is an example of the two images on a single sheet of film. Once I am set up it is possible to make the second exposure by rotating my back 180 degrees. This way it is possible to bracket, or make another exposure when the light changes without going to a lot of trouble to recompose the image.

[tim810]

I do this on my 8x10 all the time I have a dark slide cut to 4x10 and just rotate the back to get the second shot. I also have two other dark slides cut one with about 2 1/2 cut from one side than another with a 2 1/2 slot cut from the middle so I can get 3 shots with a 2 1/2 x10 inch neg. although I have only used this for one shot. I use rise and fall to keep the lens centered, and I have marked my ground glass on the side to let me know where everything is.
Tim

[Neal Shields]

That was my intent and I made a dark slide for it.

However, I had read that a true panorama used what would be a wide lens on the short format. I.E. in my case a 90mm lens. With the 90 mm lens on, I couldn't get enough movement without a bag bellows to expose anything but the middle.

I went ahead and shot the full negative with the intent of croping out the 4x10 from the center. After I processed it, I liked it round (the 90 didn't quite cover 8x10) better and just left it that way.

I now have a different camera and a bag bellows so I may have to revisit the problem.

[Vaughn]

Al, if you had made the cut out portion of the slide a little smaller, you would have had some space between the images (if you want it).

Also your shot shows that it can be important to seat the modified dark slide squarely in the holder (having had the same thing happen to me a few times.)

Vaughn

This shot used a modified dark slide (8x10 to 4x10). I print with the rebate, so it is important for me to have that unexposed separation between the images...and to have the modified dark slide in straight. I also scrapped off the emulsion on the lower right to get rid of the "tab" of the holder -- usually I do not, but this image needed it.

[jetcode]

Cutting 4x10 film is easy. Cut 25 sheets last night in about 15 minutes, 50 4x10 sheets.

[walter23]

No problems with light leaking around the edge? I've always assumed these would result in fogging along the edges of your images.



I do something similar with 4x5. The plastic dark slide is easy enough to cut. I simply measured it out and drew lines with a pencil where I wanted to cut. Then I took a pair of household scissors to make my cuts. (Note that it is best to dedicate a spare darkslide for this ;) )

Below is an example of the two images on a single sheet of film. Once I am set up it is possible to make the second exposure by rotating my back 180 degrees. This way it is possible to bracket, or make another exposure when the light changes without going to a lot of trouble to recompose the image.

[Vaughn]

No problems with light leaking around the edge? I've always assumed these would result in fogging along the edges of your images.

None at all -- see my image above.

Vaughn

[eddie]

yup! i also cut an 8x10 DS down to 4x10. i left the bit inside the light trap so i would not have any light leak problems. works great. no fogging or anything.

eddie

[Brian Vuillemenot]

I have been doing this for quite some time now, and it works great. You just have to be careful to leave some plastic around the edge of the cut 8X10 darksldie so as to keep it light tight. Also, it is critical that you keep track of which side of the film has been exposed- I use little colored dot stickers for this, on the film holder side that has been exposed (i.e., 2 per shee tof film). I wrote an article on this with more detailed information in issue #5 of Magnachrome, available free for download here:

http://www.magnachrom.com/MCHome.php

[Ling Z]

Cutting 4x10 film is easy. Cut 25 sheets last night in about 15 minutes, 50 4x10 sheets.

Actually another concern is film processing cost and availability. I checked with two local labs in Southern California, though they do have 8x10 E-6 and C-41 film processing services, neither of them accepts 4x10 as they told me they did not have any 4x10 hanger racks.

[al olson]

As I recall, the above Jefferson Memorial images were made with a 90 mm. I used a wide angle lens to make it more of a panorama.

Vaughn, I seldom print the rebate so I like to capture as much of the film area as possible so that I can crop it down to size later. You are right about ensuring that the dark slide being inserted straight. I should have furnished a more correct example.

It is important for anyone using this technique to note that without the material on half the slide to keep it straight it tends to rotate so care must be taken in its positioning.

[Vaughn]

snip...You are right about ensuring that the dark slide being inserted straight. I should have furnished a more correct example.

