Printable View
Has anybody on this forum experience with these film holders from Czech Republic?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/11x14-double...item4d055ed19e
There are some exact dimensions on ebay, do they follow the most common standard for this size film holders?
Thanks!
From the ad:
Offering for sale a double film holder 11x14in made in a traditional way using good quality resistant wood.
I wonder how well it resists quality?
(They actually look kind of sexy)
I looked at some feedback, an 11x14 back and bellows was unsatisfactory to the buye. He described it as imprecise and said it took 43 days for delivery. Take with agrain of salt..one of us will have to bite before anybody really knows. Another received one of the holders and was very happy.
I took a closer look at the auction images - looks as if the guy uses layers of plywood to build-up thickness of his holders. If you check his other auctions (the one about the "conversion frame for Vageeswari"), one of the pics shows a closeup of a corner of those holder. I'm not sure I would want a holder constructed that way.
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by big_ben_blue
I could be wrong, but I see it as a potential weak-spot for light leaks developing. What if the wood starts to work when the holder is subjected to changing temperature/moisture levels (yes, I know, the seller mentions the wood is varnished)? The first thing to break is the bond between the flat layers, and I highly doubt that there is any barrier. Again, I'm probably wrong and just crying wolf here; but personally, I think I am going to stick with solid wood holders (or the plastic variety). YMMVQuote:
Originally Posted by ic-racer
Building up layers of laminated wood is the obvious way to build modern wood film holders, unless you have access to very superior wood and the right wood working tools.
It is the way I choose to make single-sided 30x40cm holders!
I was nervous about longeveity of glue joins, so I have brass screws along the long sides.
Yes, plywood is plywood, and will always have the potential for failure along glue lines. But, on the other hand, there is no raw wood as dimensionally stable as plywood. I would think that cabinet-grade plywood would make very good holders, and if you took the time to set up your shop to produce them, you could make a bunch in one go.
What? Plywood stable? No thanks. There is a reason that quality film holders use grained hardwood and purposeful cross grain construction. It is because it is structurally stable over time. If you want to use these go right ahead. I will opt for what has proven to work for over 150 years even if it costs me more. With a sheet of film rapidly approaching $10+ a sheet, I cannot and will not unnecessarily take chances with this or similar wannabe products.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Meisburger
It's not plywood, it's "laminate." And even plywood comes in different grades. Did you know that you can get oak, spruce, maple, mahogany, cherry, and walnut laminate products? The thing that I would be leery about is the actual wood used for the laminate. If it's a soft wood like pine, then no thanks. If it's a hardwood, then it's fine.
The negative feedback is for one of the Vageeswari conversion kits, not the holder. The only feedback for the holders was positive, and the buyer says they are just fine.
Wiggy, ask over on APUG if anybody has used these. The purchaser may be over there.
"purposeful cross grain construction" is plywood, which is merely sheets of veneer glued up with the grain alternating. you are probably familiar with construction grade plywood made from peeled softwood, rather than sawn veneer hardwood plywood.
No raw wood is as structurally stable over time as plywood, which has been the material of choice for stability for thousands of years.
All I know is that I have seen countless wooden film holders in all sizes over the years from pre 1900 to current day and I have never seen or heard of a serious photographer using a holder that has any plywood in it. My experience is that plywood is inherently heavier than some of the hardwoods such as cherry wood used in holders. Net weight is one of the design criteria of ULF holders and that takes certain materials off of the listing for consideration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Meisburger
At the end of the day I want to make photographs and have a film holder that works well and lasts.
Last I looked there were 10 available, now 5 with 5 sold. Price is competitive, if they work then who cares, its just a film holder anyway. They dont fit in my dodgy camera.
Yep, I bought five of them and will post a report after I get them. I use Chamonix holdesr and they are excellent but I only have 3.. If these are any good at all, they'll be a real luxury!
If you have not photographed with a ULF camera you have no idea how critical a holder is to the process and how easy it is to fog a negative. The flatness of the holder and how it mates with the camera, the ability of the slide light trap to properly work and the light integrity of the flap end. I have even experienced light leaks around the sides of the grooves so I ended up painting these areas flat black.Quote:
Originally Posted by mdm
I hope that Evan has a positive experience with these as it will not take long to reach a conclusion one way or another.
I make about five or six sheets a week with my 11x14 so I think I can test all ten sides in pretty short order. I hope they are good, too. With a few more holders I might put all the smaller formats away for a while..
Fingers crossed....Quote:
Originally Posted by evan clarke
My 11x14 camera does not take standard holders, the rib is in the wrong place, I have 2 standard holders and never have I had a light leak.
So you have either a very old or a custom made 11x14 camera because the 11x14 format has been a recognized ANSI industry standard. I use S&S and Fidelity Medical holders interchangeably.Quote:
Originally Posted by mdm
Rib lock: 16.160"
Will be exciting to hear your report :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by evan clarke
Have you received your holders and can we get a report of your findings? We need to know......Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggywag
I have the tracking info, they were shipped early in the week. The USPS info is always late..usually have the item days before the postal service says you do.
I'm pretty anxious, I'm $1200 into it..
You could be surprised... maybe the cheaper option could turn out to be the best one, who knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Kadillak
I don't shoot 11x14" (maximum 24x30cm.), but i have noticed the adapter backs for the Vageeswari 12x15" (and probably other almost identical indian-made cameras): they don't look badly made, quite the opposite, i'd say.
Believe it or not, sometimes you pay more and get even less.
Of course your opinion is welcomed as any other, the world would be such a sad place without differences!
