hi thyere! thank you all for your suggestions and links :) i hope when i finish my project that it'll work well, and look as nice as the cameras you have made :)
as for making a back that will work with a film holder ..i thought about that, but cost of film holders is kind of holding me back :( thanks again! john > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 12:07:19 -0700 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #296 - 7 msgs > > Send Cameramakers mailing list submissions to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Cameramakers digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: another question :) (JKN) > 2. Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #295 - 2 msgs (William Nettles) > 3. Build your own processing drums??? (Robert Mayrand) > 4. Re: Build your own processing drums??? (Ron Baker) > 5. Re: another question :) (Alan Zinn) > 6. Re: another question :) (Philip J. McCourt) > 7. 8 x 10 bag camera (Alan Zinn) > > --__--__-- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 15:56:21 -0500 > Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] another question :) > From: JKN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: S Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > hi sam! > thanks for your suggestions :) > i was mostly concerned about a shadow on my paper/film when it was being > exposed if the box stuck up / down too far. > as for not having light enter the camera from the sleeves, i was thinking of > having a baffle. or just a sleeve inside a sleeve that could be unrolled > once my arm was "in there". > too bad i can't make a 8x20 grafmatic type back :) > - john > >> From: S Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 11:04:26 -0500 >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], JKN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] another question :) >> >> John, >> >> Since I am posting this from home, I hope it will make it to the list. >> >> Great idea! I wanted to do the same for a long time but never >> actually did it. My idea was to make a collapsible pinhole camera >> that has a box inside, with sleeves off a changing bag attached >> through which you can remove the exposed paper or film and put up a >> fresh sheet. >> >> In answering your question: if you use a film box or paper box inside >> the camera, it should be OK indefinitely. In terms of holding the >> film or paper in place, how about just a couple of clips? >> >> The hardest part is probably how to prevent light from getting in >> when you stick your arms inside the sleeves. One possibility is to >> stick your arms inside, put up a sheet of film/paper, work the >> shutter to expose, put the film/paper away in the box, and THEN take >> your arms out of the sleeves. A little unwieldy maybe, but beats >> unnecessarily carrying a big box on a hike, since the whole thing can >> be made mainly with lightproof clothe, or foldable cardboard. >> Porter's Camera has blackened aluminum foil just begging to be used >> on some innovative project like this: maybe you can just bring a roll >> of it with you, and build a camera right on site as the situation >> demands. Wow, that's actually not a bad idea... >> >> Please let us know what you come up with. >> >> Sam Wang >> >> >> >>> hi again >>> i was wondering if someone out there knows if i put unexposed paper on the >>> floor of a camera, and it is somewhat covered, like in a pouch / sleeve, if >>> there are chances that it will either be exposed by long exposure to light, >>> or it will somehow block the paper that is being exposed? >>> >>> also ... i am trying to design some sort of device that will be on the rear >>> standard inside the camera to hole paper to be exposed. any suggestion as >>> to what i should do? at first i was thinking of a pressure plate and a leaf >>> spring, but now i am thinking more of just 2 or 3 "edges" that the paper >>> just "fits" into. >>> thanks in advance for your help! >>> - john >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Cameramakers mailing list >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers >> > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 19:33:33 -0800 > From: William Nettles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #295 - 2 msgs > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Let's see if the Inverse Square Law is important > > My rough calc is basically how much area (and hence light transmittance) of > a circle seen from straight on and at 45 degrees. > > There are two types of circular pinhole cameras. The half circle (like my > Whatlux? and the Quaker Oats pinhole camera with the lens on the opposite > side of the cylinder. For a QO camera the 'lens hole' to film plane distance > is a chord of a circle. For the HCpinhole it is equidistant. > for QO at 45 degrees a circular film plane is closer to being the same > distance as the center--which is actually the farthest point from the lens. > for the HC all points on the same horizontal line are equidistant, and > FlatFilmPlane affected at points off that line. (A Deardorff, Nikon, > Hasselblad are all FFP cameras) > > Now to calc for a point directly in line with the lens and a point on a flat > film plane 45 degrees away: > > Lens to film plane distnace is FL > FL and at 45 d FL* 1.414. [distance * 1.414 (sq root of 2 pythagorean > therom for a 45 deg right triangle x^2 +x^2=hyp^2 or x*SQR RT2=hyp) ] > > Aplying the Inverse Square Law results in the light at the center being D > and at 45 degrees being D45= .6 (the area of the ellipse) / 1.414 So there > is more than one stop at 45 degrees. Or about about 43% of the light at the > center. About a stop and a third. > > A Schneider Super Angulon 90 and my Reodenstock 65mm centering circles > compensate almost 2 stops from center to edge. So even 'real' lenses that > cost $$$ are affected yet usable. > > Of course you'd learn more simply building a box and testing. As the fella > on the label says of empirical testing "Nothing is better for thee than me." > But he might have been talking about Dektol. > > Will > > ---William Nettles > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Nettles Photo / Imaging Site http://www.wgn.net/~nettles > > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 12:07:12 -0700 >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #295 - 2 msgs >> >> illiam: >> Hmmm. Nice discussion. Just curious-- did your calculations take into >> account loss du to the inverse square law? Maybe I'll do some of this today, >> since I'm kinda laying around doing nothing. Should be easy math as we're >> dealing with right triangles with flat film planes. My experience with >> pinhole cameras is limited to cylindrical cameras mostly. It might also be >> fun to calculate how curved, equidistant film non-planes would affect the >> apparent focal length of the "lens". > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 23:35:24 -0500 > From: Robert Mayrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [Cameramakers] Build your own processing drums??? > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I know that someone a while back talk about some instruction to do so in a > book or an article. Can somebody send me a copy of this? > > Thank you! > > Robert > Mtl, Quebec > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 4 > From: "Ron Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Build your own processing drums??? > Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 07:30:08 -0600 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hi Robert > You can see what I have done in regards to processing drums. > Ron > www.ronbakerphotography.com > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Mayrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 10:35 PM > Subject: [Cameramakers] Build your own processing drums??? > > >> I know that someone a while back talk about some instruction to do so in a >> book or an article. Can somebody send me a copy of this? >> >> Thank you! >> >> Robert >> Mtl, Quebec >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cameramakers mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 08:52:53 -0800 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Alan Zinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] another question :) > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > At 10:28 AM 12/30/01 -0500, you wrote: >> hi again >> i was wondering if someone out there knows if i put unexposed paper on the >> floor of a camera, and it is somewhat covered, like in a pouch / sleeve, if >> there are chances that it will either be exposed by long exposure to light, >> or it will somehow block the paper that is being exposed? >> >> also ... i am trying to design some sort of device that will be on the rear >> standard inside the camera to hole paper to be exposed. any suggestion as >> to what i should do? at first i was thinking of a pressure plate and a leaf >> spring, but now i am thinking more of just 2 or 3 "edges" that the paper >> just "fits" into. >> thanks in advance for your help! >> - john >> _______________________________________________ >> Cameramakers mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers >> > > John, > I am working - at a glacial pace - on an 8 x 10 box camera. It has a box of > paper inside the camera. The body is a wood frame with a changing bag for a > cover. To change paper I reach inside. It is compact and light and the paper > changing scheme works fine. I got distracted by other projects and haven't > begun figuring exposure and the best print paper to use. BTW what is the > best choice for paper negatives used in-camera? I have a picture of it > somewhere I can post if anyone is interested. > > AZ > Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera. > > www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/ > or > keyword.com lookaround > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 6 > Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 09:16:09 -0500 > From: "Philip J. McCourt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] another question :) > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > John, > I have put paper in my 8x10 film holders and used it to test my camera > as I built it. Could you design something on the back of your camera to > hold the neg holder. It does not have to be fancy, just enough to hold > it while exposing the paper. The dark slide will protect the paper > other times. Take a look at my camera for ideas, > http://www.philsan.com/8x10.htm > > Phil > Cleveland Ohio > philsan.com > > Alan Zinn wrote: > >> At 10:28 AM 12/30/01 -0500, you wrote: >> >>> hi again >>> i was wondering if someone out there knows if i put unexposed paper on the >>> floor of a camera, and it is somewhat covered, like in a pouch / sleeve, if >>> there are chances that it will either be exposed by long exposure to light, >>> or it will somehow block the paper that is being exposed? >>> >>> also ... i am trying to design some sort of device that will be on the rear >>> standard inside the camera to hole paper to be exposed. any suggestion as >>> to what i should do? at first i was thinking of a pressure plate and a leaf >>> spring, but now i am thinking more of just 2 or 3 "edges" that the paper >>> just "fits" into. >>> thanks in advance for your help! >>> - john >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Cameramakers mailing list >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers >>> >> >> John, >> I am working - at a glacial pace - on an 8 x 10 box camera. It has a box of >> paper inside the camera. The body is a wood frame with a changing bag for a >> cover. To change paper I reach inside. It is compact and light and the paper >> changing scheme works fine. I got distracted by other projects and haven't >> begun figuring exposure and the best print paper to use. BTW what is the >> best choice for paper negatives used in-camera? I have a picture of it >> somewhere I can post if anyone is interested. >> >> AZ >> Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera. >> >> www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/ >> or >> keyword.com lookaround >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cameramakers mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers >> > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 7 > Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 11:33:11 -0800 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Alan Zinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [Cameramakers] 8 x 10 bag camera > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hi, > > I loaded pics and a description of my design for a simple daylight loading 8 > x 10 box camera that uses a changing bag for a body. > > http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/8874/bagcam > > I haven't gotten time to test it much and would like a leg-up on the best > paper for paper negs. > > Thanks, > > AZ > Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera. > > www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/ > or > keyword.com lookaround > > > > --__--__-- > > _______________________________________________ > Cameramakers mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers > > > End of Cameramakers Digest _______________________________________________ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
