Wanderlust 4x5 P&S

[Ben Syverson]

I guess I wasn't clear. I wasn't asking about changing from one 90mm to another, but from, say, a 90mm to a 135mm by adding an extender back and (perhaps) changing focusing mounts. That gets to the heart of my question - is there any quick way to change what's on the front of the camera? I would be willing to purchase an additional focusing mount, if it's available, to support this.
Steve, we have the 90mm focusing helical, and a 65mm fixed focus plate. It's not difficult to convert between them, but you need to use a small screwdriver to remove and then replace the four mounting screws. Again, it's something you could do in a coffeeshop, but you wouldn't want to do it on a mountaintop.

Hope that answers your question—in a nutshell, no, it's not a quick change. There's no bayonet mount for the helical or anything. It would be much easier to simply pack two cameras.

[Brian Puccio]

I'm really excited about this camera becoming a platform for various 4x5 camera hacks... Sort of like how the Holga is an easily hackable platform for medium format. We would be happy to open source the 3D drawings of the basic dimensions—especially the back.

Wow, that's really giving back to the community!

[Steve Goldstein]

Steve, we have the 90mm focusing helical, and a 65mm fixed focus plate. It's not difficult to convert between them, but you need to use a small screwdriver to remove and then replace the four mounting screws. Again, it's something you could do in a coffeeshop, but you wouldn't want to do it on a mountaintop.

Hope that answers your question—in a nutshell, no, it's not a quick change. There's no bayonet mount for the helical or anything. It would be much easier to simply pack two cameras.

Thanks Ben, that's what I was after. If I had a second focusing helical (assuming you made extras available separately) with a different lens mounted, it would require removing and replacing four screws to swap, plus swapping in the back extender, to change from one focal length to another. That would allow one to get the infinity focus set ahead of time for the second helical, and even make the necessary focusing marks.

The reason I'm so interested in this is because I believe my 75mm Komura (retrofocus design) would also focus at infinity with the focusing helical. Granted it's not quite as wide as a 65mm (lens or pinhole), but I've got one.

[Chauncey Walden]

Ben, I was just looking at update #18. I'm hoping that the 8 meters to infinity was a typo for 8 feet. The hyperfocal distance for an f/8 65mm is 4.74 meters for 2.43m (~8 feet) to infinity in focus. Now, wides really don't do their best wide open and I usually shoot mine at at least f/16. The hyperfocal distance for f/16 is 2.4 meters for 1.6m to infinity. Even f/11 at an HFD of 3.46m is 2.04m to infinity. Hopefully there will be enough shims included to get the HFD down to 2.4m with the 65mm f/8 Super Angulon? Or are you saying that the lens on the camera will not make infinity focus on the minimum adapter and we will have to grind some off to even get to 2.04m?

[AuditorOne]

Ben, I was just looking at update #18. I'm hoping that the 8 meters to infinity was a typo for 8 feet. The hyperfocal distance for an f/8 65mm is 4.74 meters for 2.43m (~8 feet) to infinity in focus. Now, wides really don't do their best wide open and I usually shoot mine at at least f/16. The hyperfocal distance for f/16 is 2.4 meters for 1.6m to infinity. Even f/11 at an HFD of 3.46m is 2.04m to infinity. Hopefully there will be enough shims included to get the HFD down to 2.4m with the 65mm f/8 Super Angulon? Or are you saying that the lens on the camera will not make infinity focus on the minimum adapter and we will have to grind some off to even get to 2.04m?

I took it as a typo but it is a question worth asking.

[Ben Syverson]

I took it as a typo but it is a question worth asking.
It's not a typo... Keep in mind that hyperfocal distance is more of a philosophical concept based on your own definition of "in focus." For your purposes, you may be able to find a focal distance that is "close enough" at 2 feet all the way to infinity. But as a camera manufacturer, I have to be cautious of people with 20X loupes and drum scanners. That's why we'll supply the 65 user with shims, so they can make their own decision... It sounds crazy, but "in focus" is truly subjective.

[Ben Syverson]

To add some more info... We've found the infinity focus to vary pretty significantly from lens to lens... But on the 65mm we took out last week, it was focusing just ever so slightly past infinity with zero shims. The optimal number of shims was about 6, which was sufficiently hyperfocal from 8m to infinity at f/8. We plan to manufacture our shims roughly 3X thicker than the test shims, so that would equate to 2 shims. We'll supply 3 or 4. So you'll be able to precisely nail infinity or possibly shim down to a closer, street-photo style hyperfocal range.

Keep in mind that at f/16, MUCH more will be in focus. I'm only talking about f/8.

[Mike Bates]

Ben, the update showed some nice example pinwide images. One was shot at 0.8 seconds exposure and the other at 1.2 seconds. They appear to be shot on 4x5 film, so I assume they were shot with the Travelwide prototype.

This may be a stupid question, but how are you getting sub-second timing accuracy without a shutter?

[Ben Syverson]

Ben, the update showed some nice example pinwide images. One was shot at 0.8 seconds exposure and the other at 1.2 seconds. They appear to be shot on 4x5 film, so I assume they were shot with the Travelwide prototype.

This may be a stupid question, but how are you getting sub-second timing accuracy without a shutter?
Not a stupid question at all! The numbers were what the meter said, and what we tried to do. We used a microfiber cloth as a shutter (balled up and pressed against the Pinwide), and counted "one one thousand" to gauge how long a second was. The nice thing about a ~1 second exposure is that even if you mess up and let it go as long as 1.5 seconds, you're only off by half a stop—you'd probably never notice the difference on film.

[rdenney]

It's not a typo... Keep in mind that hyperfocal distance is more of a philosophical concept based on your own definition of "in focus." For your purposes, you may be able to find a focal distance that is "close enough" at 2 feet all the way to infinity. But as a camera manufacturer, I have to be cautious of people with 20X loupes and drum scanners. That's why we'll supply the 65 user with shims, so they can make their own decision... It sounds crazy, but "in focus" is truly subjective.

Well, "in focus" is objective, but it only occurs at the focus plane. The subjective part is "what appears to be in focus", which depends on the size of the enlargement. But it's not a binary switch--stuff a bit closer will still look sharp on smaller prints, and stuff a bit less close will allow bigger prints. I will probably adjust mine to make sure infinity works reliably at 16x20 for, say, f/16, and then let what I get define print size on the near end. For people pictures where I want f/8 (which is a dodgy aperture even on a Super Angulon), I will just adjust my position to the correct focus distance, but infinity won't be as critical.

Rick "who can well understand that each person will have his own strategy for addressing this" Denney

[Ben Syverson]

Well, "in focus" is objective, but it only occurs at the focus plane.
This is a digression, but hey, we have some time. :) Sadly, even "focus" is subjective. Lenses don't converge rays at a discrete point—they loosely come together and then fall apart, as shown in this exaggerated illustration (the top lens is a nonexistent "perfect" lens):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Spherical_aberration_2.svg/371px-Spherical_aberration_2.svg.png

As you can see in the above graphic, there is no "correct" point of focus; towards the left, you favor higher contrast but lower frequencies, and to the right you favor lower contrast but higher frequencies. That point will shift based on whether you're shooting a portrait or Christmas lights. Granted, on a well-corrected lens, this zone of compromise is very tiny, but it's still a factor, even with the most modern APO designs.

That's why "hyperfocal distance" is subjective; to make it objective, you would need to define a target contrast ratio for a given frequency and percentage of the frame—because it varies across the field.

When we sell the 65mm Conversion Kit on its own, we won't actually state a hyperfocal range anymore. We'll just include shims and explain how you can use them to determine your own preferred focus distance.

[rdenney]

This is a digression, but hey, we have some time. :) Sadly, even "focus" is subjective. Lenses don't converge rays at a discrete point—they loosely come together and then fall apart, as shown in this exaggerated illustration (the top lens is a nonexistent "perfect" lens):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Spherical_aberration_2.svg/371px-Spherical_aberration_2.svg.png

As you can see in the above graphic, there is no "correct" point of focus; towards the left, you favor higher contrast but lower frequencies, and to the right you favor lower contrast but higher frequencies. That point will shift based on whether you're shooting a portrait or Christmas lights. Granted, on a well-corrected lens, this zone of compromise is very tiny, but it's still a factor, even with the most modern APO designs.

That's why "hyperfocal distance" is subjective; to make it objective, you would need to define a target contrast ratio for a given frequency and percentage of the frame—because it varies across the field.

When we sell the 65mm Conversion Kit on its own, we won't actually state a hyperfocal range anymore. We'll just include shims and explain how you can use them to determine your own preferred focus distance.

So, you are trying to out-pontificate me? Ha!

You might get a bit of spherical aberration with that 65/8 Super Angulon at f/8, even in the center, but not much. I doubt you could see it by f/11, at least in the center. Maybe a bit of chromatic aberration. By f/16 (the specified optimal aperture for this lens), a lens in factory condition delivers its promised performance corner to corner of the specified coverage, in my experience with Schneider's reported performance. Are your results consistent with my experience? You've been playing with the 65/8 more recently than I have. I suspect one would need to make a much larger print than 16x20 to see what you are describing. And if the camera is hand-held, all bets are off.

But if we assume an error-free lens, there is only one focus plane, and everything closer or farther is not in it. The focus plane itself might not exist (as with those aberrations) or it might not actually be a plane (though Super Angulons are not known for having a curved field or other geometric distortions more common in retrofocus designs). But even if it exists, stuff isn't in it unless it's in it.

The errors you describe accumulate on top of the loss of sharpness as the subject matter departs from the focus plane. That does tend to reduce the assumed sharpness (given some standard of enlargeability) that results from depth-of-field calculations.

I'll just put the lens where it gives me a sharp infinity at f/16 (the aperture I'll use when I care about infinity) in a 4x enlargement (which is at the limit of what I can do at home). And I'll let my eyes tell me when it looks sharp enough, heh.

Rick "who won't ask for 50 shims made from 0.001" brass" Denney

[Ben Syverson]

Rick, that sounds like a plan! Practically speaking, it's going to be pretty easy to find a good hyperfocal distance. Especially at ƒ/16 and 16x20—you may get significantly more range than you expect!

[Tin Can]

0.001" SS or brass shims used to be easy for me, we made them all the time for shimming diesel liners.

Kinda hard to handle in larger diameters.

[Ben Syverson]

I'm thinking 0.01" should do the trick :)

[Kirk Gittings]

Picked up a mint condition Caltar 90mm IIN 6.8 yesterday in Chicago for a great price-getting ready for this project!

[dave_whatever]

I just got a cheap voigtlander 15mm finder to mask down to 65mm 5x4/6x12. Boom.

[Scott Davis]

I just got a cheap voigtlander 15mm finder to mask down to 65mm 5x4/6x12. Boom.

Thinking of which, what finder would you recommend for the 90mm? I have one of the Rodenstock 90mm f6.8 Grandagons that I'm planning to put on my camera, and use the 65mm cone in pinhole configuration.

[Corran]

I posted this picture a while ago to illustrate the usage of a 21mm or 25mm viewfinder made for a 35mm rangefinder as a viewfinder for the TravelWide. You can mask the 21mm for a full 4x5 frame or the 25mm for a 6x12 frame.

http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/photosharing/21vs25mmviewfinder.jpg

[mdarnton]

Corran, that's for the 90mm?

[dave_whatever]

Thinking of which, what finder would you recommend for the 90mm? I have one of the Rodenstock 90mm f6.8 Grandagons that I'm planning to put on my camera, and use the 65mm cone in pinhole configuration.

A few years back I bought one of these for about half what they cost now, and hacked a new mask for 6x17 use with a 90mm lens. I was new to the format and needed a bit of help visualising shots. But I've still got the 5x4/6x12 mask for it. Thats probably the cheapest off-the-shelf solution that's not made of plastic or total junk.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Fixed-Viewfinder-fur-Linhof-Wista-Horseman-TOYO-Tachihara-Chamonix-4x5-Kamera-/271500896164?pt=DE_Kamera_Foto_Zubeh%C3%B6r_Winkelsucher_Augenmuscheln&hash=item3f36b6e7a4

[plywood]

I'm thinking that after I get used to where to position my eye the supplied metal frame finder will be just fine. And, it does not get sumdged with fingerprints like my CV finder for their 21mm lens. And of course the price is right.

[Corran]

Corran, that's for the 90mm?

Yes, sorry if that was unclear.

[EdSawyer]

21mm viewfinder would be appropriate for the 65, not the 90. A 28mm viewfinder would be closer for a 90.

[dave_whatever]

21mm would be a bit tight for a 65 (18mm equiv) unless it was the brightline type with visible area past the framelines.