It is important for anyone using this technique to note that without the material on half the slide to keep it straight it tends to rotate so care must be taken in its positioning.

I am glad you posted it...I would have forgotten about the possibility otherwise.

Vaughn

[Nick_3536]

.

I went ahead and shot the full negative with the intent of croping out the 4x10 from the center. After I processed it, I liked it round (the 90 didn't quite cover 8x10) better and just left it that way.



Not to drag this off topic but I'm curious. Which 90mm and how much did it miss by? I'm guessing the edges of the circle were soft to.

[verbryck]

On my Deardorff there are removable sliding dividers that fit inside the back on for 4x10 and another for 5x8 I think you could easily make something like this work for another camera . It is a breeze to use and no holder issues or back rotating etc necessary. ,Hope this helps ,George

[jetcode]

Actually another concern is film processing cost and availability. I checked with two local labs in Southern California, though they do have 8x10 E-6 and C-41 film processing services, neither of them accepts 4x10 as they told me they did not have any 4x10 hanger racks.

The lab I use puts 4x10's in 8x10 slots and charges for 8x10 sheets. I am going to try processing C41 here instead of $6 a sheet at the lab. If it turns out to be WAY more hassle then I will go back to the lab. In cutting film the film must be precisely aligned. Between alignment errors, and light leaks I've lost a box of film easily. Digital IS SO MUCH EASIER, hrmmm, yes cutting film is straight forward but the whole process from cutting and loading to development to scanning to the final print is A LOT of work prone to error.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I know a guy who does that sometimes with an 8x10 slide cut down so that he can make two 4x10 exposures on one sheet. I've often thought about doing that, but I don't have any slides to waste.

[audioexcels]

I've got a 4x10 back for my 8x10. While you've still got the holder issue new 4x10 holders are less then new 8x10s now that Fidelty is out of holder business.

Use the L darkslide you'll have different issues. 8x10 holders are bigger and heavier. Others have talked about needing more coverage to handle the fact you're composing at the bottom/top instead of the middle.

So all that's really left is cutting film. Some companies actually sell B&W 4x10. So it's only colour you need to make the one cut.

It makes no sense but to have a back made for an 8X10 camera. This centrally aligns the image (critical unless you want to lose movements by doing the half darkslide deal), 4X10 holders are a LOT lighter, and you can buy them for $80+ shipping off Ebay or get some from Keith/Fotoman/etc. at $100.

I wouldn't even consider masking or doing anything to cut around the image so it is centered. Make film holder tracks in the dead center of an 8X10 holder OR have a reduction back made. If you find you enjoy shooting 4X10 so much, get a dedicated 4X10 camera and either sell the 8X10 and buy some cheapo 8X10 so you still have it around when you wish to make an 8X10 shot or if you have the money, have both camera systems dedicated to each specific format.

[Chauncey Walden]

I made a dedicated box camera for my 121mm Super Angulon with a 3 position lens board so that the lens could be centered for 8x10 or centered on a high or low 4x10 (using a split darkslide). To keep construction simple I just made it to take the back from my 8x10 Century Universal. I made the lens board 3 position so that I would have the option of not having to rotate the back to use the same film position and maybe end up with the film holder opening facing the sun. I now feel that the best place for the portion of the film in use is the top so that the split darkslide is supported for its length and not prone to dangle. The camera box has dual tripod bushings at 90 degrees so verticals can be done using the centering of the lensboard. I didn't make it as a 4x10 because I had all the 8x10 gear and it is easier to make a camera than a back and film holder - plus, I still have the option of shooting it as an ultra wide 8x10.

[Vaughn]

Something to consider.

Are 4x10 holders actually "lighter" than 8x10?. Not really. I get four 4x10 negs from one 8x10 holder. I would have to have two 4x10 holders to get the same number of negs. Do two 4x10 holders actually weigh less than one 8x10 holder -- probably not (4 long sides compared to only two with the single 8x10.

So based on the weight of the holders per 4x10 negative...it is lighter going with the the 8x10 and the modified darkslide.

But of course the 4x10 camera itself is bound to be lighter...but holder weight is significant.

Vaughn

[audioexcels]

Something to consider.

Are 4x10 holders actually "lighter" than 8x10?. Not really. I get four 4x10 negs from one 8x10 holder. I would have to have two 4x10 holders to get the same number of negs. Do two 4x10 holders actually weigh less than one 8x10 holder -- probably not (4 long sides compared to only two with the single 8x10.

So based on the weight of the holders per 4x10 negative...it is lighter going with the the 8x10 and the modified darkslide.

But of course the 4x10 camera itself is bound to be lighter...but holder weight is significant.

Vaughn

True Vaughn. But if you use a reduction back, you achieve greater movements with the 4X10 precisely centered. If you are only shooting 4X10 and doing little/no movements at all, then the full sheet split into two or masking, etc. makes most sense. With weight, maybe two equals one, but also, two 4X10 holders can be easier to transport than the 8" end of the 8X10 holder. Say a person wants to shoot mostly 4X10 for a day, they can leave most 8X10 holders at home and have a potentially much more compact pack.

I think there isn't any right or wrong option, but many different options/approaches to this.

If I was doing this, these are the three things that would determine how I would do it:

1) If most shooting is 4X10, buy a 4X10 cam.

2) If 50 percent is shot 4X10, have a reduction back made.

3) If 10-25 percent is done with 4X10, just use the full sheet for two 4X10's or mask it, etc. techniques to shoot 4X10.

[Nick_3536]

So based on the weight of the holders per 4x10 negative...it is lighter going with the the 8x10 and the modified darkslide.

But of course the 4x10 camera itself is bound to be lighter...but holder weight is significant.

Vaughn

Some of the 4x10 cameras are very close to 8x10 in weight and size.

[Vaughn]

Some of the 4x10 cameras are very close to 8x10 in weight and size.

Yes I suppose a heavy 4x10 would be very close to a light 8x10.

Audio..."Say a person wants to shoot mostly 4X10 for a day, they can leave most 8X10 holders at home and have a potentially much more compact pack."

Actually, per 4x10 negative, 8x10 holders take up less space than 4x10 holders (two 4x10 holders side-by-side are wider than an 8x10 holder (and would not fit in my pack side-by-side -- the 8x10's just fit in.) But I see your point, if one is only taking 2 to 4 holders, 4x10's would be small package, but really, so are 1 or 2 8x10's. But I would have to carry 10 to 14 4x10 holders to take the same number of negs as I can with my 8x10 holders -- and I would not have the opportunity to shoot 8x10 if I see something that would works well in that format. In reality, though, I carry up to 7 8x10 holders, it would be a rare rare day that I would expose 28 4x10 negs in one day -- I have no desire to work that fast!

But like you said, whatever works best for the individual. I just like having the flexibility at the cost of a 2 ounce modified dark slide that takes up almost zero room in my pack. And I am in about that 10% to 25% range of 4x10 to 8x10 usage.

Since I can center the lens in the middle of the 4x10 (at the top or bottom of the 8x10) by using rise/fall, my camera movements are the same as if I was using 8x10 film. The only time this is a hassle is when I am using the 159mm lens -- but that lens tends to be a hassle with my 8x10, too! The 210mm is no problem.

One can always turn a 4x10 camera on its side to do a vertical (one would need front swing to get front tilt), but it is easier to make a vertical 4x10 with an 8x10 since the movements stay the same. (What do you call a 4x10 camera with a reversable back? An 8x10 camera with a 4x10 back.)

In reality, if I could afford to buy a 4x10 camera and a significant number of holders, I'd buy a 7x17 instead!

Vaughn

PS...if I ever get an 11x14 camera, I have an extra metal dark slide and will be also making 5.5x14 images! (same shape as 4x10 and 7x17)

[Mike Castles]

Or you could get a 4x10 back for the 8x10, have seen a couple (Canham comes to mind first). But not sure how much fun it would be to carry both size holders unless working from the car or in a fixed location.

