Worthwhile? Hell yes it's worthwhile!!Originally Posted by jb7
Worthwhile? Hell yes it's worthwhile!!
No matter what eventually transpires with marketing, it is always rewarding to make something both beautiful and functional like this. It also makes the act of photography feel very special. I'm getting a bit past the age of realistic ULF work myself, and have deliberately limited myself to 8x10 or smaller; but I do hope
a few people will nibble at this project. I was one of Dick Phillips' first customers way back when he innovated a whole new trend in field cameras. But tweaks came over time in his design, which is something inevitable as the learning curve progresses. Any such project is commendable.
ditto
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Thanks again, Drew and Kirk, and OnF, of course--
Just a few points-
I'm a little surprised that I haven't been challenged on any 'factual' representations on the website. I was sure there would have been something contentious there, though perhaps I have been over cautious...
Secondly, although the big thing about this camera is the lightness of the system, and the new film holders that it's based on, and the ability of the camera to shoot multiple formats without a reducing back- there is another simpler feature which is really remarkable- the focusing system which allows you to dispense with scales on the camera to determine the optimum aperture.
Focusing using an indexed wheel may not be new in itself, but I've never seen the system implemented in this way before, and certainly not on a field camera. Having used it, it is so much more convenient to know your focus spread while focusing, rather than having to emerge from the darkcloth to note positions on scales, focus once for near, once for far, subtract... and so on.
Just in case this has been missed, you can read about it here-
And thanks to QT for the page linked to there, which provides the software for my hardware...
Without trying to be my usual smart-alec self, What are scales? Yeah, I do know what you mean. But I don't think anyone uses that kind of feature in the field.
Rarely even in the studio. It the kind of redundant bells n' whistles things that just gets ignored in the real world. I'd imagine that most people comfortable with
any big format compose depth of field issues based on the look they're trying to achieve. I can't imagine anyone fooling around with hyperfocal theory to determine some hypothetical "ideal" f-stop. There might be an exception or two to that statement out there. There are just certain things way easier to do intuitively. And if starting positions for bellows extension using common lenses is involved, well, there are so damn many potential lenses, that everyone is likely to make their own little customized tape mark, or carry their own little tape rule or whatever. A lot of fuss over nothing, really. No need to over-feature a field camera, or to try to create a ULF equivalent to a Sinar P. And frankly, it's a bit difficult to even want to challenge your "factual" side of this when it's
pretty damn obvious you've gone to a lot of effort already to beautifully machine the prototype; so this apparently a labor of love. Since I'm highly involved in equipment distribution myself, and get routinely shown all kinds of clever prototypes from everyone from backyard craftsmen to major international manufacturers, I just know from experience that's it's extremely rare for anyone to get a hole-in-one. It takes time to find the weak links in any invention and
iron them out. My main concern, since it is the most innovative aspect of your new camera, would be how well the film bag concept works in the long haul.
If you do go to market, you might want to have an optional Plan B camera for those who would prefer using it with traditional sheet film holders. It is inevitable
that anyone dropping serious money is going to ponder the availability of replacement film bags etc if you're no longer in business (and that is a common scenario in a niche market like this). Or they might already own big holders, an expensive investment to begin with. Just an idea, while your project progresses.
"Without trying to be my usual smart-alec self, What are scales? Yeah, I do know what you mean. But I don't think anyone uses that kind of feature in the field."
Drew,
Not only do I use it, I have scales on both my cameras just for this purpose. When I stop down to f45 or f64 with my 8x10, trying to gauge what is in sharp is virtually impossible for me. The scales make it simple and work well for me, and the scales work with all focal lengths. I am not sure you fathom how simple this process really is. One scale on my camera works perfectly with all my lenses. It beats stopping down and "guessing" an appropriate f stop.
Yeah, I learned that whole Sinar depth thing with both P and F systems, yaw-free, whole nine yards. Never used it since. For me, depth of field is an integral aspect of composition itself. With large format, esp once you get into 8x10 or especially ULF, not much of the image can ever be in precise focus. I ignore all that "circle of confusion" nonsense too. I decide what I want critically in focus relatively to my intended print size (which can sometimes be pretty big), and what needs to work a tad softer, even if one has to have their nose to the print to see the difference. That's for enlargement, with my decision being made with a loupe. Since most ULF film is contact-printed, I'll bet most people stop down to where it looks good on the groundglass and only inspect a few spots with a magnifier, if at all.
There is no guessing. What you're trying to do is impose an artificial one-shoe-fits-every-foot-size template on pictures. How can "best" ever equate to that kind
of mechanical imposition, where you surrender that aspect of the aesthetic element?
Everyone doing LF employs a ritual which is most meaningful/workable for them. So as they say..."different strokes for different folks" - OK?
(Interrupted). I probably work faster than scales. I compose, do my tilts, swings whatever, determine what I want in critical focus and stop halfway down to fine
tune that or those areas using the loupe, then set my final working aperture. I know from sheer experience what to expect at f/32 vs f/45 vs f/64. Most people don't even own filmholders sufficient to guage the true effect - their film sags! So if it's an 8x10 shot, for example, that I plan to turn into a very crisp high-gloss
30x40 print, I know to use a precision adhesive filmholder and not stop down below f/45 unless I absolutely have to. But a lot of ULF usage is just the opposite -
rather direct portraiture. And the very last thing Mrs Frumpingham wants after recovering from her facelift is an immaculately detailed shot showing every bit of
cellulite, wrinkles, and age spots in her tortoise neck. More likely someone is going to use a tessar the size of a golf cart on the front of that big camera set at
f/4.5, not f/45! Selective focus becomes the name of the game. Leave a bit of sparkle in her eyes... otherwise ...
No ritual, John... just intelligent decisions applied as needed. Tabletop studio photography is one thing, traditional portraiture another, immaculately detailed landscapes another. I employed hyperfocal theory just once last year - a near-darkness MF road shot. I know how to do it. But no, I'm not trying to make converts
to my methodology at all, but am simply pointing that going to all the trouble of scales on a really big format film might only have very limited market appeal.
Even in the studio Sinar realized that not everyone needed that kind of thing, so came out with the X camera as an alternative to the P, having the same precision gearing but without all the engraving. Why do I mention this in this context. Same reason as P versus X: the selling price of the final object.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks