Taking the plunge into ULF ! Building my own...

[Jan Van Hove]

Hi everyone !

After taking my Busch-Pressman D out of the closet to shoot a few sheets of film, I'm hooked on large format again, and this time, it's bad... I'm seriously considering building my own 11x14 camera so I can shoot Ilfochrome and paper negs in-camera for a start into cheap ULF... Eventually i'll gather enough money to get me some film, but for now all I have is a box of 50 sheets of 11x14 ilfochrome paper that just begs to be used !

So, before I start in that wild endeavour I just wanted to ask a few questions, just to be sure that i'm thinking along the right lines, here...

First. I shoot mostly nudes and portraits, but I don't think that I am willing to go with the extra bulk of the extra-long bellows needed to shoot with a 700-800 mm portrait lens at 1:1 magnification... (you did know that 11x14 is the smallest format where you can fit a human head at 1:1 ?), so i'll settle for a shorter bellows, let's say enough for a normal (18") lens at 1:1 magnification, that's about 36" of bellows draw, or 900 mm that leaves the possibility of using longer focals at lower magnifications...

Second. For my main subjects, i don't really need back movements, the front movements on the other hand are critical to get all that nice sheiplung-thing going on, which should be useful with a 400 mm lens that has very narrow depth of field at 1:1...

Third, for a lens, I was thinking about starting with a process-type lens, a 260mm f10 APO-nikkor would do nicely... On the short side for portraits, I agree, but for environmental nudes, it would be perfect, i would just have to find a packard shutter for it and everything would be perfect !

Fourth, Where do I start ? What should I leave to professionals ? Bellows ? Ground-glass back ? Should I cannibalize an old beatten Deardoff for parts ?

The design I was thinking of would be a folding flatbed, fixed back camera, with a single extension bed. I want to keep weight to a reasonable minimum since I am likely going to do some field work with models using that monster. For the same weight saving reason I am thinking about building the camera as vertical only, since 90% of the photos I make are vertical and 99% of the photos I've ever put on gallery walls are verticals also.

I have to perfect my desings (focussing mechanisms, movements, etc...) and look into materials more closely (wood ? aluminium ? ABS ? Cardboard ?) but I'd like to get you ideas and thoughts on the project I am getting myself into...

I'll keep you posted during the next (weeks, months, years.... ?) as this project unfolds, and i'll probably get a section on my website devoted to it...

I am looking forward to your comments and suggestions !

[John Kasaian]

Jan,

If you want an 11x14, have you looked into old Burk & James cameras? They were(at least when I had one) were reasonably priced for ULFs(about $1500) and are nice cameras for studio use with bellows that go on for what seems like yards. Try MidWest Photo. You might even luck out on a Deardorff studio 11x14. It would cost a pretty penny to ship it with the cast iron stand, but they occasionally go for reasonable prices on ebay(Not the 11x14 Field model though!) Examples of either of these cameras might save you some frustration, time, and $$. The biggest drawback to 11x14 I found was getting film holders at anywhere near a reasonable price. Just my 2-cents.--------Cheers!

[Ed Burlew]

If your camera has an interchangeable back then try adding a larger back on to the frame. the back will have to be at the rear most travel and then the stepup back will be a tapered wooden cone structure with the 11x14 gg and film holder in it. then you get to use all you lenses. Try a cobbled up version with cardboard to see if yu can cover 11x14 with this idea.

[Nick_3536]

I wonder if you really need a shutter if you're using paper. Between everything aren't the fast exposures going to be in the multi second range?

[Joe Smigiel]

"First. I shoot mostly nudes and portraits, but I don't think that I am willing to go with the extra bulk of the extra-long bellows needed to shoot with a 700-800 mm portrait lens at 1:1 magnification"

I'm into 11x14 and ULF for exactly the same reasons in terms of subject matter and am building my own 11x14. I also own 2 1/2 others.

The bulk added by a few extra inches of compressed bellows is insignificant with a camera this large. Go for the extra bellows extension. You will regret it if you don't. I had Camera Bellows, Ltd. in England make a custom synthetic black bellows for my DIY 11x14 project. It extends to 52", compresses to less than 3", and is very lightweight. Well worth the investment IMO. I chose Black Walnut and brass for the other materials.