Vaughn, like the idea of the 5.5x14 - like you, always thought if I ever moved to 11x14 I would figure out a way to mask it off for 8.5x14 (which follows the 7x11/12x20 format). Or we could follow Jim and have 5x14 - just not have as nice a camera dedicated for the format.

[Nick_3536]

I already asked Chamnoix if they could make a reducing back and holders for 5.5x14 to fit either an 11x14 or the bigger 12x20 camera -)

[Scott Squires]

I shoot 4x10 and 8x10 with a Canham 8x10 wood field camera using 4x10 and 8x10 backs. I also have a Canham 4x10 camera. I have found that using the 4x10 camera is much lighter and easier to backpack. But I am using the 8x10 camera with both backs far more often because it gives me more options. The 8x10 camera also allows for very easy 4x10 vertical shots!

I shoot about 50/50 4x10 vs 8x10. I use the AWB film holder soft case that holds six 8x10 film holders. I remove two 8x10 film holders and replace them with four 4x10 film holders. This allows four holders for each format to be carried in the field. For me this has been a great setup!

I do my own E-6 and B&W developing with a CPP-2 because it is way cheaper and a very rewarding part of the process.

[audioexcels]

In reality, if I could afford to buy a 4x10 camera and a significant number of holders, I'd buy a 7x17 instead!

Vaughn

PS...if I ever get an 11x14 camera, I have an extra metal dark slide and will be also making 5.5x14 images! (same shape as 4x10 and 7x17)

That's the kind of thinking:):):)!

I didn't know 4X10 holders were wider. Wouldn't it depend on the specific 4X10 holder per its width? As an example, I asked about 6X10 holders and a nice person linked to a French site that modded an 8X10 holder to a 4X10 sized one. So this one would have no width variation. But maybe the others out there do as you are saying.

I'm curious more about the vertical alignment of a 4X10 by flipping it around and why this would be a problem vs. an 8X10 using 4X10 back flipped around?

[audioexcels]

I already asked Chamnoix if they could make a reducing back and holders for 5.5x14 to fit either an 11x14 or the bigger 12x20 camera -)

I'm sure they will. It will cost some, but they should accomodate to this no sweat.

[audioexcels]

I shoot 4x10 and 8x10 with a Canham 8x10 wood field camera using 4x10 and 8x10 backs. I also have a Canham 4x10 camera. I have found that using the 4x10 camera is much lighter and easier to backpack. But I am using the 8x10 camera with both backs far more often because it gives me more options. The 8x10 camera also allows for very easy 4x10 vertical shots!

I shoot about 50/50 4x10 vs 8x10. I use the AWB film holder soft case that holds six 8x10 film holders. I remove two 8x10 film holders and replace them with four 4x10 film holders. This allows four holders for each format to be carried in the field. For me this has been a great setup!

I do my own E-6 and B&W developing with a CPP-2 because it is way cheaper and a very rewarding part of the process.

I think your site is one of the few that has exceptional scans of what one can expect to be paying for. Your 4X10 work is awesome, as is the other sized film work. I need to go through more than just the landscape gallery, but the 4X10 stuff is very very neat to say the least. But then so is that b/w river shot that is very liquid and delicious. There's too many shots in there I like. All of which are very pure/liquid/butter smooth. Your site is very well done, as well. Can't say enough there:)!

There's so many LF photo sites that sell their work and the scanned image looks poor. I sometimes wonder if they are from the 80's/90's and how people would want to buy the work, in spite it looks like "if" the scan/website was done better like yours, they would have more success. But it could also be that they already have enough of a name that they don't need to worry/bother about the scans/shots on the website.

[Vaughn]

I didn't know 4X10 holders were wider. Wouldn't it depend on the specific 4X10 holder per its width? As an example, I asked about 6X10 holders and a nice person linked to a French site that modded an 8X10 holder to a 4X10 sized one. So this one would have no width variation. But maybe the others out there do as you are saying.

I'm curious more about the vertical alignment of a 4X10 by flipping it around and why this would be a problem vs. an 8X10 using 4X10 back flipped around?

Two 4x10 holder have to be wider than a single 8x10 -- in both situations the area of the film is the same, but with the two 4x10's, one also would have two more 10" side pieces...which would make two 4x10's about 1" wider than a single 8x10.

Flipping a camera on its side turns tilts into swings and swings into tilts. Usually the front tilt of a camera is often easier to use than front swing (depending on the design), and often one has more degrees of tilt than degrees of swing. And if your camera has no front swing, you'll have no front tilt if you flip the camera 90 degrees. I used a 4x5 Gowland Pocketview for years that had had no way of easily going from vert to hort, so I flipped the camera. One gets use to it.

Vaughn

[audioexcels]

Two 4x10 holder have to be wider than a single 8x10 -- in both situations the area of the film is the same, but with the two 4x10's, one also would have two more 10" side pieces...which would make two 4x10's about 1" wider than a single 8x10.

Flipping a camera on its side turns tilts into swings and swings into tilts. Usually the front tilt of a camera is often easier to use than front swing (depending on the design), and often one has more degrees of tilt than degrees of swing. And if your camera has no front swing, you'll have no front tilt if you flip the camera 90 degrees. I used a 4x5 Gowland Pocketview for years that had had no way of easily going from vert to hort, so I flipped the camera. One gets use to it.

Vaughn

Lets take this camera as an example:

http://reallybigcameras.com/

Or

http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=147

We assume the Arca Swiss in the first link has dovetail that can let it flip around. So you take off the front connection and you turn that camera around so it sits on the back rail vertically.

For the second link, the Toho. Assume it is a 4X10, and we detach both parts similar to what would have to be done with the Arca and we flip it around to vertical.

Would these two cameras suffer from the same symptoms you are referring to that an 8X10 using a 4X10 reduction back flipped vertically would not?

[Vaughn]

LOL! You completely lost me...must be the time of night and me being a bit sick! What dovetail? I thought that was a wood-working term. I don't see any way to turn the A-S camera body 90 degrees on its own rail.

The 4x10 A-S camera looks like it would operate fairly easily rotated 90 degrees on the pod to take verticals -- rail cameras can handle that pretty well compared to the average wood fields. I would worry about the stability of that beast being turned 90 degrees...that is a lot of weight to be sticking so far out from the side of the tripod.

Also, one would want to have one of the tripod legs directly under that beast, otherwise the camera might tip the pod over.

The Toho is pretty neat -- looks like just a couple of knobs to loosen to flip the camera 90 degrees on its rail. I don't think that there would be any difference in operation the movements in either orientation. It is interesting the the specs for camera movements do change a little depending on its vertical of hort. orientation, but not significantly. Expect a lot more difference when using an average wood field on its side.

My Gowland Pocketview could also be rotated 90 degrees within the front and back standards -- just remove the 4 bolts holding the body of the camera to the standards, rotate the body 90 degrees and put the bolts back in. I use to do that -- then I dropped one of the bolts in the creek I was setting up next to. Had to carve a small stick and stick it in the bolt hole to hold the body onto the standard for the rest of the day. I decided that having a camera that one had to disassemble in the field to change orientation was asking for trouble, so I just turned the camera over on the pod instead from then on. It was so light...2.5 pounds w/ lens...that it was pretty stable.

Vaughn

[audioexcels]

LOL! You completely lost me...must be the time of night and me being a bit sick! What dovetail? I thought that was a wood-working term. I don't see any way to turn the A-S camera body 90 degrees on its own rail.

The 4x10 A-S camera looks like it would operate fairly easily rotated 90 degrees on the pod to take verticals -- rail cameras can handle that pretty well compared to the average wood fields. I would worry about the stability of that beast being turned 90 degrees...that is a lot of weight to be sticking so far out from the side of the tripod.

Also, one would want to have one of the tripod legs directly under that beast, otherwise the camera might tip the pod over.

The Toho is pretty neat -- looks like just a couple of knobs to loosen to flip the camera 90 degrees on its rail. I don't think that there would be any difference in operation the movements in either orientation. It is interesting the the specs for camera movements do change a little depending on its vertical of hort. orientation, but not significantly. Expect a lot more difference when using an average wood field on its side.

My Gowland Pocketview could also be rotated 90 degrees within the front and back standards -- just remove the 4 bolts holding the body of the camera to the standards, rotate the body 90 degrees and put the bolts back in. I use to do that -- then I dropped one of the bolts in the creek I was setting up next to. Had to carve a small stick and stick it in the bolt hole to hold the body onto the standard for the rest of the day. I decided that having a camera that one had to disassemble in the field to change orientation was asking for trouble, so I just turned the camera over on the pod instead from then on. It was so light...2.5 pounds w/ lens...that it was pretty stable.

Vaughn


Hehehehe. Dovetail is the way I look at the rear standard Kerry made. I was thinking if Kerry's cam did have a bracket to slot into the rear standard to vertically align it (obviously his does not).

You make a very good point about the weight distribution of flipping the rear standard. Horizontally, the 4X10 isn't too bad, but you flip it vertically and it gets a little more complicated than if you even had say, a 6X10 rear standard (w/4X10 reduction back).

The reason I ask the question is due to curiousity about your words about how it changes the movements, etc. but also because I am hoping some 6.5X10 holders can be custom made and be my primary back. I could eliminate and make a more compact camera than having the 6.5X10 GG back on a 12X12 standard. Then again, I suppose 1.5"'s isn't "that much" to be concerned about and the cost of having to deal with flipping everything around is way too timely and pita just to have a tad more compact cam. Either way, I think one needs a pack that can fit an 8X10 into it anyways, so I think I would just stick with an 8X10 standard (12X12).

Thanks and nice story about the Gowland:):)!!! It was one I used to watch out for often on Ebay and wished to get. I even saw at one time his 8X10 go quite cheap on Ebay. Now if one of these or one of his more interesting ones comes around, though I have not paid any attention in a long while, they went for a lot more than back when I was looking out for the pocket view or had some interest spark when that 8X10 came around.

I think the Toho is a very neat cam, but I feel its weakness is the function carrier/tripod mount. Take those same metal standards and put them onto an Arca function carrier and rail and that thing becomes a lot more stable camera IMHO.

[Really Big Cameras]

LOL! You completely lost me...must be the time of night and me being a bit sick! What dovetail? I thought that was a wood-working term. I don't see any way to turn the A-S camera body 90 degrees on its own rail.

The plate ARCA-SWISS uses to mount their format frames to their function carriers does indeed have a dovetail-shaped profile - the same shape as the dovetail joint commonly used in woodworking.


The 4x10 A-S camera looks like it would operate fairly easily rotated 90 degrees on the pod to take verticals -- rail cameras can handle that pretty well compared to the average wood fields. I would worry about the stability of that beast being turned 90 degrees...that is a lot of weight to be sticking so far out from the side of the tripod.

Also, one would want to have one of the tripod legs directly under that beast, otherwise the camera might tip the pod over.


The photo at the link is of a prototype 4x10 Conversion kit Really Big Cameras will eventually be building and offering for sale. For those who like to shoot verticals in this format we will offer an optional vertical orientation kit that will include a second dovetail mounting plate on the left side (when viewed from the rear of the camera) that will permit the back and bellows unit to be removed and re-mounted in the vertical orientation. With the addition of this optional accessory, it will be possible to shoot 4x10 vertical images with the camera properly upright with none of the stability issues you mentioned above.

Although you twice referred it is as a "beast", the prototype conversion kit shown in that photo is actually 2 oz. lighter than the same camera with the original ARCA-SWISS 171mm 4x5 rear format frame and 50cm ARCA-SWISS bellows. It is as light, or lighter than, other dedicated 4x10 cameras from Lotus, Canham, Shen-Hao and Wisner and is capable of using lenses from 90mm-450mm with the standard bellows.

Here is a photo showing the camera with full front rise with a 10mm Super Symmar XL (the widest current/recent lens that covers 4x10 with movements).

http://www.reallybigcameras.com/4x10_Conversion_Kit_8.jpg

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras
http://reallybigcameras.com

[Really Big Cameras]

Hehehehe. Dovetail is the way I look at the rear standard Kerry made. I was thinking if Kerry's cam did have a bracket to slot into the rear standard to vertically align it (obviously his does not).

As I mentioned in my response to Vaughn, there will be an optional vertical orientation kit that will have a second dovetail plate for mounting the back in the vertical position. Indeed, such a kit was made at the time of the prototype, but I had not yet installed it when I took the photos for the website. I will try to get a photo of the camera with the vertical orientation kit installed, with the back mounted vertically, this week and post it here.

Since not everyone shoots a lot of verticals in the panorama formats, we decided to make this vertical orientation kit available as an option. That helps keep the cost of the basic kit down for those who shoot primarily horizontal compositions, but also provides a convenient, practical solution for those who like to shoot a lot of verticals.

Once the 4x10 conversion kits go into production, the vertical orientation option can either be purchased pre-installed with the 4x10 conversion kit, or added later as a user installable option. Once installed, the second dovetail plate will make switching from the horizontal position to the vertical position (or vise-versa) easy and fast (about 10 - 15 seconds).

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras
http://reallybigcameras.com

[Vaughn]

Hi Kerry, Please excuse me....I tend to use the word "beast" as a term of endearment for large cameras. Plus it is a rather big camera in regards to the volume of space it takes up due to the rails and the height of the standards. Most of that volume is empty space, so that would keep the weight down.

It is a beauty. Looks to be very versitile.

Vaughn

[Really Big Cameras]

Hi Kerry, Please excuse me....I tend to use the word "beast" as a term of endearment for large cameras. Plus it is a rather big camera in regards to the volume of space it takes up due to the rails and the height of the standards. Most of that volume is empty space, so that would keep the weight down.

It is a beauty. Looks to be very versitile.

Vaughn

Vaughn,

No problem. The 4x10 actually seems tiny to me these days compared to my 7x17 Franken-ARCA. And I just picked up a 14x17 Canham - now that' a REALLY Big Camera.

And while the 4x10 converted ARCA-SWISS my take up a fairly large volume during use, it actually collapses quite small for transport. The credit for that, of course, goes to ARCA-SWISS for their very clever design.

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras
http://reallybigcameras.com

[Scott Squires]

I think your site is one of the few that has exceptional scans of what one can expect to be paying for. Your 4X10 work is awesome, as is the other sized film work. I need to go through more than just the landscape gallery, but the 4X10 stuff is very very neat to say the least. But then so is that b/w river shot that is very liquid and delicious. There's too many shots in there I like. All of which are very pure/liquid/butter smooth. Your site is very well done, as well. Can't say enough there:)!

There's so many LF photo sites that sell their work and the scanned image looks poor. I sometimes wonder if they are from the 80's/90's and how people would want to buy the work, in spite it looks like "if" the scan/website was done better like yours, they would have more success. But it could also be that they already have enough of a name that they don't need to worry/bother about the scans/shots on the website.

Thanks for the kind comments. I use an Epson 10000XL now so I can scan 7x17 (actually 7x16.5) and the Website Images are at 96dpi. I have three computers that I have access to and the monitors all make the website Images look different. It is tough to make low quality jpgs look good!

I measured my 8x10 fidelity holder width and 4x10 Canham / AWB holder width.

8x10 is 9 and 5/16"
4x10 is 5 and 5/16"

So a 4x10 holder is 1/2" wider or two 4x10 holders are 1" wider than an 8x10 holder.

[Vaughn]

snip...So a 4x10 holder is 1/2" wider or two 4x10 holders are 1" wider than an 8x10 holder.


I love it when I guess right! LOL!

Vaughn

[audioexcels]

The plate ARCA-SWISS uses to mount their format frames to their function carriers does indeed have a dovetail-shaped profile - the same shape as the dovetail joint commonly used in woodworking.



The photo at the link is of a prototype 4x10 Conversion kit Really Big Cameras will eventually be building and offering for sale. For those who like to shoot verticals in this format we will offer an optional vertical orientation kit that will include a second dovetail mounting plate on the left side (when viewed from the rear of the camera) that will permit the back and bellows unit to be removed and re-mounted in the vertical orientation. With the addition of this optional accessory, it will be possible to shoot 4x10 vertical images with the camera properly upright with none of the stability issues you mentioned above.

