How can I convert Fotoman 624 Pan Camera for makro use.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I did the thought experiment of using a focusing frame[...]

Thought experiment, eh? Can you post an image to evince your mental experience?

[Dan Fromm]

Thought experiment, eh? Can you post an image to evince your mental experience?

Y'know, until now I thought that you could read minds. Or at least that you had an imagination.

In fact I cobbled up a couple of crude prototypes. Short answer, not practical for what I had in mind to do. Longer answer, not practical for most other applications. The only really successful focusing frames I'm aware of are stands like the Leica BOOWU, and these are really for copying papers, not for closeup photography in general.

Many problems. Its hard to see where the plane of best focus is. The frame bumps into things.

The right tool for closeup work, especially when the subject is inaccesible (e.g., behind glass) and may be mobile, is a single lens reflex camera. The OP is asking his very nice point-and-shoot to do things it isn't particularly good at.

[Michael Alpert]

( All a bit out of my depth at moment so seeking some advice) Thanks.

DazrAus,

Everyone here wants to be helpful to you. I wonder why someone hasn't yet told you that you are using the wrong camera to do what you want to do. The Fotoman is going to always seriously limit you in close-up photography. Either that or it's not going to work at all. It's the wrong tool. If you were to find a 6x12 back for a 4x5 view camera with a long bellows, you would need to crop the image top and/or bottom to achieve 6x24 proportions, but you would still be using roll film. And you would have available all the advantages of a view camera (movements, extension, accurate composition). Depth-of-field is based on aperture and image size, so almost any decent large-format lens that has a short focal length will work well enough for your purpose. I strongly suggest that you find a photographer in your area who uses a view camera (monorail) or field camera. With an hour or two of hands-on instruction, you will learn a hundred times more than what you can learn vicariously from forums and websites.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Y'know, until now I thought that you could read minds. Or at least that you had an imagination.

Clearly, you have overrated my capabilities.

Back to the topic, IMHO we should encourage the OP to experiment.

Not all large(ish) photos most be made of still objects using a tripod.

[Dan Fromm]

Clearly, you have overrated my capabilities.

Thanks for the correction, I'll try to remember it.

I understand the OP's desire to use the camera he has, agree with Mr. Alpert that it is far from the ideal tool. I know a man who bred Anacondas. Long snakes that don't move much. I can see wanting to shoot snoozing snakes or crocodilians (high aspect ratio, don't always move much, although I once saw a very young American Alligator leap nearly its own length vertically to snatch a dragonfly) or lizards or salamanders with a camera whose native format is long and low.

[hoffner]

I love this thread. It's a pure hallucination.

[Jim Noel]

A simple + diopter lens in front of the taking lens will do the job. If you are lucky and have a real old time photo store, they may have them as well as a lip on adapter. If not, go to you optician and purchase a +1, +2 and +4. You can jerry-rig them in front of the lens with tubes and/or tape. With these three you can have +1,+2,+3,+4.+5,+6,+7.
The higher the number, the closer the focus and the more enlargement on the film. Your aperture will not change.
There will be distractors, but I have been using this system for 70+ years on all types of cameras.

[hoffner]

Now that's truly encouraging. I wonder if others ever considered it.

[Dan Fromm]

A simple + diopter lens in front of the taking lens will do the job. If you are lucky and have a real old time photo store, they may have them as well as a lip on adapter. If not, go to you optician and purchase a +1, +2 and +4. You can jerry-rig them in front of the lens with tubes and/or tape. With these three you can have +1,+2,+3,+4.+5,+6,+7.
The higher the number, the closer the focus and the more enlargement on the film. Your aperture will not change.
There will be distractors, but I have been using this system for 70+ years on all types of cameras.

Jim, getting the magnification isn't the big problem. Getting the subject in focus is the problem. Composing is another problem.

All kidding aside, much of the discussion on focusing frames in the Kodak publications I referred to is on how to use an Instamatic closeup. In it + diopter lenses are recommended as the way to get the magnification.

Hoffner, have you ever tried + diopters? Way back when I paid attention to the biennial cycle of educational articles that Modern Photography used to run. One of the articles that came back ever other year was "Diopters or extension tubes?". The answer was always that it depends on the lens; the only way to know which would give better results with the lens in hand was to try both with it. After I got my little Nikkormat with a 50/1.4 Nikkor I bought some Nikon diopters and tried shooting closeup. Field curvature was a killer. My solution was, as soon as I had the funds, to get a 55/3.5 MicroNikkor. More recently, I tried diopters on a Canon S8 camera, with lousy results. My solutions was, as soon as I had the funds, to get a Beaulieu and a 36/1.4 MacroSwitar in H8Rx mount. After the mount was trimmed a bit the rig's far focusing distance was a couple of feet. Gotta use the right tools, which is not to say that Jim got poor results. As I said, it all depends on the lens.

[hoffner]

Jim, getting the magnification isn't the big problem. Getting the subject in focus is the problem. Composing is another problem.

snip.

There it goes - the 70+ years of experience did not solve the problem of the OP. Now that is a surprise, isn't it?
Dan, I never tried a + diopter on a Fotoman camera in order to take macro pictures of living animals in a terrarium. Guess why.