[Corran]

21mm viewfinder would be appropriate for the 65, not the 90. A 28mm viewfinder would be closer for a 90.

It depends if you are talking about the vertical or the horizontal. The problem here is the aspect ratio. Masking off the left and right side of the 21mm gives me close to a 90mm perspective on 4x5. A 28mm vf would have stuff missing from the top and bottom.

[mdarnton]

Probably some of us already think this way (masking the edges) from using 6x7 holders in 6x9 cameras. I know I'm totally comfy working that way.

[Steve Pitchford]

Picked up a mint condition Caltar 90mm IIN 6.8 yesterday in Chicago for a great price-getting ready for this project!

Kirk,
If that Caltar is the Ilex-Calumet Wide Field 90mm f8 mounted in Copal no. 0 you will be a happy photo dog! I bought one this past year; not for my "coming" Wanderlust. but as a replacement for my Schneider (Linhof) regular 90mm pancake lens, which I had CLA'd for the Travel Wide. The Caltar's new home is on my Wista 4x5.
I had the choice between the Schneider Super Angulon or the Wide field Ilex Calumet Caltar. I read everything I could find on the web. Several companies made the Wide Field Caltar at different times - all used the famous Tessar lens design. Of course a Tessar is a Tessar or would be Tessar. Most were single coated, (after 1945) until about 1978 when multi coating for color film became the norm. Production ended in 1983. All had a 100-105 degree field of view, measured at f/16 usually, depending on who tested them or who you want to believe. I tested all 3 actually,included my small schneider 90mm. The little Schneider did great - the field of view is only rated at 81 degrees and the circle of coverage at 180 mm. I felt the DOV was better than 81 and the 180mm COV good enough for all but severe architecture.
But when it came the the Super Angulon vs. the Wide Field it was very difficult to find any differences. When I compared negatives shot at the same time and place on my Wista, the shot having a fore ground object, a larger middle ground object and an infinity object, shot at same settings, it was pretty much a toss up. A slight edge goes to the Caltar for fore ground sharpness and the way it seemed to push it forward. The only short coming for the Caltar is the front lens barrel is not threaded making it difficult to use filters and shades. I'm very happy with the lens and it cost $100 less than the Super Angulon. Oh!, by the way it is said to be the exact lens as the Calumet W.A. Acugon which sold to commerical photogs for twice the Price as the Caltar.
Happy trails,
SteveP

[Dan Fromm]

Steve, the 90/8 Ilex sold under a variety of names is an f/8 Super Angulon clone, not a tessar type. Ain't no 100 degree tessar types.

[Kuzano]

Probably some of us already think this way (masking the edges) from using 6x7 holders in 6x9 cameras. I know I'm totally comfy working that way.

I went a bit different for a new aspect ratio on 6X9. I took my Fujica GL690 and masked the film gate down to 3CM down the middle of the roll, with a mask in the viewfinder window. This gives me a frame size that is 30mm X 88mm. This works out to an aspect ratio almost identical to 6X17 CM, and a lens choice on the Fujica body of 100mm or 65mm with the two lenses I enjoy the most.

I plan to similarly mask a Dayi 6X12 which will yield a 30mm X 118 Panoramic. This will be an aspect ratio almost identical to 6X24Cm.

Since I shoot mostly expired film purchased on eBay, I don't mind the waste on film. Furthermore, different masks may be challenging to play with, such as 40mm X 88 or 118mm.

Looking forward to this fun set of options with the Travelwide.

[Dan Fromm]

Kuzano, not to be a complete idiot or anything, but why don't you crop after the film's processed?

[Kuzano]

:confused:Could do that, but that seems so obvious. Why ruin my fun?

Besides, this was a result of pondering an exercise to load and run 35mm cassettes through my GL690.... now that you have come up with my obvious flawed extension of that plan, perhaps I will go back and rig the GL690 for 135 cassettes. Hmmm, but how to do that with the DAYI 6X12....

Think man, Think!!!

[Kuzano]

Kuzano, not to be a complete idiot or anything, but why don't you crop after the film's processed?

Actually Dan, you may have a point. I would like the see the panorama in the view finder, BUT, as you point out, I could just insert a removable insert in the viewfinder for the image I would crop. Then, I could do Pano's on certain frames, and full 6X9 on others by removal/insertion of the view finder mask.

So simple... Thank you. Do you find simpler concepts easier to formulate?????;););) You could be, as they say, THE MAN!

[Dan Fromm]

No, Kuzano, the only thing I excel at is laziness.

Here's one of the fruits of my laziness: http://1drv.ms/1pvlksm 38/4.5 Biogon on 2x3. I could have masked the gate to 24x82, but think of the cropping opportunities I'd have given up.

[dave_whatever]

Actually Dan, you may have a point. I would like the see the panorama in the view finder, BUT, as you point out, I could just insert a removable insert in the viewfinder for the image I would crop. Then, I could do Pano's on certain frames, and full 6X9 on others by removal/insertion of the view finder mask.

So simple... Thank you. Do you find simpler concepts easier to formulate?????;););) You could be, as they say, THE MAN!

Also, without a mask in the film plane you can use a 3cm wide strip from the top or bottom of the frame as required, in effect giving you rise/fall as and when you need.

[Steve Pitchford]

Dan,
Your right! Thank you for correcting me on those facts. It was the old Caltars and Acutars that were a modified Tessar design and Not the S/A or W/F. I hadn't seen the data on the lens in some time so I jumped to a couple of blog sites I use to refresh my memory. However I failed to note the manufacturing period of the discussions. I have just visited the Calumet catalog, (1965) for the lens and the Schneider S/A, which Calumet also sold. I attempted to copy and attach the page but could not. It can be found on cameraeccentric.com. Scroll down to the catalog picture for details. Calumet does claim a 100 DOV for the 90mm W/F. There is a Calumet HR f/8, 90mm listed on Michael Gudzinowicz lens list having 4/4 lens, gp. but with only 170 degrees circle of cover. The Calumet Caltar W/F, f/8 90mm is listed with 215 degree COC,and the Schneider S/A, f/8 90mm with 216 COC. Both Calument W/F & Schneider S/A list as 6/4 lens group. I'll try to bee more careful next post. It's still a great lens and no more a clone than any other S/A since the original.
Happy trails,
SteveP

[Kirk Gittings]

Kirk,
If that Caltar is the Ilex-Calumet Wide Field 90mm f8 mounted in Copal no. 0 you will be a happy photo dog! I bought one this past year; not for my "coming" Wanderlust. but as a replacement for my Schneider (Linhof) regular 90mm pancake lens, which I had CLA'd for the Travel Wide. The Caltar's new home is on my Wista 4x5.
I had the choice between the Schneider Super Angulon or the Wide field Ilex Calumet Caltar. I read everything I could find on the web. Several companies made the Wide Field Caltar at different times - all used the famous Tessar lens design. Of course a Tessar is a Tessar or would be Tessar. Most were single coated, (after 1945) until about 1978 when multi coating for color film became the norm. Production ended in 1983. All had a 100-105 degree field of view, measured at f/16 usually, depending on who tested them or who you want to believe. I tested all 3 actually,included my small schneider 90mm. The little Schneider did great - the field of view is only rated at 81 degrees and the circle of coverage at 180 mm. I felt the DOV was better than 81 and the 180mm COV good enough for all but severe architecture.
But when it came the the Super Angulon vs. the Wide Field it was very difficult to find any differences. When I compared negatives shot at the same time and place on my Wista, the shot having a fore ground object, a larger middle ground object and an infinity object, shot at same settings, it was pretty much a toss up. A slight edge goes to the Caltar for fore ground sharpness and the way it seemed to push it forward. The only short coming for the Caltar is the front lens barrel is not threaded making it difficult to use filters and shades. I'm very happy with the lens and it cost $100 less than the Super Angulon. Oh!, by the way it is said to be the exact lens as the Calumet W.A. Acugon which sold to commerical photogs for twice the Price as the Caltar.
Happy trails,
SteveP

Steve, This is Caltar 90mm IIn 6.8 which I believe was manufactured by Rodenstock in Germany for Calumet Photographic, "this lens is made from the Grandagon design templet. Size-wise, it has dimension and weight similar to f/8 lenses, but gathers more light, making it easier to focus in any shooting condition. Highly corrected for color and aberration, it offers a 102° angle of coverage". From a used sales ad.

[Oren Grad]

Steve, This is Caltar 90mm IIn 6.8 which I believe was manufactured by Rodenstock in Germany for Calumet Photographic, "this lens is made from the Grandagon design templet...

Yes, depending how old it is, your lens is a Grandagon or a Grandagon-N.

[Ben Syverson]

I've had more than one request for a Travelwide forum... I don't want to set one up, because LFF is already such a rich and comprehensive LF resource. I'm more than happy to direct people here, but I'm also hesitant to flood LFF with 1500 users, many of whom will be newbies.

So, does it make sense to have a Travelwide subforum? Or possibly a "Beginners" subform? Or maybe we can come up with a category for the Travelwide and Harmon Titan—"Plastic 4x5 Cameras"?

[Corran]

"Beginners" subform?

Sounds like a great idea to me potentially, but it might muddy the waters a bit regarding where a thread goes.

[David Karp]

An article for the Home Page on pinhole photography might be helpful to the new LF users who don't have lenses yet.

And some other lenses for your updates include the 90mm f/6.8 Optar and Raptar.

[Ben Syverson]

An article for the Home Page on pinhole photography might be helpful to the new LF users who don't have lenses yet.

And some other lenses for your updates include the 90mm f/6.8 Optar and Raptar.

Unfortunately, the Optar and Raptar are often in Copal 00 shutters, so I'm hesitant to recommend them...

[Steve Pitchford]

Steve, This is Caltar 90mm IIn 6.8 which I believe was manufactured by Rodenstock in Germany for Calumet Photographic, "this lens is made from the Grandagon design templet. Size-wise, it has dimension and weight similar to f/8 lenses, but gathers more light, making it easier to focus in any shooting condition. Highly corrected for color and aberration, it offers a 102° angle of coverage". From a used sales ad.

Kirk & Oren,
Where in the Sam Hill did you find this great information? I've spent hours searching high & low for such specifics! I now love the lens more than ever. The lens serial no. is 3656. The outside barrel diameter 69.90mm approx. The front glass size diameter inside bezel is 49.80mm. The rear barrel is 56.20mm. Does this data sound correct or change anything? f/6.8 vs f8 aperture?, I can see the brightness factor but is that what makes it seem to pop out the foreground more?
Thanks so much, waiting to hear your reply's.
Happy trails,
SteveP

[rdenney]

Unfortunately, the Optar and Raptar are often in Copal 00 shutters, so I'm hesitant to recommend them...

My WA Optar 90/6.whatever is not in a Copal shutter at all, but in a Graflex Small shutter that is a bit smaller. But Graflex made a flange that has a ridge on it that will snuggle nicely into a Copal/Compur No. 0 hole if used as a retaining ring.

But I would not shy away from a Compur 00 shutter because of that reason--adapters for putting them in 0 holes are available on ebay, and really nice ones are available from S. K. Grimes. I have a couple of them already. My 65/8's are in 00 shutters, with adapters. But I might shy away from them simply because they have been out of production for a long time and they are difficult to have serviced.

Rick "thinking those little Graflex shutters are less likely to need such service for some reason" Denney

[Steve Pitchford]

Unfortunately, the Optar and Raptar are often in Copal 00 shutters, so I'm hesitant to recommend them...
Ben,
Is the Synchro-Compur shutter f6.8/ 90mm considered similar? It's a Schneider-K.....labeled Linhof Technika. Early on I emailed you about the lens and you answered you thought it would work. I had it CLA'd just for the Travelwide. I like it's small size and weight and image sharpness, and while I have a Calumet W/F, I can't imagine using such a boat anchor on a P&S camera and am baffled by all the lens discussions. However I've learned long ago, "To each his own, it's all unknown - if dogs roam free why not me" (we). Bob Dylan, from the Basement Tapes.

Happy trails,
SteveP

[Dan Fromm]

Yes, depending how old it is, your lens is a Grandagon or a Grandagon-N.Oren, you and Kirk may be mistaken. Ilex made a line of f/8 SA clones, 47, 65, and 90 mm. Calumet sold them as Ilex Caltars. The s/n Steve quoted fits the Ilexes, doesn't fit the Rodenstock s/n sequence.

[rdenney]

I've had more than one request for a Travelwide forum... I don't want to set one up, because LFF is already such a rich and comprehensive LF resource. I'm more than happy to direct people here, but I'm also hesitant to flood LFF with 1500 users, many of whom will be newbies.

So, does it make sense to have a Travelwide subforum? Or possibly a "Beginners" subform? Or maybe we can come up with a category for the Travelwide and Harmon Titan—"Plastic 4x5 Cameras"?

There's no problem directing people here, and if enough come and need such a forum, we'll discuss options when we see the issues.

An article for the home page providing the basics for Travelwide users new to 4x5 would seem to me a no-brainer.

Rick "thinking this is a good problem to have" Denney

[Oren Grad]

Oren, you and Kirk may be mistaken. Ilex made a line of f/8 SA clones, 47, 65, and 90 mm. Calumet sold them as Ilex Caltars. The s/n Steve quoted fits the Ilexes, doesn't fit the Rodenstock s/n sequence.

My comment was addressed to Kirk, in response to these observations about the lens that he owns:


Picked up a mint condition Caltar 90mm IIN 6.8 yesterday in Chicago for a great price-getting ready for this project!


Steve, This is Caltar 90mm IIn 6.8 which I believe was manufactured by Rodenstock in Germany for Calumet Photographic, "this lens is made from the Grandagon design templet. Size-wise, it has dimension and weight similar to f/8 lenses, but gathers more light, making it easier to focus in any shooting condition. Highly corrected for color and aberration, it offers a 102° angle of coverage". From a used sales ad.

Kirk owns a Grandagon. Steve has a different - older - lens, for which the question of Ilex vs Schneider is relevant. Steve does not own a Grandagon, under any name.

[rdenney]

Oren, you and Kirk may be mistaken. Ilex made a line of f/8 SA clones, 47, 65, and 90 mm. Calumet sold them as Ilex Caltars. The s/n Steve quoted fits the Ilexes, doesn't fit the Rodenstock s/n sequence.

Yes, the distinguishing factor is the f/8 maximum aperture. People usually assume they are rebadged Super Angulons, but they are not.

If the maximum aperture is f/6.8, though, and the lens is a Super Angulon-style near-symmetrical opposing retrofocus design, then it's probably a Grandagon. Calumet bought from a range of different suppliers over the years, initially Ilex, and later Rodenstock. There were even some Schneiders in the mix, but not Super Angulons.

Rick "recalling an article on the topic by Kerry Thallman in View Camera, but don't have it handy for more specific reference" Denney

[rdenney]

Ben,
Is the Synchro-Compur shutter f6.8/ 90mm considered similar? It's a Schneider-K.....labeled Linhof Technika. Early on I emailed you about the lens and you answered you thought it would work. I had it CLA'd just for the Travelwide. I like it's small size and weight and image sharpness, and while I have a Calumet W/F, I can't imagine using such a boat anchor on a P&S camera and am baffled by all the lens discussions.

What you have is an Angulon, not a Super Angulon. The Angulon is a Dagor design (actually a competitor to it--the Dagor was made by Goerz), very very old but still quite decent for its size, weight, and coverage. It is a six-element double-anastigmat design--two anastigmat triplets opposing each other. Schneider improved on the Dagor design by enlarging the outer elements to provide more coverage. The Graflex WA Optar (which is really a Wollensak WA Raptar) is a similar concept, even smaller and lighter but probably not quite as good.

Super Angulons, Fuji SWDs, Nikkor-SWs, and Grandagons are all derived from the original Zeiss Biogon concept, which put two retrofocus wide angle lenses in opposition around a central aperture. The opposing nearly symmetrical design corrected geometric distortion, which was loved by architectural photographers. These lenses provided very wide coverage, making short focal lengths possible. But they are two lenses in opposition, so they are about twice as long as their focal length, making them rather large and heavy.

Schneider, Nikon, Fuji, and Rodenstock lenses will be in Compur (German) or Copal (Japanese) shutters. Those shutters are all sized according to a standard scheme--No. 00 needs about a 26mm hole, No. 0 needs a 34mm hole, No. 1 needs a 42mm hole, and so on. 90mm and shorter lenses will only be found in No. 0 or No. 00 shutters.

Graflex (Wollensak) lenses are in Wollensak shutters, which follow a different scheme.

Calumet lenses (branded Caltar) were made by various contractors, but all of them that could be under consideration here were made for Compur or Copal shutters.

All of these perform best at f/16 or f/22. None were designed for use wide open, and doing so will reveal their weaknesses, if sharpness is the objective. The double-retrofocus lenses generally outperform the double-anastigmat lenses, but at the price of size, weight, and cost.

Rick "summarizing" Denney

[Ben Syverson]

Is the Synchro-Compur shutter f6.8/ 90mm considered similar?
Yeah, the Synchro-Compur is a Copal-0-alike. Most Angulons will be in Compur or Synchro-Compur shutters. Should fit just fine!

[Dan Fromm]

The Graflex WA Optar (which is really a Wollensak WA Raptar) is a similar concept, even smaller and lighter but probably not quite as good.

Calumet lenses (branded Caltar) were made by various contractors, but all of them that could be under consideration here were made for Compur or Copal shutters.

All of these perform best at f/16 or f/22. None were designed for use wide open, and doing so will reveal their weaknesses, if sharpness is the objective. The double-retrofocus lenses generally outperform the double-anastigmat lenses, but at the price of size, weight, and cost.

Rick "summarizing" Denney
Nope, the Raptar is a 4/4 double Gauss.

Nope, some Ilex Caltars are in Ilex shutters. This includes some, not all, of Ilex's 90/8 anti-Super Angulons.

Are you sure that Grandagons and Super Angulons are best between f/16 and f/22?

[Larry Kellogg]

Ben,
Is the Synchro-Compur shutter f6.8/ 90mm considered similar? It's a Schneider-K.....labeled Linhof Technika. Early on I emailed you about the lens and you answered you thought it would work. I had it CLA'd just for the Travelwide. I like it's small size and weight and image sharpness, and while I have a Calumet W/F, I can't imagine using such a boat anchor on a P&S camera and am baffled by all the lens discussions. However I've learned long ago, "To each his own, it's all unknown - if dogs roam free why not me" (we). Bob Dylan, from the Basement Tapes.

Happy trails,
SteveP

I missed this Dylan quote the first time through. Bob also sang:

"We live and we die, we know not why"
But where is the Travelwide?

From "Modern Times", ok, I added the second line.

Larry

[Larry Kellogg]

Should be:

But at least we'll have the Travelwide.

[Kirk Gittings]

My comment was addressed to Kirk, in response to these observations about the lens that he owns:





Kirk owns a Grandagon. Steve has a different - older - lens, for which the question of Ilex vs Schneider is relevant. Steve does not own a Grandagon, under any name.

Yes I believe so and the more recent version at that I think. It is a very modern looking lens-lens and shutter all black with modern looking MC.

[Drew Bedo]

Has anyone gotten a camera yet? Just asking.

[Oren Grad]

Yes I believe so and the more recent version at that I think. It is a very modern looking lens-lens and shutter all black with modern looking MC.

How to tell (aka, fun with Rodenstock trivia!): the most recent Caltar II-N's have the same colored stripes and updated typeface as the Apo-Sironar-N/S/W and late-model Grandagon-N, like this:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/photojunk4u/5002950102/

The older Caltar II-N's, without the stripe and with the older-style typeface, look like this:

http://www.lf-photo.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2318#p13596

Either way, a very fine lens!

[Scott Davis]

Drew- they're in the final manufacturing and assembly stage now. Expectation is that they should ship within the next few weeks. Hopefully we'll have them in our hot little hands by August.

[plywood]

Has anyone gotten a camera yet? Just asking.

Apparently they already have;
body
inner helical
outer helical
rubber grip/focus indicator
helical retaining tabs
65 lens plate
metal frame viewfinder
spring steel back

Still waiting for;
plastic ground glass
pinwide cap
pinwide (they were waiting on one more EC to try to get this part perfect)
CHOMPY spanner wrench
cartons for shipping

They do not have a date to start shipping cameras yet and still have to compile a servey of backers current addresses and whether single camera backers want the parts to convert from the 90 to the 65.

Ben has been sending updates once a week now and I'm sure will inform backers via an update when all parts are in place and assembled and they are ready for the survey and to start shipping the units.

[Drew Bedo]

Scott and Plywood:

thanks for the up-date.

[Corran]

Bummer. A bit of a setback is described in the latest Update on KS. Just a delay, not anything terminal.

I hope you guys are at least going to make some money at the end of the day with this.

[Ben Syverson]

Bummer. A bit of a setback is described in the latest Update on KS. Just a delay, not anything terminal.

I hope you guys are at least going to make some money at the end of the day with this.
Yeah, it's never fun to have to announce a setback. If we do another batch of cameras after this one is shipped, there's a chance we'll make a small amount. But as a product, it's extremely low margin.

My hope is that we can introduce some other, simpler accessories to generate some income and help support the flagship camera.

[Kirk Gittings]

I appreciate the update and your dedication to doing this right. I would love to have it tomorrow but whenever is better if it means it works properly.

Damn. You are in Chicago and an SAIC alum. I was just there for 2 months teaching a class. I would have loved to have gotten together and see what you are doing! (BTW the associate provost ordered one of your cameras! He was hoping to get his by late August for an artist residency.....).

[Ben Syverson]

Kirk, you teach in Chicago fairly regularly, don't you? Next time you're in town, by all means get in touch!

[Kirk Gittings]

I will-probably next summer but not to teach but working on a personal project. Also I sent you a PM.

[Kuzano]

I am patient. Would rather you find these issues now than after in hands.

Re: making more money, I will be particularly interested in what you do with back extensions (no moving parts... change lens, snap back in place and go!!!) to make the travelwide more flexible in terms of lens selection. I suggest picking very specific lenses to avoid all the testing/tweaking for every lens in the market. It would be worth some money to me (more than you might think) to expand the camera to a 127-135 range, such as the Polaroid Ysarex 127 in polaroid shutter, and then a 150 to 180.

Also backs to be used with pano roll film holders and a lens range of 135mm (read roll film holders here).

I would think you have a strong market with 1500 Travelwides out there in the field and if you watch the mating area, could be used with other camera's using standard film holder mounts.

A couple of these backs would still fit easily in the light kit bags being envisioned/used. I wouldn't balk at a $100 back that would expand my camera to one more camera potential with just the clamp on back, rather than a new cone assembly.

[Ben Syverson]

I was talking with someone in the IDEO office about the challenge of finding the right ground glass texture, and they reminded me about our swatch library. I never even noticed that we had Mold-Tech swatches.

For those unfamiliar with Mold-Tech, they add textures to plastic molds using photochemical etching. And they produce three-ring swatch binders that are kind of like Pantone books for plastic textures. Each page is a thick plastic sheet with a few possible textures.

At IDEO we have six or seven of these, and in each one, the pages are black. I pored through every page with a flashlight and a loupe, looking for a good texture. I selected one page of textures that looked promising.

At the end of the stack, I found the holy grail: two transparent pages, one of which was the critical page!

http://bensyverson.com/images/2014/07/moldtech.jpg

I immediately put it behind the Travelwide and started testing...

http://bensyverson.com/images/2014/07/ben-moldtech.jpg (http://instagram.com/p/qiH1MZwBGa/)

I can't explain how different it is to see these textures on transparent plastic rather than black. On the black page, I identified one swatch as the best candidate, but after testing, I picked a very different swatch.

Seeing so many possible ground glass textures was… illuminating (sorry). The finest matte textures had impossibly clear center focus—the brightest and clearest image I've ever seen on a ground glass. It felt brighter than real life. However, the corners were 100% black. Some of the heavier textures had fantastic uniformity across the frame, but the overall brightness was very low.

Ultimately, a ground glass texture has a built-in compromise. On the one hand, a primary purpose of the ground glass part is to aid in focus calibration, so you want great resolution. On the other hand, many users will want to use the ground glass for image composition in addition to focusing.

I think we found a great texture, at least based on the sample. Here's hoping our final part looks that great.

And of course, all of this happened hours after I posted my most recent update, so I'll have to wait a week to roll it into the next Kickstarter / mailing list update.

[Brian Puccio]

Awesome, thanks for the (double) update!

[plywood]

Re ground glass textures;
Great to hear about your discovery Ben. As regards edge and corner brightness of the overall screen when my 90 arrives I'm going to look for one of the smaller fresnel magnifers at an office supply and slip it behind your screen. Hey, it's worth a try for the overall view.

Who knew, at the start, how complicated this whole process would be. You and Justin are to be congratulated for working so hard to bring this idea to reality.

