[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #653 - 2 msgs
___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
Re: [Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #652 - 8 msgs
You can use them for the Kodak Readyload and Fuji Quickloads . Regards, Marv [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A quick note on the Polaroid holders use for standard film You cannot use the Polaroid holders for standard sheet film. The holders do not have the channels to slide the standard sheet film in. The holders can be used with some quick load films. I have picked up several 4x5 sheet film on E-bay and I advise you to be careful. Several were not in usable shape and were cracked. I advise buying the plastic ones over the wood ones. The tape on the ends can be replaced and make most plastic ones good as new.
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #645 - 14 msgs
Hi - I'd love a copy also. thanks, Heller *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** On 3/11/03 at 8:47 AM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. 4 x 5 View Camera (Jim) 2. Re: 4 x 5 View Camera (Philip willarney) 3. Re: 4 x 5 View Camera (Norman Dennett) 4. Re: 4 x 5 View Camera (Lester Bartholomew Gawain Hawksby) 5. Re: 4 x 5 View Camera (Andrey Donchev) 6. Re: 4 x 5 View Camera (Samuel Tang) 7. Re: 4 x 5 View Camera (John Yeo) 8. Re: 4 x 5 View Camera (John Cremati) 9. Re: 4 x 5 View Camera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 10. Re: 4 x 5 View Camera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 11. Re: 4 x 5 View Camera (Michael Dowdall) 12. Re: 4 x 5 View Camera (Jonathan King) 13. Re: 4 x 5 View Camera (Jim) 14. Re: 4 x 5 View Camera (Robert Mueller) --__--__-- Message: 1 From: Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:19:20 -0500 Subject: [Cameramakers] 4 x 5 View Camera Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have a PDF file covering the making of a 4 x 5 view camera from Popular Mechanics Magazine for October 1942. The file is 1,049 Kb in size. If anyone wishes this file please let me know. Jim Ketcheson Belleville, Canada --__--__-- ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #641 - 4 msgs
In a message dated 3/7/2003 2:07:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The big camera illustrated below searches for a new home. The device served as a process camera for tickets(maps) and aerial photographs. The film size lies with about 1 m x 1 m, the normal focal length is 90 cm. The optical bank(bench) has in length of approx. 8-10m. Now she should be scrapped. Beauty would be naturally a place in a technical or photographic museum. Should somebody have a use for this camera, please announce to me: uwe/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/de I think that I would have some use for it, but would have to reduce it's size a little what were you looking to get for it and how can it be shipped? keep me in mind for first shot at it thanks Chris of Bradenton Fla feel free to contact me off line at [EMAIL PROTECTED] thanks
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers Plans for a studio stand?
How about a 6 foot section of 2 inch galvanized pipe. Mount a 2 inch floor flange to a piece of 1.25 inch plywood, triangle shape, 3 feet per side. The pipe is large enough for a sash weight counter balance, with a pulley for the support wire/rope at the top. Keep the camera over one of the legs, unless you use a counter weighted arm. A threaded knob screwed into the arm, pressing against the pipe column should hold it from moving about. john (:)) geez, I'm cheap Message: 2 Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 18:46:37 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Matt McKee [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Cameramakers] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am looking for ways to build an inexpensive camera stand for studio use. I remember seeing a set of plans years ago in a diy book for a monopod on wheels but can't find it again and can't remember if it was sturdy enough for a 4x5 monorail. I am working in a very small space with a low ceiling so most commercial camera stands are out. Also, they are more than I want to spend. Anyone have any suggestions for a 6 foot camera stand? Thanks, Matt -- ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #637 - 2 msgs
About this free stuff, could you indicate where it is? Thanks, Fred
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #631 - 3 msgs
In a message dated 2/23/2003 2:07:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've been thinking of how to enlarge 5x7 and 8x10 without buying an 8x10 enlarger. It would seem a plywood box with a light source at one end and lens at the other would be all that's needed. I spent some time with googles usenet archives and saw people mention everything from 1100watt monster light sources to 150watt work lights. Anybody know if a halogen work light would actually work? The price is right. They generate alot of heat but I'm guessing almost anything bright enough does. Some sort of diffuser between the light and the negative holder would seem the easy way. Avoiding condensors. A couple of fans to handle the heat? One pulling in room air the Hi, I have made several light sources, and enlargers in past years, one option is to use your camera as an enlarger and get two functions out of it, you will need to make a stand, vertical or horizontal your choice, then make a cold light source from a grid of florescent lights, or in the case of my 11x14 enlarger I went to a (neon) Sign repair store that makes grids and had them make a green and blue tubes and they sort of crossed over each other I painted the metal box white that I made in my home machine shop (metal brake) and placed the tubes some what deep in the box after experimenting with placement and my Minolta lllf meter, the whole was covered with light diffusing glass and provided evenness of light from end to end, factor in 20 percent overlap to cover your negative. I also made a back to go on my camera that took my negative and replaced the ground glass on the camera I had, at first I tried no glass to support the neg. since anything can degrade the image, this was not a real problem since the defused cold light source did not generate heat like my then color head I had on my omega 6x7 c. Later I went to glass negative carrier and had no buckle problems, more due to weight not heat. I was going through a weird phase In my life and photographic hobby career, I was fixated with super resolution I wanted to have drop dead resolution, so my enlarger project was for not enlarging (you really can't call it an enlarger) because I was making smaller prints than the negative itself and it did have very sharp, tight super resolution that was truly dazzling, overkill? You bet ya! This applies to black and white paper, I never tried color and don't think that I would want to, paper used in modern black and white is sensitive to blue and green, there is really not a need for an 1100 watt source and the heat generated would need to be not only fan cooled but forced vented into the outside, vibration should considered also. Now, I am making cameras, wood field cameras, and find myself less in the darkroom and more in my metal/wood machine shop. Chris of Bradenton FLA.