Gear rack and pinions are another part of the camera you probably want to purchase or cannabalize due to the difficulty in machining these parts properly.

"for a lens, I was thinking about starting with a process-type lens, a 260mm f10 APO-nikkor would do nicely... On the short side for portraits, I agree, but for environmental nudes, it would be perfect, i would just have to find a packard shutter for it and everything would be perfect ! "

Make sure the lens will cover the format at the magnification you will use. The normal lens for this focal length is about 18" but some wide-angle designs will work. I have a 210mm Angulon for my setup. It just barely covers at infinity. I don't believe most process lenses under 19" will cover adequately at infinity or thereabouts.

"The design I was thinking of would be a folding flatbed, fixed back camera, with a single extension bed." .

Again, go for the longer extension. At least have the provision for it as an accessory track.

You also mention providing a Packard Shutter. For my design, I wanted to incorporate a Packard that would handle an 18" Verito diffused focus portrait lens. The lens has a rear element that is 4 1/2" in diameter and mounts on a 6" lensboard. The Packard that handles this lens is 8 1/2" square.

Fortunately, this combination also fits on the 11x14 Burke & James camera I acquired last December so I can use it while I continue to build my custom 11x14. It took me over a year to find a B&J at a reasonable price but it was well worth the wait because know other field camera I'm aware of can handle the Packard & Verito combination. (Perhaps the Deardorff field camera can, but I've never seen one of those so I'm not sure. Most modern field cameras have dinky lensboards.)

If you want info on a possible lead for an 11x14 B&J email me off the board & I may be able to direct you to a NYC dealer who had 2 reconditioned B&J cameras in stock last June. (I don't want to mention the name in the posting since I'm not sure that would violate some rule against commercial posting.) He wanted $2,200 for one and $2,800 for the other as I recall. He had them for awhile and may still have them due to the price tag and demand. Other dealers usually have them for around $1,500 but they are fairly rare. Many dealers I contacted last year while searching for mine hadn't seen one in 10 years or so. I picked mine up on eBay. There is also an 11x14 B&J process camera currently listed this week on ebay if you want to cannabalize something for parts.

[Jan Van Hove]

Thanks for all your comments and suggestions...

2500$, 2000$, even 1500$ is way too much for me, considering that i need to get a lens and holder in addition to any parts for my project.

The suggestion to go for a longer bellows now and worry about getting the extension in the camera later is well noted, since the bellows is probably the only piece that i am planning to buy new... (but then again, i haven't cheched into the price for a beast like that...)

I currently have a 4x5, so the idea of a cone - extension back is a little far fetched, even more when you consider that the lensboard of a Busch is barely large enough to fit a copal 1 shutter...

I'll just let my brain digest the input and i'll try to come up with a sensible solution... My current concept is somewhere between the Kodak master view and a Deardoff... I'll have to elaborate more, and will keep you informed on the progress...

[Chad Jarvis]

Not to be a cynic, because I honestly do like the idea of DIY ULF, but there truly is no such thing as cheap ULF. Also, have you ever shot anything larger than 4x5? The jump from 4x5 to 8x10 is a shock, as is the move from 8x10 to 11x14. I can not imagine attempting the transition from 4x5 to 11x14; it's a completely different world. Bigger tripod/head, bigger/heavier film holders, fatter lenses, crazy limitations on depth of field...and if you're printing in platinum, we don't even have to talk about the difference in cost there.

You might want to borrow a friend's 8x10 before taking the plunge. I'm not saying not to do it - I love 11x14. I just think it's better to look before you leap.

[Michael Dowdall]

"Fourth, Where do I start ? What should I leave to professionals ? Bellows ? Ground-glass back ? Should I cannibalize an old beatten Deardoff for parts ?"

Here's a link to the Cameramakers mailing list archive;

http://rosebud.opusis.com/pipermail/cameramakers/

Not sure how to search the archives other than downloading the whole list, but... I've been on this list for over a year now and your questions have come up, with some good replies. There is also a wealth of information of things you might not have thought of yet.

