Hello all. I'm finally getting around to finishing the updating of a large older view camera that I purchased many years ago (see pic below, I just have the camera without bellows, back or base). Before I purchase a new bellows and build a back for it, I was wondering if I could get some practical insight from those of you with greater experience in what I would like to achieve.

I intend to use the camera for alternative processes, mostly ambrotypes. Mostly portraits (head and shoulders / 3/4 body) and some still life. The back will accommodate a maximum exposure size of 15" x 15", but will have reducing inserts for lesser sizes (e.g., 8x10 / whole plate). Lenses will likely be a period 19" that I believe covers the 15", as well as mid-century design 15" and 12" lenses for smaller formats. Lighting will be by large strobe (3200 w/s key, with lesser support lighting).

Assuming that the camera is provided a stable base (which I'm working on), it seems to rack out without terrible strain to a max bellows of about 52". It can go further, but I fear the stress of doing so and also hope there would be no need to do so. I was intending to purchase a bellows with that 52" length.

I've gone through a whole series of bellows length / focal length / subject distance / DoF calculations to estimate how this will all work in practice, but I'm hoping for some further insight from those well-versed in a similar experience.

My specific questions would be:

1. Is purchasing a 52" bellows adequate / sensible?

2. What kind of subject working distances, bellows extension and portrait types (e.g. head/ head/shoulder / 1/2 body) would you typically be utilizing in this large of a format, particularly if you were utilizing the full 15" square format and a 19" lens for example? I know that DoF is a great challenge in this context, but just trying to zero in on some practical clarity.

I appreciate any input you can provide. Apologies if any of my questions seem rehashed. I have done the calculations, as well as a good amount of forum post reviewing, and believe I'm in the right ballpark in my thinking, but some corroboration or correction is always helpful. Thank you.

Best regards,
Leo

Click image for larger version. 

Name:	lauritz2.jpg 
Views:	73 
Size:	13.5 KB 
ID:	200403Click image for larger version. 

Name:	lauritz2.jpg 
Views:	73 
Size:	13.5 KB 
ID:	200403