Please, please, make a provision on your site for those of us who want to buy the excess pinhole's and the plastic GG that didn't work out. The DIY crowd is just waiting to get their hands on these 'failed' items.

[Kuzano]

Cheap Ground Glass needs were the reason I started going to Tupperware parties many years ago. Larger tupperware products provided some excellent material and textured surfaces for 4X5 ground glass substitutes.

Meeting some lovely ladies was simply an unanticipated bonus.:cool:

[jb7]

If you had the opportunity of specifying a custom texture for a large number of screens from a manufacturer with such obvious capabilities, then perhaps a fresnel could be integrated into the pattern? Though maybe not...

The camera looks so much better than I ever could have predicted, massively well done-

[jb7]

BTW, if you need to make money from accessories, perhaps a mount for an iphone viewfinder? Would be so much cheaper than people trying to source an optical viewfinder, as well as providing an opportunity to record a digital reference file...

Wide angle adapters for iphone, and presumably other phones, can be sourced for around $10...

[Tin Can]

Blasphemy!

Actually, I have one already, it holds a phone and mounts to a shoe.

I used it for some video thingy, I sent back to Amazon and Sony. It allowed a phone to Bluetooth control a tiny video camera.


BTW, if you need to make money from accessories, perhaps a mount for an iphone viewfinder? Would be so much cheaper than people trying to source an optical viewfinder, as well as providing an opportunity to record a digital reference file...

Wide angle adapters for iphone, and presumably other phones, can be sourced for around $10...

[jb7]

Blasphemy?

It's the 21st century, on the internet.
Reminds me of a friend who had a band called Catma.
Catma? I asked her?
It's the opposite of Dogma, she replied...

[Ben Syverson]

If you had the opportunity of specifying a custom texture for a large number of screens from a manufacturer with such obvious capabilities, then perhaps a fresnel could be integrated into the pattern? Though maybe not...

The camera looks so much better than I ever could have predicted, massively well done-
Thanks, Joseph! That's a great idea for a future accessory. Personally, while I like fresnels for brightness, I find the rings distracting for fine focus. But I know some people swear by them.

[Regular Rod]

Thanks, Joseph! That's a great idea for a future accessory. Personally, while I like fresnels for brightness, I find the rings distracting for fine focus. But I know some people swear by them.

Swear at them sometimes...

RR

[Andrew O'Neill]

Just got an update. 3-5 weeks until delivery. Can't wait! Hopefully I'll be able to take the camera with me to Japan in mid December.

[Frank_E]

and I expected that the first posts after the update (which I also got) would be rants about "late again"
I am personally glad they are taking the time to fix the problems and put out a good product….

[Andrew O'Neill]

Me too, Frank. I know we are going to get a great product.

[plywood]

I didn't get that out of the post, just that they continue to work on the helical fit problem, and hopefully, if everything goes just right, then 3~5 weeks. As they said, "...or longer"

I'm still happy to wait for a good product but I've given up on projections, there are too many variables that Ben and Justin cannot control.

[JoeBenjamin]

I didn't get that out of the post, just that they continue to work on the helical fit problem, and hopefully, if everything goes just right, then 3~5 weeks. As they said, "...or longer"

So is that what the post (for backers only) on Kickstarter was about? Did they go into any more detail?

[plywood]

So is that what the post (for backers only) on Kickstarter was about? Did they go into any more detail?

They said they would probably have to have a small change made to the collar mold and it could take 2-3 weeks after that to get sample parts to check if that solves the hot weather/swelling problem. Lets face it, all such changes trying to arrive at the perfect solution are 'cut and try' so this could take longer than 3-5 weeks. Not their fault, just the normal problems of trying to get a new product with new and untried materials to work.

[Weihan]

Patience! Patience! All of us surely have other photographic tools we can use until this 4x5 P&S arrives at our doorsteps. I for one wish someone would make a similar version for the Schneider SA XL 47/5.6. THAT would be a real game changer.

[plywood]

Patience! Patience! All of us surely have other photographic tools we can use until this 4x5 P&S arrives at our doorsteps. I for one wish someone would make a similar version for the Schneider SA XL 47/5.6. THAT would be a real game changer.

Weihan;

What is the back focus (mounting flange surface to film) for that lens? With a lens that short on 4X5 you might be able to get away with a fixed focus mount and let DOF cover front to back sharpness. That would sure be one wide lens on 4X5. Neat idea though.

[Weihan]

Weihan;

What is the back focus (mounting flange surface to film) for that lens? With a lens that short on 4X5 you might be able to get away with a fixed focus mount and let DOF cover front to back sharpness. That would sure be one wide lens on 4X5. Neat idea though.
That was my thinking too. Judging from the lens diagram provided on Schneider's website, I'd guess the distance is ca. 7.5 mm.
Here's the link to the PDF: https://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/photo/datasheets/super-angulon/super-angulon_xl_56_47_3.pdf

[Dan Fromm]

Weihan;

What is the back focus (mounting flange surface to film) for that lens? With a lens that short on 4X5 you might be able to get away with a fixed focus mount and let DOF cover front to back sharpness. That would sure be one wide lens on 4X5. Neat idea though.

Not to burst any bubbles or anything, but the lens' flange-focal-distance is 59.1 mm. Also, it needs to be focused. I don't have one, do have a 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon. Using it as a fixed focus lens is just dumb.

As users of 35 mm cameras will tell you, there's no escaping focusing with a 35 mm or, for that matter, a 50 mm lens.

[Corran]

I've used both my 38mm and 47mm XL lenses as fixed-focus lenses plenty of times. f/22 or more obviously. Of course you have to focus a small format lens when you shoot at f/8 or whatever.

[Dan Fromm]

I've used both my 38mm and 47mm XL lenses as fixed-focus lenses plenty of times. f/22 or more obviously. Of course you have to focus a small format lens when you shoot at f/8 or whatever.

Bryan, I believe you when you say it works for you. It doesn't work for me.

[Corran]

Why

[Weihan]

Why
Is the grumpy tone ("just dumb") a common occurrence on this web site? In any case, I apologize if I didn't understand the English phrase in your question. At least you might be able to garner details from the PDF link I included. And THANKS for the polite response.

[Steve Goldstein]

The flange focal length for the 47mm f/5.6 Super-Angulon XL depends on the shutter it's in, according to Schneider's literature.

Copal 1 = 59.1mm
Compur 1 = 56.9mm
Prontor 01S = 57.0mm

The 65mm f/8 Super-Angulon, for which the fixed-focus Travelwide is designed, has a 70.5mm FFL in its Copal 00 shutter.

You'd need to do some very serious hot-rodding to get the 47SAXL to focus at infinity as the Travelwide body is too long. Nothing's impossible, though.

[mdarnton]

Before the Travelwide, I was thinking of making a 5x7 P+S. You need a lens, a back, and a box. None of these are particularly hard to get. A 5x7 back costs about $40 on ebay. I can make a box. I have a lens. If you want a camera for the 47mm XL, make it.

Ramiro posts here; check out his camera and what he's done with it: https://www.flickr.com/photos/rabato/13082190464/ He even made his own back, which is certainly more than I would do.

He's used it with several lenses, including a 75mm (that's the one that cuts corners), but I don't know that they're tagged in his series.

[Dan Fromm]

WhyBecause the results don't meet my exacting standards of sharpness in the intended plane of best focus. If you can live with having the plane of best focus not exactly where you want it, more power to you.

[mdarnton]

Looking at things at 100% on a computer taught me that there's no such thing as depth of field. There's only personal tolerance for out of focus.

[Corran]

my exacting standards of sharpness in the intended plane of best focus.

Which is what? Are you scanning with a drum scanner? Are you printing to 20x enlargements? Are you examining test charts with a microscope?

According to the commonly cited DOF calculator, even for a circle of confusion corresponding to 6x7, a 47mm lens focused to 10ft. @f/16 will have apparent DOF of 5ft. to infinity. Yes, DOF is rated as "acceptably blurry" but come on, let's be realistic here. Even for 35mm, at f/22 and focused to 12ft. gives "acceptable blurriness" from 6ft. to infinity. Hyperfocal focusing is not a myth.

I'm genuinely curious here. Obviously for some kind of scientific imaging the standards are different, etc. That isn't what's being discussed, unless I've missed something.

[Dan Fromm]

Are you scanning with a drum scanner? Are you printing to 20x enlargements? Are you examining test charts with a microscope?

None of the above. I examine E6 transparencies with a 12x magnifier.

[jbenedict]

Fotoman makes a helical lens mount if exact sharpness is desired:

http://www.fotoman.cc/showPro.asp?id=41

Fotoman also has an optical viewfinder at a reasonable cost if you want "point and shoot"

http://www.fotoman.cc/showPro.asp?id=45



A solution for the "DIY" builder could be two boxes- and inner and outer- that could be slid back and forth to affect focus. Maybe make the fit a little loose and then put some get around the edges of the inner box to give a little friction to hold it in place but easy to move when wanted.

[jbenedict]

The flange focal length for the 47mm f/5.6 Super-Angulon XL depends on the shutter it's in, according to Schneider's literature.

Copal 1 = 59.1mm
Compur 1 = 56.9mm
Prontor 01S = 57.0mm

The 65mm f/8 Super-Angulon, for which the fixed-focus Travelwide is designed, has a 70.5mm FFL in its Copal 00 shutter.

You'd need to do some very serious hot-rodding to get the 47SAXL to focus at infinity as the Travelwide body is too long. Nothing's impossible, though.

Isn't the Travelwide designed around the 90 Angulon?

[Corran]

None of the above. I examine E6 transparencies with a 12x magnifier.

And how is that relevant to the final output?
I really would like to know why hyperfocal focus calculations don't apply to you.

[Steve Goldstein]

Isn't the Travelwide designed around the 90 Angulon?

There are two Travelwide versions. The one with the focusing collar is indeed designed around the 90mm Angulon, although many other 90s will work as well according to Ben's posts.

The other version, which replaces the focusing collar assembly with a flat plate, is designed for the 65mm f/8 Super-Angulon. I'm going to try it with a different 65mm lens I have (after enlarging the hole to Copal 0 size), although this will probably take some shims or other minor mods. I suspect setting it up for the hyperfocal distance will produce adequate sharpness for my needs ;)

[Dan Fromm]

And how is that relevant to the final output?
I really would like to know why hyperfocal focus calculations don't apply to you.

What ain't in the tranny won't be in the final print.

The law is the law but the results of hyperfocal calculations depend on the assumed diameter of the circle of confusion. You can calculate whatever DoF you want by putting in the right CoC. FWIW, I've always found the DoF scales on my lenses in focusing mounts to be quite optimistic.

[Corran]

I agree with you there. I've had issues with the DOF scale on my Voigtlander 21mm RF lens being way too optimistic. But I'm not talking about DoF scales.

However, "what ain't in the tranny won't be in the final print" is not quite the whole story, wouldn't you agree? If you printed a 4x5 to 8x10, even the most conservative CoC would cover you fine. 12x loupe assume an enlargement of 12x, or roughly 60x48. Are you printing this size (or the equivalent size depending on your cropping)? If not, looking at the image at 12x is a pointless exercise in measurebating. If that's your thing, fine, but in the real world and with real photographs, hyperfocal focusing is pretty easy to do with a 47mm lens (or wider) even if shooting a roll back.

[rdenney]

I don't think anyone will be using a fixed-focus 65mm Travelwide for the gigantic enlargements suggested by using a 12x loupe on a transparency. I'm not selling my Sinar when the Travelwide arrives. But there are lots of applications for the 65mm version, where the mix of comprises are acceptable.

Rick "thinking the shims for the 65 will require some experimentation to find the best compromise" Denney

[dave_whatever]

As far as I recall from this thread the 65mm version is going to be built to infinity focus, with shims to fine tune the focus closer. So for distant subjects, or at least nothing closer than say 6m from the camera, at f/22, on a tripod, straight out of the box you should be able to get critical sharpness.

[jb7]

Of course the camera will be usable with fixed focus- but 6 meters is a long way away on a super wide angle. If the foreground defines the picture, then it may be necessary to let the background go slightly softer. Either that, or decide not to take the picture at all.

Many people here express their distain for extreme wide angle photography anyway, to say nothing of the near/far compositions the angle of view lends it to, but I'll risk posting an illustration -

I took this on my own point and shoot, which does have helical focusing- and it was focused down to just over a foot- and stopped down all the way. The closest detail is less than a foot away.

I would argue that control over focus is necessary in order to have the broadest range of photographic options-



https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7216/7304024878_6e106d6141_b.jpg


http://flic.kr/p/c8r38q

[Corran]

I would argue that control over focus is necessary in order to have the broadest range of photographic options-

Absolutely.

[dave_whatever]

Absolutely.

Agreed, but this is not a camera about having total control, its about relinquishing a lot of control to gain portability and speed.

[Tim Meisburger]

I disagree. A lack of control over focus would give a greater range of images. For example, if you could attach a automatic randomiser controller to your focus knob, you could conceivably have an infinite number of variations of the same image, whereas if you controlled focus every image would have something in focus. While that could still be a large number of images of the same scene, it would not be as many as if you included the set of images where nothing would be in focus.

Perhaps our next Kickstarter?

[Dan Fromm]

I disagree. A lack of control over focus would give a greater range of images. For example, if you could attach a automatic randomiser controller to your focus knob, you could conceivably have an infinite number of variations of the same image, whereas if you controlled focus every image would have something in focus. While that could still be a large number of images of the same scene, it would not be as many as if you included the set of images where nothing would be in focus.

Perhaps our next Kickstarter?

Auto-fuzz? Blur-a-la-mode? What you see won't be what you get?

[mdarnton]

I believe the Travel wide comes with a pinhole, to keep those who believe that focus is optional happy?

[EdSawyer]

The best camera for a 47XL is something like a cambo wide, that's what I use for mine.

[Weihan]

The best camera for a 47XL is something like a cambo wide, that's what I use for mine.I'd thought of that too, but are they still being made?

[Kuzano]

I'd thought of that too, but are they still being made?

Well there are 7 listed currently on eBay, and 5 of them are listed as new? Other questions?

[Kuzano]

You may want to look at Cambo.com. They were most recently sold third party through Calumet, so may depend also on inventory from close of Calumet. Seems like I recall that Badger Camera also listed them for sale.

[EdSawyer]

The cambo wide ds is the more recent version that can handle 4x5, but I use the older, original camo wide.

[Drew Bedo]

Has anybody gotten a camera yet?

[plywood]

Has anybody gotten a camera yet?

Don't think so. Not even an update for almost 4 weeks. They report in the last update they were still having problems on the 90 helical. As usual any other questions posted to them on Kickstarter comments are ignored or perhaps they no longer check the comments section to see if any new questions have been posted either on the update comments or main page comments. Before they ship these out they have said they will conduct an e-mail survey to confirm shipping address and ask if you want the extra parts to configure the camera to either the 65 or 90. I wish them a speedy resolution to the problems they encounter and of course I am eager to receive my camera. I just wish that they would be more responsive to reasonable questions and concerns of the backers. But I suppose they are as frustrated and tired of the delays as the rest of us.

[jackies]

This is from their facebook page on Sept 6, 2014


"The word we got front the manufacturer about the new ground glass samples is that they should be shipping Tues 9th or Wed 10th. They were delayed "due to a widespread power outage" the other week. Because of this they had an extended holiday break. It pushed ALL production back for ALL their clients. I will let you know how the samples look once I have them. We are still working on the helical. More info as we have it."

I can't wait to get mine. I have 2 photo trips planned and wanted to use them as another camera. Better made correctly, than with unresolvable issues.
J

[Light Guru]

This is from their facebook page on Sept 6, 2014

Why are they putting out updates on Facebook and not via kickstarter?

This shows a lack of caring and respect for those who actually made the project possible.

When you post an update on kickstarter it is pushed out to all those who backed the project. When you post it elsewhere most backers don't get them.

[mdarnton]

Care and respect can add 20% or more to a price. I'll settle for getting the camera, eventually, when it's right.

[Light Guru]

Care and respect can add 20% or more to a price. I'll settle for getting the camera, eventually, when it's right.

You've already payed for it so you don't have to worry about it adding to the price.

I never said they should ship the camera before it's ready.

Communicating with the people who have already given money to make the thing possible is a basic thing that they should do.

[mdarnton]

I worked at a place that was publishing a really epic book that cost about as much as this camera. It was grossly underpriced compared with other things in the same market, and was something that had never been done before, that people were really interested in, like the camera. They ran three years over on delivery. The person who handled the phone got so sick of fielding ugly calls from people who for the most part probably had six figure incomes getting mean about their $135, like they might have preferred to spend that money on a bottle of wine today rather than an epic book that was running late, and she got pretty nasty "You're tired of waiting? So are we, and we're tired of calls, too. You want me to cut you a check right now, or do you want the book? Well?" NO one ever wanted the refund, they just wanted to be good Americans and complain about something. Me, I think there's enough complaining in the world, and wish we could just put ALL complainers in a big pit and cover it over with mud. It would be a LOT better world.

People whose lives are so tight that they consider $150 a life or death thing that's ruining the smoothness of their life probably should have spent the money on food instead of a toy camera, don't you think?

[Regular Rod]

i worked at a place that was publishing a really epic book that cost about as much as this camera. It was grossly underpriced compared with other things in the same market, and was something that had never been done before, that people were really interested in, like the camera. They ran three years over on delivery. The person who handled the phone got so sick of fielding ugly calls from people who for the most part probably had six figure incomes getting mean about their $135, like they might have preferred to spend that money on a bottle of wine today rather than an epic book that was running late, and she got pretty nasty "you're tired of waiting? So are we, and we're tired of calls, too. You want me to cut you a check right now, or do you want the book? Well?" no one ever wanted the refund, they just wanted to be good americans and complain about something. Me, i think there's enough complaining in the world, and wish we could just put all complainers in a big pit and cover it over with mud. It would be a lot better world.

People whose lives are so tight that they consider $150 a life or death thing that's ruining the smoothness of their life probably should have spent the money on food instead of a toy camera, don't you think?

Nice one!
:)
RR

[Tin Can]

Yep, says it all.

+1

[Richard Johnson]

I worked at a place that was publishing a really epic book that cost about as much as this camera. It was grossly underpriced compared with other things in the same market, and was something that had never been done before, that people were really interested in, like the camera. They ran three years over on delivery. The person who handled the phone got so sick of fielding ugly calls from people who for the most part probably had six figure incomes getting mean about their $135, like they might have preferred to spend that money on a bottle of wine today rather than an epic book that was running late, and she got pretty nasty "You're tired of waiting? So are we, and we're tired of calls, too. You want me to cut you a check right now, or do you want the book? Well?" NO one ever wanted the refund, they just wanted to be good Americans and complain about something. Me, I think there's enough complaining in the world, and wish we could just put ALL complainers in a big pit and cover it over with mud. It would be a LOT better world.

People whose lives are so tight that they consider $150 a life or death thing that's ruining the smoothness of their life probably should have spent the money on food instead of a toy camera, don't you think?

Flames are tickling my tootsies!

[mdarnton]

Well, people have two choices: if they think they are getting ripped off, they should call the police. Alternately, if not, they should shut up. Tired of the whining, myself.

[Tin Can]

Actually, I think a Kickstarter is just a donation with no guarantee of anything.

No Police will come.

I am not worried.

[AuditorOne]

Ahh, but perhaps you misunderstand.

Most people with 6 figure incomes didn't get there based on patience. :0

The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Ya gotta give em some slack. They are just being squeaky. Always seemed to work before. :)

[Kirk Gittings]

I would rather have the camera sooner than later, but most important is having it done right. With these kind of kickstarter projects, done by people with no manufacturing experience, I expected delays IF they were truly going to deliver a quality final product. I think they have handled this well myself and I trust them because of the dedication to detail they have demonstrated which has resulted in the delays.

[plywood]

Well, people have two choices: if they think they are getting ripped off, they should call the police. Alternately, if not, they should shut up. Tired of the whining, myself.

Actually most of the backers are not whining at all. They are asking reasonable questions that go unaswered. Such as;

For the DIY crowd, can we, for a reasonable charge, purchase the non workable focus ring when the final successful focus ring arrives?
And again, for the DIY crowd. Can we buy the metal pinhole disc that would that was not usable?
And finally, how's things going, any good news?

They have already paid for these unusable parts, probably out of their own pocket. I would think they would like to have the chance to recover some of the money instead of just scrap them out.
And Zak Bakers question is not unreasonable. Not all of the backers subscribe to Facebook. I do not. They look for news about progress on the project on the comments section of the Kickstarter site. Tell me, do you think that is unreasonable?

[Oren Grad]

Not all of the backers subscribe to Facebook.

You don't need to "subscribe" to Facebook. Their page is open for anyone to view:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Wanderlust-Cameras/157815374260283

[plywood]

You don't need to "subscribe" to Facebook. Their page is open for anyone to view:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Wanderlust-Cameras/157815374260283

My confusion then. Perhaps it is just my form of logic. To me the logical place to look for news about continuing developments for the Travelwide would naturally be on the Kickstarter page for them, either in the updates or in the comments section. Kind of like having one clearing house for all information related to the project.
Does that make sense?

PS; I'm also one of the DIY backers who is very interested in purchasing extra "failed" parts. I am amazed by the pinhole samples they have put up and since they apparently have 1500 of these unusable pinhole discs already shipped and paid for I'd sure be interested in about 5 of them for DIY projects. I'd also like to buy the focus ring that would not work in high temps. Around my part of the country we have about 8 or 9 months of cool weather and it might provide a more precise fit under those conditions. It looks like the rings would not be hard to switch out and change back if needed. I would of course expect an extra charge for these items and would be happy to pay for them.

[Richard Johnson]

I agree that they probably should commit to a weekly update that gets feed to their social media. Even if it's "work is progressing" it's good to do.

They probably aren't trying to sell low-cost seconds yet because fulfilling those orders could be a large job in itself, tracking, packaging, shipping, handling irate customers and various problems that arise over a $5 item. Better for them to finish what they've got.

[plywood]

I agree that they probably should commit to a weekly update that gets feed to their social media. Even if it's "work is progressing" it's good to do.

They probably aren't trying to sell low-cost seconds yet because fulfilling those orders could be a large job in itself, tracking, packaging, shipping, handling irate customers and various problems that arise over a $5 item. Better for them to finish what they've got.

My original idea was that, when the cameras were ready to ship and they sent out the address survey, they could also include a check off list for extra cost parts along with paypal info. Then a backer would just remit the additional amount. It could be though, that Kickstarter rules do not allow this sort of arrangement. As I understand it they have dipped deeply into their own pockets to address these unforeseen problems. I for one would be willing to help defray some of these extra expenses.

[Oren Grad]

My confusion then. Perhaps it is just my form of logic. To me the logical place to look for news about continuing developments for the Travelwide would naturally be on the Kickstarter page for them, either in the updates or in the comments section. Kind of like having one clearing house for all information related to the project.
Does that make sense?

Sure. FWIW, Bob Crowley is also using Facebook and his own Blogspot site, rather than Kickstarter, as the primary channels for updates on the New55 project. I think in an earlier post Ben said something about it being especially time-consuming to do a KS update.

As noted earlier in this thread, they do have a mailing list:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?86921-Wanderlust-4x5-P-amp-S&p=1147856&viewfull=1#post1147856

I haven't been on it, so I don't know how frequent the updates have been through that channel.

Also, I think Ben has, in effect, already acknowledged the idea of selling the odd parts:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?86921-Wanderlust-4x5-P-amp-S&p=1130718#post1130718

I imagine they'll get to it once the primary challenge of completing a properly-functioning camera is met.

[HMG]

I too think their updates should be on Kickstarter or their own blog (with a link on Kickstarter). But I won't ascribe any motivation to their decision. For some, Facebook is their "go to" source for information. But not me. I got an email update on August 18th; I don't consider that too far in the past.

Personally, I'm pleased that there's so much focus (no pun intended) on getting it right. I can wait.

[plywood]

[QUOTE=Oren Grad;1171326]Sure. FWIW, Bob Crowley is also using Facebook and his own Blogspot site, rather than Kickstarter, as the primary channels for updates on the New55 project. I think in an earlier post Ben said something about it being especially time-consuming to do a KS update.

Yes, I remember Ben did say that. I was thinking more of just a short post in the comments section of the KS site, especially to answer specific questions posted by backers. When Ben posts to the comments section it shows up on my computer in a blue background. Even if he could not provide an answer at that time it would be a courtesy to replay to that effect. Some questions by one backer could also be of general interest to many other backers.

Just a thought, not whining.

[Light Guru]

They look for news about progress on the project on the comments section of the Kickstarter site. Tell me, do you think that is unreasonable?

I'm not talking about the comments section I'm talking about the updates section. With as many comments as come KS projects get most backers only read a fraction of those comments. The comments section is not the place for updates the updates section is the place for updates.

For example I backed another project a whole back and the cheaters said in a comment that there were going to drop one of the two color options and only produce one color. They never sent out an update. When they shipped the product a lot of people were mad because they were never informed that the color they chose was never produced.

When a project creator puts an update on kickstarter the update is emailed to all the backers. When a project creator uses another method for updating people then most backers will never see it.

[rdenney]

Flames are tickling my tootsies!

It is a chilly night. My toes need warming.

Rick "who has waited a lot longer for things that were supposedly already in production" Denney

[plywood]

Well well, now more than five weeks since the last update. That could be good news (they have solved the focus ring problem and want to surprise us with the news that they now have a ship date) or bad news (They have to redesign the whole helical to work with the material available and that's another 3 or 4 months prototyping and testing). I hope it is the first reason.

[Tin Can]

I truly wish we would all stop thinking about and posting about THE CAMERA.

It will either come one day or not, nothing we say or do here will speed or change the process.

It is the hands of the creators.

I really don't want to hear constant complaints.

PLEASE!

[Roger Thoms]

Complaining about the complainers. :D

Roger

[Tin Can]

and u?


Complaining about the complainers. :D

Roger

[Jim Cole]

I don't know why simple curiosity is considered complaining.

[plywood]

Randy,
Sorry you are being annoyed, perhaps it's best if you ignored all future posting to this thread. As you pointed out the postings won't make any difference if or when the camera arrives and I believe that.

That said, even Ben acknowledged in July that, due to the lateness of the project, it would be a good idea to inform the gang more frequently on whats happening (or even not happening if it comes to that) I believe in this project. That is why I pledged. I wish Ben and Justin all success.

And finally, even if, for some reason it failed and the camera is never delivered. I'd still like to know that and would be quite prepared "write off" the money, and move on.

[Ben Syverson]

We'll have an update soon—in short, we're having to make a relatively large change to the focus collar, and it doesn't match up with what the difference "should" be. But we can and will get it resolved shortly.

I agree that we need to get better at responding to emails, KS comments and posting updates. It's probably 10-20 hours a week we just don't realistically have. So we're doing our best, but I'm sorry it's so sporadic.

It's been particularly hard for me to handle comments like "just ship what you have!" It really would be like shipping a computer that was 100% functional but the power cable was too short to supply power. "Close" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, as they say.

[Light Guru]

I agree that we need to get better at responding to emails, KS comments and posting updates. It's probably 10-20 hours a week we just don't realistically have. So we're doing our best, but I'm sorry it's so sporadic.

It does NOT take 10-20 hours to write a weekly update. If you update often then there would be little to update each time and it would probably only take 10-15 min a week. I bet you would also find that the number of questions you are asked would drop dramatically if you would be consistent about communicating.

And by weekly updates I mean putting out an update on kickstarter. Making comments elsewhere (like here or facebook) is NOT an update because it does NOT get pushed out via email to ALL the backers.

[plywood]

Ben, I apologize. It is I who has been the pest wanting you to sell me some of those unused pin hole discs. Those samples you posted of what the pinwide lens cap could accomplish were, at least to me, amazing. It is also I who want to buy the failed focus collar when the 90 is finally sorted out and ready to ship. Two reasons for that. (1)The original focus collar and helical would probably work fine here in Olympia 9 months out of the year and (2) I'd like to help defray a bit of the unexpected expense incurred developing this camera for us. (I'm a cool weather person anyway, if it gets over 80F I shut down.)

PS; Did you guys order the full 1500 pieces of the focusing screen that turned out not to be right? If so I'd like to buy 2 of those too when you have the 90 ready to ship. They might not be ideal, but I'll bet they are a lot better than my set up, a piece of plexiglass with frosted Scotch tape on it.

[Roger Thoms]

and u?

Hey Randy, hope I didn't offend you, just my attempt at a little humor. I'm actually agree with you, and also get tired of some of the complaints.

Roger

[Tin Can]

Roger, we are always good.

I just spent the last hour controlling myself.

I can get outspoken.



Hey Randy, hope I didn't offend you, just my attempt at a little humor. I'm actually agree with you, and also get tired of some of the complaints.

Roger

[rfesk]

Ben, Hang in there! I am patient! I know you are doing your best. You won't hear any complaints from me.

[Regular Rod]

ben, hang in there! I am patient! I know you are doing your best. You won't hear any complaints from me.

+1
rr

[Scott Knowles]

I'm curioius. I subscribed to their e-mail list assuming it would be where they keep people informed about the status and when the latest production run would be available to buy, and now, reading the posts here, I learned they're using other outlets for news and updates. Sending a blanket e-mail newsletter isn't that hard once you have the list, which I assume they have, it's write once (edit of course), send all. My question now is exactly how do they plan to ensure all who want to buy the camera will have a chance if they're not keeping everyone informed when it's available?

I'm not complaining, I'm interested in the camera to buy one, but I'm wondering why they have so many outlets for their information when they have a Website for that they're not using and which says to subscribe to the e-mail list for updates and information when the camera will be available.

[Light Guru]

I'm curioius. I subscribed to their e-mail list assuming it would be where they keep people informed about the status and when the latest production run would be available to buy, and now, reading the posts here, I learned they're using other outlets for news and updates. Sending a blanket e-mail newsletter isn't that hard once you have the list, which I assume they have, it's write once (edit of course), send all. My question now is exactly how do they plan to ensure all who want to buy the camera will have a chance if they're not keeping everyone informed when it's available?

I'm not complaining, I'm interested in the camera to buy one, but I'm wondering why they have so many outlets for their information when they have a Website for that they're not using and which says to subscribe to the e-mail list for updates and information when the camera will be available.

At is point a email list should come second to putting out updated on kickstarter. But as it is they occasionally make a comment on here or in the comments section of kickstarter and apparently on facebook and assume that all the backers are checking all those places religiously. The proper thing to do is to put a actual update on kickstarter because that is pushed out to all the backers. If they want to copy and past that update to other places that's fine but the kickstarter update should be the priority.

They complain that it takes so long to write an update but I don't believe that. It takes minutes to write we are still waiting on these parts and we have to make changes A, B and C and then have those parts redone. And we estimate X amount of time till we start shipping. We don't need a big essay just regular simple updates, even of the update says we are still struggling with the issues mentioned in the last update.

[Scott Knowles]

Their kickstarter Website is over a year old and they achieved their goal, so their kickstarter campaign should be done and they should be moving on to their Website and other sources. They're not starting another kickstarter campaign, but they're now in the business of selling the second production run of the camera. That's not a kickstarter effort but a business effort. But either way it doesn't change the fact they've haven't keep users through their Website updated where they should be focused now after creating it. What they're asking is potential buyers to find them and updates than they keep track buyers. If they can't do the updates, hire someone.

[Light Guru]

Their kickstarter Website is over a year old and they achieved their goal, so their kickstarter campaign should be done and they should be moving on to their Website and other sources. They're not starting another kickstarter campaign, but they're now in the business of selling the second production run of the camera. That's not a kickstarter effort but a business effort. But either way it doesn't change the fact they've haven't keep users through their Website updated where they should be focused now after creating it. What they're asking is potential buyers to find them and updates than they keep track buyers. If they can't do the updates, hire someone.

LOL nope, you apparently don't understand that they have not yet delivered the kickstarter cameras. They have not made a second production run because they haven't even completed the first production run.

[plywood]

LOL nope, you apparently don't understand that they have not yet delivered the kickstarter cameras. They have not made a second production run because they haven't even completed the first production run.

Their first production run is 1500 units, most of them will be used to fill backer orders. This leaves them with 300 extra cameras. They have already pre-sold those in April and May this year so those folks are waiting also. After all commitments are filled if they have enough interest then they would run another batch. I asked Ben how many cameras have to be run to amortize the cost and he said 500 cameras. So, it would seem they would have to have firm orders, with deposits at least, for another 500 cameras to be able to run another batch of cameras.

I doubt very much they would take the chance to order 500 more cameras and hope they can recover their money in sales. As it stands I don't see how they can ever break even on cost for this whole project even though the 300 extra cameras sold for 1.5X the initial offer. This was definitely a passion project and not a business venture.

[Drew Bedo]

Another interested one here. Even more interest if it could have the option to use multiple lenses, like the suggested 65 mm.

If its a one lens only deal, I would still be interested, but the price would have to be right for me to buy. I have a friend that made a 5x7 P&S out of a cake pan.

What about a Graflok back and a cigar box?

[Tin Can]

Cigar boxes are too expensive, Cheero's very common...


What about a Graflok back and a cigar box?

[jbenedict]

What about a Graflok back and a cigar box?

There's an idea. I'd rather a 5x7, though. A little easier over all. Could make acceptable sized prints by contact. A 165 Angulon would be the trick.

[Oren Grad]

Check your email, folks - there's a new update through the Kickstarter mailing list.

[mdarnton]

Great if you're on that list, but as a later buyer I don't get squat. How about telling instead of teasing?

[Roger Thoms]

Yes, got the email update. Looks like they are getting closer. Good news.

Roger

[Kirk Gittings]

hmmm I didn't get it either-not in my spam file either.

[AuditorOne]

Thanks Oren.

[pierre506]

Got the mail.
Eager to get them~

[Kirk Gittings]

Oops, found it.

[Tim Meisburger]

Essentially it says there was a difference in size between the prototype helical and the delivered helical that still needs to be worked out, possibly re-manufactured. That seems to have been the reason for the sticking helical, not warm weather as they originally thought.

The frosted plastic is still not perfect, but they will ship with what they have when they get the helical sorted. I would guess we are still months rather than weeks away, but they do have everything else stacked up in their studio, so when they get this sorted they can ship.

No worries!

[Andrew O'Neill]

The frosted plastic is still not perfect, but they will ship with what they have when they get the helical sorted.

And when they have the screen's texture worked out, they'll send it to us at no cost. Still have fingers crossed that I'll get one before I leave for Japan in December!!

[rfesk]

Ben, is correct as to the focus screen. I plan to use the focus screen to set the focus and then put it away. In fact I don't even need it, in my case, and can use the ground glass assembly from a Crown Graphic.

[mdarnton]

Thanks Tim, Andrew.

[Oren Grad]

And when they have the screen's texture worked out, they'll send it to us at no cost.

Cost of postage, actually. But still, they'll be eating the cost of the extra screen itself.

[Ben Syverson]

Cost of postage, actually. But still, they'll be eating the cost of the extra screen itself.

Exactly. Unfortunately, the postage is too much for us to take on at the moment. About half of our backers are international, so it brings up the average shipping cost. Once you multiply that average by 1500, it gets to be a large number.

We could wait until the GG texture is perfect, but I don't want to test the patience of 1500 people for much longer. The LFF community and most of the folks on Kickstarter have been exceptionally kind and understanding, but we've already had people initiate chargebacks (sigh) and threaten legal action.

To be honest, Justin and I can't take much more delay either—we're both incredibly stressed out. The anxiety often keeps me up at night, and I'm sure Justin could say the same. The only light at the end of the tunnel is that very soon, these cameras will be out of our studio and out in the world, making amazing images. That will be the single most rewarding part of this project, and the entire reason we committed ourselves to it.

[Tin Can]

Thanks Ben!

I bet you are stressed.

Lawsuits, damn those people for eternity.




Exactly. Unfortunately, the postage is too much for us to take on at the moment. About half of our backers are international, so it brings up the average shipping cost. Once you multiply that average by 1500, it gets to be a large number.

We could wait until the GG texture is perfect, but I don't want to test the patience of 1500 people for much longer. The LFF community and most of the folks on Kickstarter have been exceptionally kind and understanding, but we've already had people initiate chargebacks (sigh) and threaten legal action.

To be honest, Justin and I can't take much more delay either—we're both incredibly stressed out. The anxiety often keeps me up at night, and I'm sure Justin could say the same. The only light at the end of the tunnel is that very soon, these cameras will be out of our studio and out in the world, making amazing images. That will be the single most rewarding part of this project, and the entire reason we committed ourselves to it.

[Jim Cole]

Amazing! Lawsuits over a $99 item that KickStarter stresses has no guarantee of delivery after you invest. What the hell is wrong with people these days? What lawyer will even take this case?

[Ben Syverson]

Amazing! Lawsuits over a $99 item that KickStarter stresses has no guarantee of delivery after you invest. What the hell is wrong with people these days? What lawyer will even take this case?

Exactly. And those types of emails take a psychic toll even if we know they're not really going to hire a lawyer to recoup $99. It's just not a pleasant feeling to know you've made someone that upset.

[Peter De Smidt]

Outrageous! I've been thinking about doing a Kickstarter campaign for either dslr scanner plans or a kit, but there is no way I'm going to do that if there's a threat of lawsuits. Ben, you've done a terrific job, and soon you'll start seeing the great things people do with your camera. Hopefully, that'll make it all worth while!

[Ben Syverson]

I think Kickstarter makes sense for two types of projects:

1) You have a product ready to go, and all you need is the money to produce it. e.g. A book which is done, already test-printed via Blurb or Lulu, and ready for offset.

2) You're doing a small project with an unknown outcome, but over which you have complete control over production, and very fixed costs. e.g. A singer-songwriter wants to make a new album.

If you're outside of #1 or #2, don't Kickstart it!

We thought we were in category 1, given that we had (in our minds) injection-friendly 3D CAD parts which we had verified by 3D printing, and a production partner who said "no geometry restrictions."

In reality, we were further from "ready to go" than we realized. We had some "known unknowns" and plenty of "unknown unknowns," as Donald Rumsfeld might put it.

[Kirk Gittings]

Frankly nothing has happened with this project in general terms that I did not pretty much expect. I'll be happy with the product when you guys are happy with the product I suspect. I don't want it any sooner.

[Andrew O'Neill]

What a learning experience, hey Ben? The majority of us backers are and have been behind you 100%. No worries.

[plywood]

Ben, it may be that the requirements for the screens, fine focus and brightness across the entire field are at cross purposes. Optimizing one makes getting the other right harder. Personally, since the primary reason for the screen is to set up infinity on your lens I would consider the other screen, optimized for full field viewing as an extra cost item and would be more than willing to pay for it.
As to stress, boy howdy, wish I could help......Oh yeah, I can help, I'll try to be less of the pest who always writes wanting you to sell me extra parts.

[HMG]

Exactly. And those types of emails take a psychic toll even if we know they're not really going to hire a lawyer to recoup $99. It's just not a pleasant feeling to know you've made someone that upset.

If you try to avoid the jerks all your life you'll never get anywhere. From what I've seen on these pages and on APUG, 99.9% are supportive.

Now, think how much easier it will be when you do the 5x7 version. :)

[Ben Syverson]

Ben, it may be that the requirements for the screens, fine focus and brightness across the entire field are at cross purposes.

They definitely are. It's basically a three-way trade off of resolution, brightness and evenness. It has to do with the size and depth of the grain. As you get to finer matte textures, the brightness drops off a cliff, but the evenness and resolution increases. A rougher or more shallow texture will be far brighter, with a pronounced hotspot and more of an apparent texture to the aerial image.

The swatch that we're trying to match for the general purpose screen is a great compromise. It's darker than the screens we have, but it has good evenness and great resolution. To get that match perfect, we may need to send the mold to MoldTech and do a more expensive etching.

We will definitely have extra parts available! We've been preoccupied, but after we ship, we hope to have a section of the site with "seconds" and DIY parts.

[rfesk]

The three-way trade off of resolution, brightness and evenness is the reason Fresnel lenses were invented. You may be trying for the next to impossible.

[Tim Meisburger]

Good on ya mate!

I've actually been incredibly pleased with this project so far. For $99 I've got an inside view of a manufacturing process from conception through (almost) completion. I used to build stuff for a living, so am familiar with that struggle to cross the finish line. These days, when manufacturing has pretty much died in the US, and guys are no longer out in the driveway fixing cars or welding together the latest bright idea, I think few people get to experience that. But I can tell you when you do finish, you will have an incredible feeling of satisfaction and pride that will stay with you forever!

Best, Tim

[Tin Can]

Tim, I wanted to click, 'like'.

[AuditorOne]

Tim, I wanted to click, 'like'.

+1000

[Nigel Smith]

I recently did a family road trip and decided to take my 4x5 instead of my Mamiya 645 as my film camera (had dSLR & p&s too).

There were several times when I thought, "gee that Travelwide would have been good to have now!"

Next year hopefully, or else I'll be taking the Mamiya as well!

Good luck getting these out the door Ben!

[Scott Knowles]

Thanks for the information. I don't understand why not add another 500 cameras if they have already sold the first 1,500 and have interest from many others. How else will they recoup their investment if they don't sell more cameras, whether or not they get pre-orders for all 500. They'll have them to sell as more people discover the camera than to tell them they've sold out and won't make any more to recoup their investment? It just seems a little strange if they don't make more only to say, "If we had, we could have made it work, but we didn't."

[Scott Knowles]

Apparently not everyone on the kickstarter mailing list got an update. I registered and haven't heard a peep of news, but then I'm not one of the original investors.

[mdarnton]

Those of us who weren't in the first wave are SOL on these updates, which is why I get irritated when people say there is one, allude to it, and then don't say what it is. And that's aside from the other 30,000 or so people on this very public forum who probably would like to know what the latest news is even though they're not getting the camera, and they don't deserve that same tease, either.

[Ben Syverson]

Thanks for the information. I don't understand why not add another 500 cameras if they have already sold the first 1,500 and have interest from many others. How else will they recoup their investment if they don't sell more cameras, whether or not they get pre-orders for all 500. They'll have them to sell as more people discover the camera than to tell them they've sold out and won't make any more to recoup their investment? It just seems a little strange if they don't make more only to say, "If we had, we could have made it work, but we didn't."
We don't want to pre-sell any more cameras until the first batch has shipped.

We will absolutely do a second production run, but it's going to be more than enough work for us to assemble and ship 1500.

To the people who want updates but didn't back us on Kickstarter or preorder the camera: we will have a summarized update going out to the newsletter soon, but our priority was to update our customers first. The level of technical detail in our last update seemed like overkill for our newsletter subscribers, most of whom just want to know when the second batch will be available. Stay tuned!

[hoffner]

Exactly. And those types of emails take a psychic toll even if we know they're not really going to hire a lawyer to recoup $99. It's just not a pleasant feeling to know you've made someone that upset.

It seems to me (who has no horse in this race) that you have probably misjudged the reaction and the frustration (so often expressed in this thread) of many people at your lack of communication. Some of the people just took their frustration with you to a new level of a reaction.

[plywood]

Thanks for the information. I don't understand why not add another 500 cameras if they have already sold the first 1,500 and have interest from many others. How else will they recoup their investment if they don't sell more cameras, whether or not they get pre-orders for all 500. They'll have them to sell as more people discover the camera than to tell them they've sold out and won't make any more to recoup their investment? It just seems a little strange if they don't make more only to say, "If we had, we could have made it work, but we didn't."

This is probably because of the up front cost of production. Yes, there is more interest than the original kickstarter backers plus the 300 extra units sold. But how much? Enough to sell 100....or 200...or perhaps even 300 units? At the $149 price? That is the big question. These cameras, especially the 90 have become much more complex to make than first thought and could be much more expensive to make, per unit, than projected in the initial kickstarter offer. If that is so, then if Ben and Justin commit to another 500 units without having firm, prepaid sales, they could find themselves sitting on $50K of inventory and only recovering 25K in sales.

At $99 the original Travelwide 90 was a real, don't even have to think hard about it, bargain. That is why 1026 backers signed up. At $149 folks will have to think a little harder before opening their wallet. Another factor to consider is that it is possible that with the 1500 units sold, 85% to 90% of global potential sales have been satisfied and although there is certainly continuing interest in the camera is is not enough to risk a further production run immediately.

Obviously Ben and Justin are intensely occupied now just getting the backers and pre sale cameras out. After that I sure they will take a long deep breath, unwind from this rather unnerving, ulcer inducing last 18 months, and then carefully evaluate the future market for their creation.

PS After running my mouth for this long post I realized Ben had already addressed the question.......like Emily Latella I have to say, "Never mind"

[hoffner]

This is probably because of the up front cost of production. Yes, there is more interest than the original kickstarter backers plus the 300 extra units sold. But how much? Enough to sell 100....or 200...or perhaps even 300 units?

Obviously Ben and Justin are intensely occupied now just getting the backers and pre sale cameras out. After that I sure they will take a long deep breath, unwind from this rather unnerving, ulcer inducing last 18 months, and then carefully evaluate the future market for their creation.

PS After running my mouth for this long post I realized Ben had already addressed the question.......like Emily Latella I have to say, "Never mind"

Are you sure or probably sure?

[plywood]

Are you sure or probably sure?

Ha! Got me!
However......there is always a however....
My musings are based on the original spec's for the 90 and the 65. They were supposed to be separate cameras with the 90 helical assembly glued to the body. However there was refinement of the design and now we will have a 'convertible camera' that, with all parts (and a screwdriver) can be switched between the two models. Pretty doggone neat I'd say! As for production cost per unit, I really have no idea. If Ben and Justin can make a tidy profit on their invention then I say more power to them.

They started out several years ago saying..."Hey! Wouldn't it be neat if someone made a light weight and compact, handheld 4X5 camera that didn't cost a month's rent?" Since no one was making such a camera they decided to try. After spending many dollars of their own money on 3D printed prototypes and film and processing they decided to launch a Kickstarter. Now Ben, aged 10 years by his experience, is at the threshold of making a light weight, compact 4X5 camera that, even at $149, does not cost a months rent.

[plywood]

Scott Knowles;
I'm in Olympia. If you want to get a look at the camera then when it arrives I'll drop you an e-mail and can arrange to buzz up to Gig Harbor and meet at a coffee shop. You'll get a chance to actually see one.

John (plywood) Robison

[Ben Syverson]

Guys, I just posted an update to our newsletter (http://eepurl.com/5Nkyn). If you haven't signed up (http://eepurl.com/LdRdr), now is a good time—I'll be posting weekly again until this camera is out there.

Just for you guys, here's an extra massive close up of that texture difference...

http://bensyverson.com/images/2014/10/texture.jpg

[WayneStevenson]

Any updates?

[Kuzano]

Any updates?

Ben has been making an effort to update weekly. There have been weekly updates from him through the Kickstarter update link we are all getting posts from. If you are not one of the kickstarter donors, you may not be in the loop, but this thread is not being updated regularly. You may want to look up the kickstarter link, or go to the Wanderlust, or travelwide.com site.

There was a kickstarter update by Ben just a few days ago. I don't think you'll catch much here.

[plywood]

I would think Ben would be eager to post any good news. Probably waiting for a firm commitment from their mold shop on when and how they will run new focusing collars that fit and work. Although it seem clear that their mold shop is responsible for the off spec parts if there is a dispute over who should pay for this rework then the project could be unfortunately be set back quite a few months.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've resigned myself to the fact that I won't be taking one with me to Japan in late December. Oh well...

[WayneStevenson]

I get the Kickstarter updates. Last one was October 28. Hoping there was some update on either the helical or focusing screen issues.

[Light Guru]

I get the Kickstarter updates. Last one was October 28. Hoping there was some update on either the helical or focusing screen issues.

If there were the update would be posted on the kickstarter page.

[rfesk]

I believe they are trying to resolve a conflict as to who is responsible for paying for correcting the bad helical - the manufacturer or themselves. Hope it get resolved soon.

[WayneStevenson]

I understood there to be two issues. An issue on the helical, and then the issue on the focus screen where the manufacturer believes it to be a match to the sample, and Wanderlust believing it not to be.

[rdenney]

I understood there to be two issues. An issue on the helical, and then the issue on the focus screen where the manufacturer believes it to be a match to the sample, and Wanderlust believing it not to be.

Ben has said they will not delay shipment because of the focus screen.

The only holdup (though it's a big one) is the helical.

Rick "suspecting that Ben is more unhappy than any of us about this" Denney

[Tin Can]

Ben has said they will not delay shipment because of the focus screen.

The only holdup (though it's a big one) is the helical.

Rick "suspecting that Ben is more unhappy than any of us about this" Denney

Exactly. :(

I sense his pain.

[mdarnton]

I wonder if they thought they had some profit built into this project. I bet there's not much of that left.

[Jim Cole]

I think that number is negative now.

[plywood]

Ben, you and Justin had a great idea and have poured your hearts into it. Sounds like from the comments here most all your backers are behind you and are in for the journey, no matter the distance, I know that I certainly feel that way. Although I lived in Chicago in the 70's likely as not I'll never get back there... but if I could I'd buy you guys a beer and lunch in a heartbeat. We all know you have and are working hard for us.

[Ben Syverson]

I wonder if they thought they had some profit built into this project. I bet there's not much of that left.
So far, it's cost me and Justin about $30,000... But it will certainly go up.

[WayneStevenson]

I wonder if they thought they had some profit built into this project. I bet there's not much of that left.

I wouldn't worry about that. Plenty of us backed them on this. They're going to be a bona-fide camera manufacturer once this hits the shelves. They'll have plenty of profits at the end of the day to get their Travelwide 8x10 onto the market, as well as their Travelwide 6x17 with tilting helical.

And it will go a lot easier than the 4x5. That's for sure.

[Light Guru]

I wouldn't worry about that. Plenty of us backed them on this. They're going to be a bona-fide camera manufacturer once this hits the shelves. They'll have plenty of profits at the end of the day to get their Travelwide 8x10 onto the market, as well as their Travelwide 6x17 with tilting helical.

And it will go a lot easier than the 4x5. That's for sure.

They already said In a previous update that they could not afford it if the manufacturer charged them to re run the part that won't fit.

This means they have already spent all the money that has been raised and it also means that they definitely have not been payed for all the time they have spent on the project.

This means they really have not made any profit at all. The definitely would not have enough proffer to start manufacturing new camera models.

You say they will have profits once this hits the shelves. To have enough product to stock shelves they would have to make another production run which they don't have the money to do.

[mdarnton]

1000 cameras, $30,000 overrun. I'm personally ready to send them my $30 share of the overrun cost, if others would, also, so that it meant something. I never got into it because I was going to get a cheap camera: I did it because I supported the concept and the idea that someone was willing to stick his/their necks out to accomplish it.

[Kirk Gittings]

Me too.

[Tin Can]

Me 3.

I also admire their willingness to try and try hard.

I bet many of us would KickStart a little more. I learned a lot about kickstarting with my Bastard Stopped Again (BSA) motorcycles.

After all once these hit the streets, they will cause a ripple effect and improve film and paper sales. Everybody needs a lens and I bet many waited. But I also bet many have here have 3 lenses to fit...

My new Raptor lens is a tiny jewel and it's waiting to eat.

[Andrew O'Neill]

But I also bet many have here have 3 lenses to fit...


Yup… and a pinhole!

[Oren Grad]

Me 4.

[Jim Cole]

Me 5.

[Roger Thoms]

I'd certainly kick in another 30 bucks.

Roger

[AuditorOne]

I would certainly add another $30 to this kitty. Tell me where and its' there.

[plywood]

I'd be willing also to pony up another $30. First off, the delivered product will be a convertible camera that can be configured for the 65 or 90 and that is better than the original specification.

The question I would have is how to handle it. I think it would have to be outside the regular Kickstarter program as they probably have rules that preclude collecting extra funds after the original funding period ends. I would be happy to kick in the extra $30 especially it they could include a sheet on Justin's pin hole technique for such amazing pin hole images.

[Kuzano]

Got the two updates today, and looked at the posts on this site.

When this all started, I jumped in. I was not aware of all the small extras, nor the ground glass. I thought that would be on me. I just did not pay attention. I just wanted two of the cameras and donated at that level.

Consequently, I would surely be willing to put some more money in the pot to compensate any shortfall. Let us know what may make this deal work for everybody, after you have exhausted any assistance from the production people. I'm sure even that point is a point of exhaustion. Anyway, I'm up for more support for my two camera's. I may also be in for some of the failed or unusable parts that are not part of my original anticipation. I am a considerable DIY and could make those parts work with other projects. Thanks for hearing me out, and let me know what more I can do.

[Tin Can]

Hopefully our Makers are listening.

I think we should not make any further demands for upgrades of any kind at this time. Even if it is a piece of paper.

We need some way to send them money without KS.

We could send gifts of cash with PayPal.

There is also Google Wallet.

Even checks or cash in the mail.

We will need an email address to do the first 2 and a mailing address for the last 2.

Finally we could keep this thread alive and kicking, meaning visible in the daily Forum thread updates, by simply acknowledging sent money with a simple YES, which fulfills the 3 character minimum limitation to any post.

YES?

[Regular Rod]

+ another $30 (11 or is it 12?)

RR

[munz6869]

I'd add AU$34.28 too!!

Marc!

[Tin Can]

We have a little better than 1% of us willing, maybe not enough to make a difference at this point.

Let's see where this goes.

[Andrew O'Neill]

What's another $30? er, $33.86 Cdn? It's still a lot of bang for buck.

[Tin Can]

I just sent Ben Syverson an email using the secret email to email system the forum has.

I wrote this.

Subject: Extra cash for project.

Message:
Some of us are willing to kick in some more cash, about $30 each, just because we are sad you are losing money. Perhaps you could set up a new gmail so we could send cash to a Wallet or PayPal account as gifts.

No strings attached and no extras wanted.

Think about it.

[rfesk]

Me 6

[Larry Kellogg]

Me 7. Because I got one of the super early bird specials at $49, I'll throw in another $50. I know it's not much, but hopefully all of us can help out.

I'll hold off on sending the wine. We don't want those guys too drunk to finish the project. ;-)

[WayneStevenson]

They already said In a previous update that they could not afford it if the manufacturer charged them to re run the part that won't fit.

This means they have already spent all the money that has been raised

Well, if $128,000 isn't going to get it done.......

But I don't think there's a need to worry. And there will be a few hundred units left over after everything has been shipped to take care of another run. Worst case, they have to do pre-orders. There's a huge lineup of people who missed out on the Kickstarter who want them to take their money.....

[Light Guru]

Well, if $128,000 isn't going to get it done.......

But I don't think there's a need to worry. And there will be a few hundred units left over after everything has been shipped to take care of another run. Worst case, they have to do pre-orders. There's a huge lineup of people who missed out on the Kickstarter who want them to take their money.....

I thought I remember hearing they already resold the extra ones to get money needed to complete the project. But I could be wrong on that.

Besides after all the difficulties they have had getting this thing made they may not want to make other sizes like you want. All the issues they have had with the manufacture would definitely sour me on wanting to try this again if I were them.

[Larry Kellogg]

Not speaking of anyone specifically, but it is easier to criticize than it is to create. I know how demoralizing it can be to work for nothing, or to work for a loss. Unless a person has deep pockets, losing ventures cannot be sustained, which is how it should be, I suppose. I don't think $128k is a lot of money for a manufacturing project, considering the difficulties that crop up.

None of us are going to be financially broken if the TravelWide does not ship, while the guys who are building it could wind up in a much worse situation. We only gambled $100, after all.

[Steve Pitchford]

Not speaking of anyone specifically, but it is easier to criticize than it is to create. I know how demoralizing it can be to work for nothing, or to work for a loss. Unless a person has deep pockets, losing ventures cannot be sustained, which is how it should be, I suppose. I don't think $128k is a lot of money for a manufacturing project, considering the difficulties that crop up.

None of us are going to be financially broken if the TravelWide does not ship, while the guys who are building it could wind up in a much worse situation. We only gambled $100, after all.

I agree, it would be too demoralizing for them to quit the project now. You don't go this far to give up but, sometimes you have to take a breath and decide your next move. I have faith they will make it to the end. Infact I never considered it a gamble but instead an investment, one that has taken a bit longer to mature.

Happy trails, and maybe a Merry Christmas,
SteveP

[mdm]

There is a small thing called reputation in business, with suppliers and customers. Maybe the next kickstarter won't be funded, or supplier turn down work. What is a good reputation worth?

[Larry Kellogg]

I guess we got off the topic. We had a thread going to try to raise some more money for them because they're $30k in the hole.

Can we keep pushing to try to make it better for them?

[Brian Puccio]

I guess we got off the topic. We had a thread going to try to raise some more money for them because they're $30k in the hole.

Can we keep pushing to try to make it better for them?

I haven't been on this forum in a while, I mentioned in a KS comment I'd be willing to kick in money.

I must be really out of the loop because I didn't see the "we're $30k over budget and it's coming out of our own funds" update. Ouch.

[Tin Can]

I sent Ben an email about this and mentioned it earlier in this thread.

We can't do much without a place to put the dough.

I sure don't want to handle it and most likely we should, if possible, make donations a direct deposit sort of thing without meddle men. (pun intended)

tap tap HELLO BEN!

[Ben Syverson]

I sent Ben an email about this and mentioned it earlier in this thread.

We can't do much without a place to put the dough.

I sure don't want to handle it and most likely we should, if possible, make donations a direct deposit sort of thing without meddle men. (pun intended)

tap tap HELLO BEN!

It has been an emotional roller coaster for the past few weeks, so seeing these messages was truly touching. I'm once again amazed at how supportive you all have been.

I talked to Justin about it last week, and we don't feel comfortable taking any more of anyone's money, until we ship these cameras. We already feel like we've stretched everyone's patience past the breaking point, and there's no one to blame but us.

To put the $30k comment in perspective—that was profit from our previous product, the Pinwide, which we would have otherwise split and kept. Because of the way an LLC works, the company doesn't have its own money. So it was ours, but we never thought twice about pouring it into the Travelwide.

Sometime in the next two weeks or so, Justin and I will drive out to Michigan and supervise a sample run, so we can finally dial in the helical. It's still an open question of how much they'll discount the first run of bad parts. Before I spend another $9,000 to run the helical, I need written assurances that they can hit a certain dimension within a specified tolerance. So that discussion will probably happen in person when we're there.

If they can't give us guarantees and/or a big enough credit for the bad parts, we can move the tools to a much cheaper shop in Wisconsin or Indiana, and just run the parts until we get it right.

Thanks again for the very kind gesture, everyone. We truly appreciate the sentiment, but we really can't take any more of your money!

[Tin Can]

That's that.

Thanks Ben, we are pulling for your group to succeed with this and anywhere your skills take you!

[rfesk]

Dear Ben, I am with you all the way. Sure will be glad to help if you make it possible!

[plywood]

Thanks again for the very kind gesture, everyone. We truly appreciate the sentiment, but we really can't take any more of your money!

Ok then, no donations....but I'll bet a lot of us would be interested in buying a few of those failed metal pinhole inserts. I know you are swamped right now but when you finish the project I'm first in line to buy 5 of them.

[mdarnton]

And I'd buy a focus helicoid for a DIY camera I want to make in 5x7.

[Winger]

Yeah, maybe you can do a spare parts store of all the pieces that didn't meet spec that you get stuck with.

Add me to the patient list, too. I know that when we get them, they'll be worth getting. Gives me more time to unfrak my developing process, too.

[Kuzano]

I also am an inveterate DIY person. I have been modding LF camera's for years. I have a couple of visions I am still in the midst of.

I am sure I will be interested in parts that I can tweak and work with... Quite a few in fact, when we know what the "didn't quite meet our specs" pile looks like.

Perhaps a fairly good list of parts that may end up on the floor would be in order. We may be able to clean up the shop... you know, be GREEN and not have those pieces end up in the land fill??

I'd be willing to consider buying some helicals, and some other pieces.

I did not catch that there were going to be ground glass viewing screens with the camera, so I have already modified a standard DDS Fidelity film holder and it works on my modified Super Graphic in the stock film slot. I know you won't proceed on this until you have it "right" per your specs, but I have a GG system ready to go. Also, as mentioned before, I anticipate being able to refill QuickLoad envelopes with any emulsion 4X5, but it's a finicky process and I doubt it's marketable in it's current form.

Thanks for all your efforts.

[Drew Bedo]

Parts?


I would like to use one of the wide-angle bodies without helical mount to use with a long focal length spotting scope. Eyepiece project will cover all (or enough) of the 4x5 format. The ida is to produce that long telephoto "stacking" perspective common to 35mm imaging—on 4x5 sheet film. The full moon setting behind a windmill for instance.

I would not need a helical, just a bracket or rail to hold the scope and camera body in alignment securely.

[Larry Kellogg]

Yeah, maybe you can do a spare parts store of all the pieces that didn't meet spec that you get stuck with.

Add me to the patient list, too. I know that when we get them, they'll be worth getting. Gives me more time to unfrak my developing process, too.

Speaking of unfraking the development process, I've been speaking to Jim Megargee of MVLabs (www.mvlabs.com), where I intern one day a week, about the TravelWide project. Jim is a great black and white printer and an excellent photography teacher. I suggested that we help people straighten out their development process. So, Jim said he would come up with a special price for developing film for people using the TravelWide camera. All of the film is developed by hand, and it would be possible to get densitometer readings too if people wanted to run tests.

Would people be interested in this kind of service?

[Brian Puccio]

Speaking of unfraking the development process, I've been speaking to Jim Megargee of MVLabs (www.mvlabs.com), where I intern one day a week, about the TravelWide project. Jim is a great black and white printer and an excellent photography teacher. I suggested that we help people straighten out their development process. So, Jim said he would come up with a special price for developing film for people using the TravelWide camera. All of the film is developed by hand, and it would be possible to get densitometer readings too if people wanted to run tests.

Would people be interested in this kind of service?

Uh, yes, but you already kinda know (of) me. :)