[Frank Petronio]

Take some meds and calm down. If you're not trolling, then get a little more experience with ready-made cameras and then evaluate your options.

[Jan Van Hove]

Frank,

I'm not trolling, I am honestly thinking about this project...

Chad, thanks for the advice about trying 8x10 before jumping into 11x14, I had tought about it, but i don't know anyone in my region shooting in 8x10, and I beleive that 8x10 and 11x14 are different beasts, and if I want to know what 11x14 feels like I have to shoot 11x14...

I plan the whole project as a long-term investment, (I already invested in a tripod sturdy enough to take anything I put onto it (a berlebach UNI 14 tripod), with Manfrotto heavy duty head, that's already 400$ spent on that project...), and I know that I will be spending a lot of money in the next few years on that project, but a one time investment of 2000$ for a old camera body is out of the question for now. With a DIY project, I'll keep myself busy, learn, and produce a much more "meaningful" camera, in my opinion...

I'll need to get my hands on a 11x14 film holder pretty early on in the project to be able to construct the ground glass back... Any of you have one extra holder lying around ?

Talking about holders, do any of you know if 11x14 ilford paper is the exact same size as 11x14 film ? If it's bigger it's no big deal to cut it down, but if it's smaller, I have a problem...

[Sidney Cammeresi]

After moving up from 35mm to 6x6 to 4x5, when the time came to go larger, I went straightaway to 11x14. In retrospect, I'm glad I had the sense to skip 8x10 since a contact print at in that size is nice, but I would have eventually wanted something larger. You can always print only smaller part of a larger negative or get a reducing back if you want to save some cash on film, but printing 11x14 of an 8x10 negative is quite a bit more difficult. Yes, the camera is larger, but I wheel my 11x14 camera around, and I doubt I would have carried an 8x10 very far without a similar apparatus.

It's definitely a different beast than 4x5, but once you get to 8x10, I don't think the technical problems get much different as you go even larger, the biggest problem being very long exposures; I often have to account for reciprocity in the middle of the day.

[Justus Schlichting]

Jan,

Just a thought for you: the graphic arts (commercial printing) business has just undergone an enormous upheaval, switching from analog to digital. As a result, there are a surprising number of fine surplus "process" cameras, both horizontal and vertical, of various sizes, available for incredibly low prices. I recently acquired a 20"x24" process camera complete with two gorgeous commercial Hexanon lenses (240mm and 105mm), vacuum back, xenon lamps, exposure computer, spare parts, etc, complete for $78 from a print shop in Oakland, CA. If I hadn't bought it, the owner was planning to junk it! While the bulk and weight of a camera like this can be daunting, if you plan to stay in studio, and you have the space, it can be a nifty tool as is. Or, cannibalize the parts you need and re-assemble in the form you want.

[Paul Kierstead]

Ok, I am still pretty much a newbie. But...

Is it really viable to shoot 11x14 on paper (which I understand has an ASA in the single digits) of non-static objects (i.e. people)? I would think this would be close to hopeless unless you have heavily drugged your subject. Or perhaps have some huge bank of strobes. I am just imagining trying to shoot F/64 on ASA 4 with a person involved....

[Jan Van Hove]

I Actually took Justus's suggestion seriously and sent a few e-mails to printing companies around town, and one guy actually offered me a process camera, he said that he previously had another camera that he tried to sell and never found a buyer, and since he needed the space this monster took, he junked it, it's been taken apart for scrap metal !

I would get it in a few weeks, and by then I should have figured out what parts to junk and what parts to keep....

Now, i just have to find a place to put it and a way to move it, it's 10 feet long !

From 4x5 to 20x24 is a little further than I ever envisioned to go, but i guess you can't look a gift horse in the mouth...

[John D Gerndt]

I have reciently built a 12x20 for Very little money. Though mine is specialized (read: simplified) for landscape I have learned a few things about the building endeavor. As with most things, you must decide about what your output with the device is going to be. You seem to know the parameters so build to suit and don’t worry too much about what you are missing.

That said, I think in your case the easiest trick, even with a process camera on the way, is to build an extension back for an 8x10. I bought my quite serviceable 8x10 for $250. As you build the camera think about its integration to the tripod and head that you own. Think about balancing and stabilizing that weight. Think too about its transport. How might you break it down and haul it whatever distance you anticipate. These things seem to be overlooked until the task is at hand.

