Re: [Cameramakers] Background

[Dan Rhoades]

Brian,

Thanks for the vote of support!  BTW, I changed my email address so that was
the cause of that problem.  I updated all the webpages as well but if you
have me loaded in your address book the new address is
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  I had to change it since the other service always
dropped my connection and was so slow!

As to the web code, I use Microsoft Frontpage (I'm ready for all the
spitballs that are heading my way now!).  That is probably causing the
problem.  It's the only solution I have since I don't have any time to spend
coding.  I'm military so I have to balance family, work and hobby and still
get some stuff out there.  I know the first time I built a camera it would
have been nice to have a set of plans to see what I was in for.  Of course,
I bought Jon Grepstad's book, and encourge anyone else that is getting into
camera building to buy it, but it would have been nice to see what I was
getting myself into!  Anyhoo, if you would like I can put the Power Point
slides I have built to date up on the web so you don't have save the web
pages.  Let me know.

Thanks!
Dan Rhoades
www.rhoadescameras.bizland.com

- Original Message -
From: "Brian Swale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Dan Rhoades" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Background


> Hi Dan and everybody,
>
> I tried to send this to Dan off-group but for several days his ISP returns
the
> mail saying he is an unknown user !! ;-(
>
> Here's what I tried to send him.
>
> For what it's worth, here's another side to that - and I say - forget the
> criticism.
>
> I realised that you had taken the photos in a room of your house, and
guess
> what - it's great to see how other people live. I got almost as much of a
kick
> at looking the the way your wall was lined, at the pictures on the wall,
at the
> stuffed animals, at your family B&W photos.
>
> It was great to have a peep into your way of life - and I wonder how on
earth
> you find the time to do such creative woodwork etc and have a happy family
> life.  All different from mine and an inspiration.
>
> Good luck to you.
>
> By the way, there's something a trifle strange about how your web-pages
are
> coded. I think it may be to do with the MS program you use.
>
> I saved some of your pages on my HDD for future reference, and it is quite
> difficult to get the images to load even when I edit the src URL ref.
>
> Something to do with the (strange?) code used for the underscore in your
file
> names too.
>
> And when I clicked on your B&W link and the ?other - colour  link, they
> loaded, but where they went who knows. Only after I deleted a few pages
> from my browser's cache ( I use Opera) did they show up.
>
> I've never had that before.
>
> I use Arachnophilia as my web-page authoring program.
>
> Cheers, Brian Swale
>
> >For those of you that cringe at the cluttered background of the photos
> >on my website, they are just temporary and a necessity for now.  I had
> >to get the camera finished to get it into the show it is currently in
> >and was not able to get some good photos before then.  I know the photos
> >aren't the best but there were people that wanted new photos up on the
> >site so that's what we have for now.  Once the camera is back I'll be
> >taking some tasteful photos and those will be up instead of the
> >cluttered photos.
>
> >Dan Rhoades
> >www.rhoadescameras.bizland.com
> ___
> Cameramakers mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
>

___
Cameramakers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers

Re: [Cameramakers] Background

[Brian Swale]

Hi Dan and everybody,

I tried to send this to Dan off-group but for several days his ISP returns the 
mail saying he is an unknown user !! ;-(

Here's what I tried to send him.

For what it's worth, here's another side to that - and I say - forget the 
criticism.

I realised that you had taken the photos in a room of your house, and guess 
what - it's great to see how other people live. I got almost as much of a kick 
at looking the the way your wall was lined, at the pictures on the wall, at the
stuffed animals, at your family B&W photos.

It was great to have a peep into your way of life - and I wonder how on earth
you find the time to do such creative woodwork etc and have a happy family 
life.  All different from mine and an inspiration.

Good luck to you.

By the way, there's something a trifle strange about how your web-pages are
coded. I think it may be to do with the MS program you use. 

I saved some of your pages on my HDD for future reference, and it is quite
difficult to get the images to load even when I edit the src URL ref.

Something to do with the (strange?) code used for the underscore in your file
names too.

And when I clicked on your B&W link and the ?other - colour  link, they 
loaded, but where they went who knows. Only after I deleted a few pages 
from my browser's cache ( I use Opera) did they show up.

I've never had that before.

I use Arachnophilia as my web-page authoring program.

Cheers, Brian Swale

>For those of you that cringe at the cluttered background of the photos 
>on my website, they are just temporary and a necessity for now.  I had 
>to get the camera finished to get it into the show it is currently in 
>and was not able to get some good photos before then.  I know the photos 
>aren't the best but there were people that wanted new photos up on the 
>site so that's what we have for now.  Once the camera is back I'll be 
>taking some tasteful photos and those will be up instead of the 
>cluttered photos.

>Dan Rhoades
>www.rhoadescameras.bizland.com
___
Cameramakers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers

Re: [Cameramakers] Henry Paul - 3rd edition - how many copies do you want?

[matt]

Actually, I'd be happy with just a photcopy/scan of the page
or two bibliography on articles that was deleted.  The rest 
of the book I've seen :)

Regards,
Matt
> There are about 10 copies available on-line right now.


___
Cameramakers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers

[Cameramakers] Henry Paul - 3rd edition - how many copies do you want?

[Brian Swale]

Hi Henry

There are about 10 copies available on-line right now.

Go to 

and do a detailed search !!

(This'll cost ya !!)

Cheers, Brian
___
Cameramakers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers

Re: [Cameramakers] Thin glass for a within-camera platen - thanks for help

[Robert Mueller]

At 05:27 23.10.01 +, you wrote:
>Why not just put a glass about a centimeter in front of the film.  Dust on 
>this glass will make a very diffuse shadow except possibly at very small 
>diaphragm openings, so you are unlikely to notice it.  Conversely, the 
>volume to be pumped is smaller than when you pump the bellows and the 
>notmal swings and tilts have no influence on the pressure, or vice versa.

You also eliminate scratching of the glass with this scheme.

Continuous pumping is fully practical in a stationary setting and is 
probably standard for the larger formats for repro work and various 
precision operations like photoetching, where exact flatness is needed and 
the film is rather large to support only at the edges, anyway.   In the 
usual studio being connected to  a pump could be awkward, but if the back 
design is good I suspect the extra trouble will be hardly disturbing.

Bob


>Yes, I understand all this and that's the reason why I'm using the rubber
>strips to seal just the area around the film opening in the the front (lens
>side) of the back instead of the entire back.
>
>While some degree of air will always leak out of the pressurized bellows,
>the amount that leaks out right now is larger than I'd like since it
>requires pumping air into the bellows continously in order to make my setup
>work.  While this is minimally practical in a studio environment, it's
>totally impractical in the field.  I know the bellows will need to be
>relieved of some pressure between shots in order to allow for focusing and
>movements but having to pump it up each time from empty is more work than
>I'm willing to undertake, especially with the small rubber bulb I'm hoping
>to use.
>
>
>Jeff Goggin
>Scottsdale, AZ
>___
>Cameramakers mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers

___
Cameramakers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers

Re: [Cameramakers] Thin glass for a within-camera platen - thanks for help

[Robert Mueller]

How about just having a glass about a centimeter is front of the film. Then 
pressurize only the chamber between film and glass.  The bellows is free of 
pressure and the volume is far smaller, yet dust on the glass will be far 
less obvious and the glass will not be touched so there will be no tendency 
to develop scratches.  A spot will have to be pretty bad to show on the 
film unless you are working at rather small diaphragm openings.

Continuous pumping is better than "minimally practical" and is used in some 
good commercial cameras (I suspect most working on precision projects in 
the larger formats.)  It is awkward for normal photography, even in a 
studio, but I doubt if it is more than a minor problem if well thought out.

Bob


At 05:27 23.10.01 +, you wrote:
> >I assume you do realize that pressure or vacuum alone isn't what is going
> >to flatten the film.  It is the pressure differential between the opposite
> >sides of the film that will hold it in place.  In other words, you will
> >need to ensure that there is less pressure behind the film than in front
> >of it.  If you make things air tight and simply pressurize the chamber you
> >would presumably have the same pressure behind the film as in front of it.
> >That doesn't gain you anything.  After all, if you do nothing the chamber
> >is pressurized according to your local barometric pressure.  I'm guessing
> >you'd always want to have an air leak behind the film if you want to
> >pressurize the film chamber.
>
>Yes, I understand all this and that's the reason why I'm using the rubber
>strips to seal just the area around the film opening in the the front (lens
>side) of the back instead of the entire back.
>
>While some degree of air will always leak out of the pressurized bellows,
>the amount that leaks out right now is larger than I'd like since it
>requires pumping air into the bellows continously in order to make my setup
>work.  While this is minimally practical in a studio environment, it's
>totally impractical in the field.  I know the bellows will need to be
>relieved of some pressure between shots in order to allow for focusing and
>movements but having to pump it up each time from empty is more work than
>I'm willing to undertake, especially with the small rubber bulb I'm hoping
>to use.
>
>
>Jeff Goggin
>Scottsdale, AZ
>___
>Cameramakers mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers

___
Cameramakers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers

[Cameramakers] Thin glass for a within-camera platen - thanks for help

[Jeffrey Goggin]

>I assume you do realize that pressure or vacuum alone isn't what is going
>to flatten the film.  It is the pressure differential between the opposite
>sides of the film that will hold it in place.  In other words, you will
>need to ensure that there is less pressure behind the film than in front
>of it.  If you make things air tight and simply pressurize the chamber you
>would presumably have the same pressure behind the film as in front of it.
>That doesn't gain you anything.  After all, if you do nothing the chamber
>is pressurized according to your local barometric pressure.  I'm guessing
>you'd always want to have an air leak behind the film if you want to
>pressurize the film chamber.

Yes, I understand all this and that's the reason why I'm using the rubber
strips to seal just the area around the film opening in the the front (lens
side) of the back instead of the entire back.

While some degree of air will always leak out of the pressurized bellows,
the amount that leaks out right now is larger than I'd like since it
requires pumping air into the bellows continously in order to make my setup
work.  While this is minimally practical in a studio environment, it's
totally impractical in the field.  I know the bellows will need to be
relieved of some pressure between shots in order to allow for focusing and
movements but having to pump it up each time from empty is more work than
I'm willing to undertake, especially with the small rubber bulb I'm hoping
to use.
 

Jeff Goggin
Scottsdale, AZ
___
Cameramakers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers