PDA

View Full Version : 11x14" for backpacking.



Helcio J Tagliolatto
15-Dec-2011, 10:52
Hi
Is there an 11x14” camera that can be backpacked? Or even hand carried for a mile without breaking my back? (Camera, one lens and two holders)
As reference, I’m used to carry a Tachihara 8x10”, 2 lenses and 6 holders.

Thanks

Helcio

Michael Jones
15-Dec-2011, 10:59
Yes:


A Phillips Explorer. Weighs about 7 pounds. Good luck finding one; I don't think Dick made more than about ten of them. They tend to trade for $4000-5000 when on the market.

Good luck.

Mike

Sal Santamaura
15-Dec-2011, 11:08
...A Phillips Explorer. Weighs about 7 pounds...Well, that's a bit optimistic. :) Mine's around 11 pounds.

Here's the last one that sold on eBay:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/R-H-Phillips-11x14-Explorer-Camera-Excellent-/270824302010?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item3f0e62e5ba

Joe Forks
15-Dec-2011, 11:11
richard ritter camera about 13lbs and $4100 or so...

http://www.lg4mat.net/1114.html

Miguel Coquis
15-Dec-2011, 11:32
richard ritter camera about 13lbs and $4100 or so...

http://www.lg4mat.net/1114.html

...back pack or studio, these seems ideal modern ulf cameras...!

johnielvis
15-Dec-2011, 12:04
forget the camera, dude...that's the LEAST of your worries.

film holders, particularly fidelity, weigh a TON and take up more space than a camera...the big heavy tripod is also there

if you plan on only shooting 2 shots or so, then no problem

there's a seneca or 2d or century for sale here with no bellows...them are as light weight as you need to get---the holders will certainly weigh more than that camera...in other words...lens, holders, tripod is what is imortant weight wise, not just camera---a few pounds here or there mean nothing---that's like a 1 film holder difference

get the seneca or century or 2d for way less money--get as many WOODEN holders (lightest weight) as you can carry and the lightest tripod---save your money for the tripod--carbon fiber or something real light but STRONG

Jim Fitzgerald
15-Dec-2011, 18:32
My 11x14 that I built comes in at about 15 lbs. With my Mei backpack two lenses and two holders I can go for a mile or two. Weights about as much as my 8x10 system as I tend to carry more stuff. It is so much easier than backpacking with my 14x17!

vinny
15-Dec-2011, 18:37
Jim "captain walnut" is nuts. I get to see him in action every once in a while. There's no one i know quite like him.

Nathan Potter
15-Dec-2011, 19:55
All depends on what kind of shape you are in. When younger I used to backpack 60 lbs. up 5000 ft. of vertical for several days or even 10 miles across country. If you are fit you certainly should be able to manage 50 pounds for a mile. Most any 11 X 14 with accessories should be no problem - if it is, you need to get fit.

An 11 X 14 with fine black and white film and a good lens should be a compelling incentive to enjoy the pain. If not, then you're not really into large format.

Heck I can still manage 50 lbs for a mile at 78, and with rheumatoid arthritis.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Jim Fitzgerald
15-Dec-2011, 20:08
Nate, you are the man! I can do about a mile or so with the 14x17 including tripod and all the stuff and it comes in with a total weight of about 75lbs. Now I'm only 61 and I need to get into better shape!

Helcio J Tagliolatto
17-Dec-2011, 03:24
Thanks guys.
Johnielvis' considerations made me think, but than came Nathan and I'm just feeling stronger again!
Hélcio

johnielvis
17-Dec-2011, 10:32
oh...didn't mean to discourage you!!!!!

I just wanted to point out that you shouldn't fret too much about CAMERA weight since there's a LOT more to it than that. the whole package must be considered....

with small cameras, the film is in teeny tiny rolls which are nothing--actually one roll of small camera film is as much shots as you can hope to pack with a big camera, so , you know...nothing else is a consideration with small cameras except the tripod really...

my biggest hassle isn't weight it's not enough size---human size--can't get my arms around or high enough off the ground to let them "hang" low enough when I walk---11x14 is BIG and bulky---backpack is probably the only solution for any sort of distance---but then...that camera I got is like just about the size of my shoulders/like the size of my body....

if you're a big guy, then 11x14 isn't as big of a problem....cause it's like 8x10 to a regular sized person....so there's no hassles.....

the bigger you are, the easier it is...not necessarily strong...just big---you're bigger you have more leverage, etc...

Helcio J Tagliolatto
17-Dec-2011, 12:44
You're sure, Johnielvis. I feel comfortable with 8x10", but 11x14" is really bigger than that!!

Michael Kadillak
17-Dec-2011, 14:08
oh...didn't mean to discourage you!!!!!

I just wanted to point out that you shouldn't fret too much about CAMERA weight since there's a LOT more to it than that. the whole package must be considered....

with small cameras, the film is in teeny tiny rolls which are nothing--actually one roll of small camera film is as much shots as you can hope to pack with a big camera, so , you know...nothing else is a consideration with small cameras except the tripod really...

my biggest hassle isn't weight it's not enough size---human size--can't get my arms around or high enough off the ground to let them "hang" low enough when I walk---11x14 is BIG and bulky---backpack is probably the only solution for any sort of distance---but then...that camera I got is like just about the size of my shoulders/like the size of my body....

if you're a big guy, then 11x14 isn't as big of a problem....cause it's like 8x10 to a regular sized person....so there's no hassles.....

the bigger you are, the easier it is...not necessarily strong...just big---you're bigger you have more leverage, etc...

Not so at all.

W H Jackson was 5'7" weighted 145 # soaking wet and carried a wet plate 14x17 and all of the appurtenances to shoot with it in the late 1800's across the Western United States for years. He lived to be in his 90's. Look him up. You just have to have the insatiable desire to do it and the determination to follow through. When someone starts talking logistics, size and weight and so on you may as well bag it because it is not going to happen.

Years of enjoying the comforts of a modern society have made us very soft. There was a recent story locally in the Denver Post newspaper about a guy that took his family out just outside the city to cut down a fresh Christmas tree. Somehow he got lost and the search and rescue had to come and find them. Go figure.

Thom Bennett
17-Dec-2011, 19:00
Yeah, but W.H. Jackson had this beast to carry his gear. :D

Michael Kadillak
17-Dec-2011, 20:36
Yeah, but W.H. Jackson had this beast to carry his gear. :D

The beasts - including his mules were an integral component of his photographic adventures. However, even the most nimble footed beasts of burden could only get him so far. That is where he was forced to take over and get the equipment to where the photograph was going to be made. Countless other photographers back in the day did the identical thing.

Gary Tarbert
17-Dec-2011, 23:32
Hi , I backpacked once with a 8x10 , It took me 3 days to recover , My shoulders still ache when i think about it , Never again for me , My 5x8 Chamonix is the biggest camera i will backpack with in future . Regards Gary

Asher Kelman
17-Dec-2011, 23:37
Nate, you are the man! I can do about a mile or so with the 14x17 including tripod and all the stuff and it comes in with a total weight of about 75lbs. Now I'm only 61 and I need to get into better shape!
The best choice would be to have your model carry the backpack or the tripod. That's much more pleasant a prospect.

Asher

Steve Barber
18-Dec-2011, 04:39
The best choice would be to have your model carry the backpack or the tripod. That's much more pleasant a prospect.

Asher

With two willing models, everyone on the forum will want to be a ULF landscape artist.

Frank Petronio
18-Dec-2011, 09:26
Those backpack straps leave such cool marks on nude models.

Michael S
18-Dec-2011, 10:01
Why are you wanting to backpack an 11"x14" camera? My Burke and James weighs over 20lbs (10 kilos).

Michael Kadillak
18-Dec-2011, 10:22
Why are you wanting to backpack an 11"x14" camera? My Burke and James weighs over 20lbs (10 kilos).

Because you stand in a unique category in this capacity and because of the quality of the images you make. Even when I scout with the 8x10, the look on the faces of the digi guys that think that they have a load to carry is absolutely priceless. Has anyone done the math on how many mega pixels an 8x10 or 11x14 negative contains? I would love to have this data on hand but am so far removed from this technology (by choice) that I do not even know how to begin this computation.

Nathan Potter
18-Dec-2011, 10:42
Michael K, 11 X 14 equivalent pixel density is easy to estimate. But the count will be limited by the lens rather than the individual grain size of the film.

If the lens delivers about a 50 um airy disc resolution (or pixel size) then 11 X 14 will contain 40 MP or so.

If the grain size on film is, say 10 um and we call the grain size a pixel then an 11 X 14 could contain about 1000 MP of info.

Of course making a contact print and viewing it at normal close viewing distance will only require maybe 20 MP at the print.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Michael E
18-Dec-2011, 10:58
Why are you wanting to backpack an 11"x14" camera? My Burke and James weighs over 20lbs (10 kilos).

You make that sound heavy. 20 lbs is actually not a lot of weight to carry in a backpack. If you go hiking and you carry camping gear, food and water, or a child, you probably carry more weight. In my experience, the tripod is a pain to carry, because it usually doesn't fit in a backpack.

Michael

Frank Petronio
18-Dec-2011, 10:59
Jackson was doing a survey, showing people the West for the very first time. To go up to a mountain top in 2011 to make a picture of the view doesn't pack the same wonder and power as the earlier images, and in a lot of ways it seems to just perpetuate the "bigger is better" mentality that drives consumers to buy bigger cars, more megapixels, etc. Or maybe it's a test of machismo?

But I would like to understand what is significant about packing an 11x14 out into the boonies, besides capturing a lot of data and expending a large expense and effort, what's the idea-theme-purpose-intent of the images?

Why not 20x24?

Nathan Potter
18-Dec-2011, 11:14
Off OPs original post but of interest is how far the MP count can be driven as compared to my previous post for 11 X 14 referenced to film.

In the integrated circuits industry the photographic replication of circuits has reached astonishing levels of detail for the finest structures that are imaged. At the current resolution limit for the imaging technology (.005 um, 50 nm, or 500,000 pixels/mm) a 1 X 1 cm. sq. chip could contain 25,000,000 MP!

My advice would be to never get involved with the maintenance of quality control in imaging such devices.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Sal Santamaura
18-Dec-2011, 11:27
...Why not 20x24?A man's got to know his limitations. :D

Asher Kelman
18-Dec-2011, 11:28
Off OPs original post but of interest is how far the MP count can be driven as compared to my previous post for 11 X 14 referenced to film.

In the integrated circuits industry the photographic replication of circuits has reached astonishing levels of detail for the finest structures that are imaged. At the current resolution limit for the imaging technology (.005 um, 50 nm, or 500,000 pixels/mm) a 1 X 1 cm. sq. chip could contain 25,000,000 MP!

My advice would be to never get involved with the maintenance of quality control in imaging such devices.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Nate,

This would image the ripples in the light waves and so one could deconvolute the aberrations caused by aperture completely. Then reducing the image size from 25,000,000 pixels to 1000 MP would allow getting rid of noise and having all the detail for any print.

Now all we have to do is make a lens! :) Then the camera could be carried by a chipmunk and the models would arrive refreshed and ready to pose. Skin would be flawless!

Asher

Helcio J Tagliolatto
18-Dec-2011, 12:33
Why are you wanting to backpack an 11"x14" camera? My Burke and James weighs over 20lbs (10 kilos).

I was used o carry 30 kg, but now near 60's 20kg is my limit, and that includes photographic paraphernalia, meals, sleeping bag,tent....

Michael Kadillak
18-Dec-2011, 12:59
Jackson was doing a survey, showing people the West for the very first time. To go up to a mountain top in 2011 to make a picture of the view doesn't pack the same wonder and power as the earlier images, and in a lot of ways it seems to just perpetuate the "bigger is better" mentality that drives consumers to buy bigger cars, more megapixels, etc. Or maybe it's a test of machismo?

But I would like to understand what is significant about packing an 11x14 out into the boonies, besides capturing a lot of data and expending a large expense and effort, what's the idea-theme-purpose-intent of the images?

Why not 20x24?

20x24 inherently induces a number of technical issues - the most significant being the price and access to sheet film that can exponentially increase the price of admission
to this dance. There comes a point where bigger is not necessarily sensible. We all have a brain here and this is what it is.

The whole point in ULF, at least from my perspective comes down to two words. Ground Glass.

There is something simply marvelous about the experience of viewing the marvelous world in front of you and being able to capture this. It is like a highly addictive substance and you go through the necessary preparation in the gym and the effort to get to where you need to be to experience this event as often as possible. It is a WOW moment that smaller formats cannot replicate for me. It unique position that the effort results in and how few have the ability to experience this event could also have something to do with it. I do not get this amped up in the darkroom when I enlarger an image, but that may just be me. It surely is not machismo or anything like that.

I went with a friend to the Dallas Divide outside of Ridgeway, Colorado one morning to a popular spot where he wanted to make a photograph. We got there 30 minutes before daybreak on a Friday morning and there were at least 30 cars in the parking lot and at least that many photographers all lined up with their digital SLR's waiting for the sun to peek over the horizon. In less than 10 minutes after the light was out I could hear the whirring and purring of all of those cameras firing away and then it was over in minutes and they all cleared out. I did not even bother to set up my camera because of the circus atmosphere taking place in front of me. I need to be out where I am doing my own thing by myself. And out West here it is not a problem to meet this condition regularly.

Michael Kadillak
18-Dec-2011, 16:06
Michael K, 11 X 14 equivalent pixel density is easy to estimate. But the count will be limited by the lens rather than the individual grain size of the film.

If the lens delivers about a 50 um airy disc resolution (or pixel size) then 11 X 14 will contain 40 MP or so.

If the grain size on film is, say 10 um and we call the grain size a pixel then an 11 X 14 could contain about 1000 MP of info.

Of course making a contact print and viewing it at normal close viewing distance will only require maybe 20 MP at the print.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Makes sense. Thanks!