Getting more technical, the spring back for 11x14 can be a tug-of-war even with the best of fits to a given holder. I gave up on springs and designed holders and back that are interchangeable: remove and replace. It is slower but so what?

Remember how far you will need to back up to see that much GG. You’ll need a large dark cloth. I made mine integral to the GG back.

Make your own GG. Look for the article in phototechmag.com

Lastly, how long ARE your arms? You may need a system to focus by moving the GG or some sort of remote gearing to move the front.

It took me a year to come up with the film holders. The camera was relatively easy. I may yet post an article on it when I am sure it works well enough to mention. More testing…

Cheers,

[Donald Brewster]

Well, if you really want to go cheap, how about a couple of 11x14 box cameras -- one for infinity and one for portraits? Simple to make, though obviously a little more bulky.

[Emile J Schwarz]

You might try doing a search for an Argyle Process camera on ebay. While its not a field camera or made of wood, they are comparitvely sturdy and light weight. It is made from anadized al. extrusions and has a twin rail design. I have a 14" in storage for a future project. I know they made an 18" and possable larger sizes.

Both the the camera and the attached base are made from the same extrusions. With a little work, you could detach the base and use the parts to widen the twin rail frame up to about 30". If you find one with the origional timer box, you could connect up to around a 1000 watts for hot lights.

[Ernest Purdum]

Thoughts regarding possible rack and pinion replacement:



A "timing belt" cut and flattened out might do as a rack.



A small version of a bicycle type chain would seem like a possibility.



In either instance, the snag might be finding a small enough "pinion" (sprocket in the case of the chain.)



I don't know of anyone having tried either of these and would be very interested to hear if anyone has.

[Terence Spross]

The process camera sounds like an opportunity, many process cameras have vacuum film holders that are usually serviced from an adjoining integral dark room. That might be part of the 10ft length. If you could keep the back and adapt a changing bag that is large enough to hold a two boxes of film/paper and use a small vacuum cleaner to generate sufficient vacuum you could avoid otherwise limiting film holders. One box for unexposed and the other for exposed film. With pegs to mark the location of 11x 14 you can predictably place the film/paper by hand in the 20x24 back. Usually process cameras are used with film that can be used with a safelight and the operator places the film by sight. With Illfochrome paper that won't be an option.

Paul Kirstead's comment about the speed of paper with a live subject is a real concern. I know some people who expose paper directly push process the paper to double its speed but then you are usually talking about souping your own first developer because a color shift will begin to occur that will require a filter that would defeat the pupose of purpose of push processing. So apparently this can be avoided by changing the ph slightly.

Are your subjects going to be intidated by something that reminds then of the xray machine?

If you want to shoot infinity where will it be done? Do you need to put this freeby on wheels or can you use just enoguh parts to make a smaller version that better suits your needs?

[Terence Spross]

The process camera sounds like an opportunity, many process cameras have vacuum film holders that are usually serviced from an adjoining integral dark room. That might be part of the 10ft length. If you could keep the back and adapt a changing bag that is large enough to hold a two boxes of film/paper and use a small vacuum cleaner to generate sufficient vacuum you could avoid otherwise limiting film holders. One box for unexposed and the other for exposed film. With pegs to mark the location of 11x 14 you can predictably place the film/paper by hand in the 20x24 back. Usually process cameras are used with film that can be used with a safelight and the operator places the film by sight. With Illfochrome paper that won't be an option.

Paul Kirstead's comment about the speed of paper with a live subject is a real concern. I know some people who expose paper directly push process the paper to double its speed but then you are usually talking about souping your own first developer because a color shift will begin to occur that will require a filter that would defeat the purpose of push processing. So apparently this can be avoided by changing the ph slightly.

Are your subjects going to be intidated by something that reminds then of the xray machine?

If you want to shoot infinity where will it be done? Do you need to put this freeby on wheels or can you use just enough parts to make a smaller version that better suits your needs?

[Terence Spross]

Oops - Well I did it again, posting to a thread way out of date.