Although you twice referred it is as a "beast", the prototype conversion kit shown in that photo is actually 2 oz. lighter than the same camera with the original ARCA-SWISS 171mm 4x5 rear format frame and 50cm ARCA-SWISS bellows. It is as light, or lighter than, other dedicated 4x10 cameras from Lotus, Canham, Shen-Hao and Wisner and is capable of using lenses from 90mm-450mm with the standard bellows.

Here is a photo showing the camera with full front rise with a 10mm Super Symmar XL (the widest current/recent lens that covers 4x10 with movements).

http://www.reallybigcameras.com/4x10_Conversion_Kit_8.jpg

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras
http://reallybigcameras.com

You big show off (drool drool drool):D :D :D

I wanted to thank you for being a premier contributor to the LF world and especially for those that are Arca owners and have wanted conversion kits for who knows how long now! I know you will have different formats you will make available as conversion kits, but I have to say there is a large interest in the 5X7 category and always in 8X10. Arca stuff is "very pricey" and it is also quite hefty in terms of weight. I happen to prefer the look of your back/conversion of the rear standard over anything Arca does. I think you could even make a front standard that matches that rear one that also looks nicer. This would obviously become a full camera conversion (less function carriers/rail) which is not the intention of the kit, but it would be interesting to see your implementation of a front standard for the Arca that matches the rear fit/finish wise, and then adds in a few neat tricks here and there that the regular Arca or even one w/Orbix cannot do.

Unless people are "set" on having an Arca branded conversion kit at major prices, IMHO, these kits you will be offering will be better, less expensive, and a true relief for those spending even years trying to find that 5X7 conversion kit, a ULF conversion kit that Arca doesn't even have, etc. sizes people are demanding that Arca does not offer, etc. etc.

From all you have given to the community and will be bringing to the community with the Arca conversion, this will be a great success for every Arca owner.

[audioexcels]

Thanks for the kind comments. I use an Epson 10000XL now so I can scan 7x17 (actually 7x16.5) and the Website Images are at 96dpi. I have three computers that I have access to and the monitors all make the website Images look different. It is tough to make low quality jpgs look good!

I measured my 8x10 fidelity holder width and 4x10 Canham / AWB holder width.

8x10 is 9 and 5/16"
4x10 is 5 and 5/16"

So a 4x10 holder is 1/2" wider or two 4x10 holders are 1" wider than an 8x10 holder.

Very interesting on the holder differences/measurements. I am curious what the inside dimension is when measuring from where where the film is held down by the metal grips or put it easiest, when you take the film out and develop it, cut out/frame around the lines that the holder puts on the film from holding it down, what is the exact size that you end up with? I'm curious if the extra width of the holder is to give a true 4"'s (i.e. 4.5X10 piece of film goes in) or if it is something like 3 7/8" or so by 9 5/8"?

Hope I'm making sense:)!

[Vaughn]

Very interesting on the holder differences/measurements. I am curious what the inside dimension is when measuring from where where the film is held down by the metal grips or put it easiest, when you take the film out and develop it, cut out/frame around the lines that the holder puts on the film from holding it down, what is the exact size that you end up with? I'm curious if the extra width of the holder is to give a true 4"'s (i.e. 4.5X10 piece of film goes in) or if it is something like 3 7/8" or so by 9 5/8"?

Hope I'm making sense:)!

It is simpler than that. The size difference does not have anything to due with the film size. The long sides of both 4x10 and 8x10 holders are 1/2 wide. Two 4x10 holders have a total of 4 long sides (2 long sides each), for a total of 2" of total width of side pieces. A single 8x10 holder only has two long sides, for a total of 1" of side pieces.

Thus,

for two 4x10 holders... 4 sides (2") + 2 films (8") = about 10" total width for two holders

For one 8x10...2 sides (1") + film (8") = about 9" for one holder

4x10 film, like all sheet film is slightly smaller in both dimensions than the stated size.

Vaughn