I have a different inclination though, and i believe that there is much more fun if you take the old saying that "you get what you pay for" with a (big) grain of salt.
Nothing tragic, my friend, just different views... but i must confess that there is one thing i simply can't stand.
Why on earth LF photography should reserved to people with thick wallets?
I am sick of reading that "large format is not for the poor". Maybe the actual phrase is somewhat sweetened, but that's the idea.
There are people shooting large format, even 8x10", with cheap wooden cameras, shutter-less lenses, antique wooden holders, and x-ray film.
Most of the pictures made that way are technically correct, and some have very good aesthetical qualities... something that can't be said of many pictures made with top class gear, and posted on this Forum.
For the current economic situation, and for my own distressed finances, i am spending way too much money in vintage lenses, but i am not thinking for a single second that those lenses are some kind of magic bullets that would turn a lousy picture in a fantastic one. Simply i love 'em, and that's a joy in itself, no need to be rationally justified :)
There are many lurkers on this forum. Most of them don't own any large format equipment.
My advice is:
don't be scared by those who say that LF photography can't be done on the cheap.
Sometimes even ULF photography can be affordable.
I have seen "reisekamera" in metric sizes being sold at nice prices, especially those in need of small restorations, and i have purchased myself 100 sheets of 24x30cm. single side mammography film, at less than $1 a sheet.
It is modern ortho film, with tubular crystals, and NOT expired. It should be easy to adjust to it, because it can be developed by inspection.
There were 30x40cm. sheets too, but i decided that's best to buy the camera first! :)
I have two of these holders. They are not pretty. When I took them out of the box the first thing I noticed was how crude they looked. They looked like some students wood shop project. Also they were not packed well at all. the box was damaged and one of the darkslides was dented. But they work. They actually fit very snug and are light tight. We'll see how they hold up over time but for now I'm able to shoot me cobbled together 11x14 camera.
OK. So can state based upon direct experience that these holders fit tight and are light tight. Are you basing this upon actual produced negatives or shining light through the bellows and looking for leaks? If you are shooting negatives do you use a dark cloth over the camera back?Quote:
Originally Posted by rich caramadre
Second question. Have you checked the ground glass registration with the film, holder? Easy thing to do. Take the film holder back off of the camera and put a metal straight diagonal across a rear section of the ground glass back. Clamp a couple of toothpicks to the side of the straight edge just touching the back of the ground glass. Put one of the film holders into the camera with an exposed and developed waste negative in it and pull the slide. Put the metal edge with the tooth picks clamped to it from the previous step and see if the toothpicks just touch the film. One can then check the registration at a couple of points.
Have you done a critical focus test with a macro photograph precisely focused square at a middle point of a near, middle and far subject? Is the focus uniform?
I have completed this test with my 11x14 Fidelity Medical cassettes and my S&S wooden holders and they were absolutely spot on.
Cheers!
Michael,
Yes I have exposed film and it had no light leaks. And yes I do cover the back area with my dark cloth. I do that on my 5x7 and 8x10 also. Just habit I guess. As far as all those other tests? NO. Look, I shoot landscape type photos. I've focused on the scene as I saw appropriate, stopped down and exposed the film. The negs look good through my loupe on the lightbox and the contact prints I've made look plenty sharp. I am not here to say these holders are 100% the cats meow at half the price but from what I have encountered they are not crap either.
Rich
Great to hear.Quote:
Originally Posted by rich caramadre
One of the things I have learned the hard way is that it is a very good idea to have any ULF ground glass back precision checked for GG depth that is properly aligned with the film holders of choice. The reason is that while your images may in fact look acceptably sharp because of the inherent tendencies of stopping down to f45, macro images or images that do not need such high f stops could be adversely effected. It is just a good idea to have these proportions checked by a competent individual.
So, I have had my holders for about a week. they are a little crude, but I have touched them up. Unfortunately, I've spent then week trying to make sheets to no avail. Will keep you posted..
Checking in on this about a month later. Any luck? Really interested to know if these are viable. I want pretty (not crude) holders as much as the next guy, but I'm not sure that aesthetics alone are worth a ~$200 increase per holder. So I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you that these are working out!Quote:
Originally Posted by evan clarke
Cheers!
--A
Okay, so I'm curious. I have some old DearDorff wooden 11x14 holders that were a bit dubious back when, so I picked up about 10 of the Fidelity medical holders sometime back and used those for a while, and they've remained pristine. The DearDorffs can be repaired easily enough -- I was just far more concerned with getting the photographs done than going through the process of repair and test that would have been required with the DearDorffs. I'm just curious about the current value of these things (both the Fidelity and the DearDorffs) if those Czech holders are $233 plus shipping and considered "reasonable" or even "cheap."
This is my first day (and probably my second post) on these forums, so please forgive me for not running a search...
The sheets are fine, I waxed the edges of the slides with Renaissance wax and I'm happy with them. The maker is sincere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by evan clarke
Not sure what this means?!?!?!?Quote:
Originally Posted by evan clarke
So, you received the holders, you've shot film with them, and the results are satisfactory????
Did the holders work well? Did the film load easily? Did the developed film turn out well? Do you have ANY concerns with the holders? With how they accept film? etc., etc., etc., etc.
sorry to bump this post. i'm curious about these holders as well. my questions are the same like jim graves. anyone?
The sheets of film have been OK. They load as well as my Chamonix. They just need to have a few little rough edges dealt with and I waxed the slides with Renaissance wax. I would buy them again at this price..They are homely..
sorry to bump this once again, but.. apart from the holders working, are the holders standard size and specs (rib lock placement, end flap, etc)?Quote:
Originally Posted by evan clarke
cheers :)