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #623 - 5 msgs
Message: 3 Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 14:56:47 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Tony Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Cameramakers] re: aerial cameras Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This person has good information on kite aerial photos. Cob together a servo that can hit the motor drive and your set. http://arch.ced.berkeley.edu/kap/ Hope it helps, T. Wright This is indeed a good site and full of good information. I am building a small 4x5 to fly along side my 35mm KAP rig. Kites are a good platform as long as there is wind, then balloons come into play. Your image quality will suffer with the smaller film sizes. Remember the distance to your subject when trying this. Terry H. ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #622 - 2 msgs
In a message dated 2/11/03 2:11:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Another question if I may...does any one on the list have any knowledge of processing bulk film I can't see myself trying to wind 100 feet of film on a tank reel. Joe -- Sounds like a great project. I know of a military developing outfit that may be available. It will take film up to about a foot wide by probably a hundred feet or more long. It consists of 3 oval tanks nested together with winding spools and a motor drive, and it all fits into a piece of luggage about 2 feet high by 1 ft. deep by 15-20 inches wide. Those dimensions are from memory from a month ago. It's located in the Detroit area. Let me know if you are interested, and I will check to see if it's still available and the price. Marty Magid [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #578 - 1 msg
I have two Packard shutters that I want to use in cameras I am building. When I squeeze the rubber bulb, both shutters stay open until I release the bulb, as if it was on a B setting of a modern shutter. Is there a Packard shutter that closes instantaneously without releasing the bulb? This web site explains a lot about Packard shutters. http://www.hubphoto.com/packard-shutters.htm Ted ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #541 - 3 msgs
Below is my original email...I am from Augusta, Georgia, USA Hi...I need someone's help. I have an Agfa Ansco 8x10 camera. The shutter that came with it is a Wollensak Optimo #4. It was sticking and 2 of the shutter leaves were broken. After 6 months in a camera repair shop, I retrieved it and it is really in worst shape than when I took it in [parts are off and in baggies]. I have a second shutter that is the same kind, but made at a different time, that can be canniblized for parts. [it doesn't fit my lensboard and it doesn't work] Does anyone know where I can send my shutter for repair? I am desperate to have my shutter repaired. Rosanne Stutts ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #539 - 2 msgs
Message: 2 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 22:04:59 -0800 (PST) From: Philip willarney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Rejuvenating Graflex Focal Plane Shutters To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Marv Soloff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ..snip.. project. I tested a careful application of common brake fluid at one end of the strip shutter. Sure enough, the crazing has disappeared, ..snip.. Hmm. I'm starting to think someone either gave you a *BIG* case of brake fluid, or you own stock in a brake fluid company (I'd avoid putting it in coffee)(^: -- seriously, this is good to know (I recently got a *VERY* beat up graflex super D that I'm starting to restore to usable status, and I haven't pulled the shutter curtain yet). -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] INTERESTING. Hmm! I've not ever ahd that kind of luck with brake fluid, but with rubber rejuvinator. usually found in the good auto-body supply places...prolly have to ask about it I've been using it for all rubber parts for twenty years. ..an old college room-mate swears by pig grease(yes stinky old grease) for everything from leather jackets to leather bellows to rubber coated cloth and o-rings. I have not played with it(it realy reaks!) Paul __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.com ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #521Cordura Bellows Adhesive
Riderwearhouse (www.aerostitch.com) sells motorcycle wear and gear. Among the materials for waterproofing and repairing riding jackets and suits they list the following products. AquaSeal, six dollars for a one oz tube. It's a medium viscosity sealant that also works as "an agressive adhesive" that glues permanently to fabrics. They list cordura as one of the fabrics it works with. Seam Grip, seven dollars for a one oz tube. This is a lighter viscosity sealant that also has "excellent adhesive properties". Both products are urethane based. From reading the descriptions it looks like the lighter viscosity Seam Grip will tend more to wick into the fabric. These are both commercial products and can probably be found at outdoor gear outlets. There is also a thinner called Cotol that is specially formulated for working with urethane based sealants and adhesives, and shortens the drying time (i.e. AquaSeal drying time shortens from 12 to 2 hours). Jerry Henneman
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #518 - 7 msgs
Can anyone refer me to info online to help me understand the Zone system? I'm not ready to buy a book yet. Murray Here's a great site: http://www.cicada.com/pub/photo/zs/ Best, John V ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #514 - 4 msgs
:O) OK - (O: I'm still chuckling. Murray - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 2:07 PM Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #514 - 4 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. pics to follow up to bellows questions (Uptown Gallery) 2. Process lens (Uptown Gallery) 3. Re: Process lens (John Cremati) 4. Re: Bellows Material Cordura (J. Wayde Allen) --__--__-- Message: 1 From: Uptown Gallery [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 18:08:52 -0400 Subject: [Cameramakers] pics to follow up to bellows questions Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.uptowngallery.org/cambo_front.jpg www.uptowngallery.org/cambo_rear.jpg What is that thing in the front? It's raised, has slots holes in it. Can I remove it to have a flat smooth place to fit a lens board in? Maybe it's NOT a Cambo? Thanks Murray --__--__-- Message: 2 From: Uptown Gallery [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 19:40:30 -0400 Subject: [Cameramakers] Process lens Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What is the longest f.l. process lens you folks have heard of or have in your collection? I would like to know what exists for the 23 x 35 bellows coming my way, rather than looking for something that doesn't exist. I could experiment with single elements for camera work, but enlarging would need a better lens(Yeah, I know, reality check is in order, but why not pursue it?) Thanks Murray --__--__-- Message: 3 From: John Cremati [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Process lens Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:52:23 -0400 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] They have a 72 inch focal length process lens but they are very rare, in fact I have never seen one for sale... I have seen a number of 48 inch and 42 inch process camera lenses .. I have a late model 42 inch( or about 1050mm) Red Dot Altar with the Schneider name on it that I hope to put into a shutter.. ... They are getting pricey as well. My advice to you would be to forget that old bellows (maybe use it for Halloween as the giant man eating camera...) and design a camera around available film, a lens , available film holders , ect Then build the bellows to fit your specific film back and front standard.. A bellows will be the least of your problems in design and building such a camera or enlarger.. All of a sudden 10 years will go by with very little to show for it except a old bellows that has little use except for the massive camera it was originally designed for..Focus on what you need to do what you want to do and spend the bucks to get there if that is the case. The only thing that I can think of to do with that bellows that might have value would be to make a large pinhole camera ( you could also use a cardboard box.) Been there , done that . John Cremati. - Original Message - From: Uptown Gallery [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 7:40 PM Subject: [Cameramakers] Process lens What is the longest f.l. process lens you folks have heard of or have in your collection? I would like to know what exists for the 23 x 35 bellows coming my way, rather than looking for something that doesn't exist. I could experiment with single elements for camera work, but enlarging would need a better lens(Yeah, I know, reality check is in order, but why not pursue it?) Thanks Murray ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers --__--__-- Message: 4 Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 11:44:58 -0600 (MDT) From: J. Wayde Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Bellows Material Cordura Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, John Cremati wrote: Has anyone tried using Cordura Nylon as the outer layer in bellows fabrication ? It is supposedly the toughest fabric on earth and is water proof...( they are using it to make Fishing Waders...) The deener 160 blend seems to be there thinnest material as they are using it for clothing. http://www.cordura.com/ Any suggestions? Yes, works like a charm http://rmp.opusis.com/cameras/my4x5_2.jpg! - Wayde ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --__--__-- ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #514 - 4 msgs
What is the longest f.l. process lens you folks have heard of or have in your collection? This one was just on eBay; http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=1385213279 Ted ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #491 - 6 msgs
Yo 20x24! A man after my own heart.
Lightweight?
I have a large air force surplus lens that covers 24 x 24. So I've been
kicking around BIG! camera design ideas. And I've been thinking holders as
well so here's what I will do when I quit procrastinating.
Really large format holders are expensive. $400-$700 each from what I've
seen. What I want to do with my lens and my camera design is construct a
back that can hold different size film holders. Based on my 4x5 reducing
back that I bootlegged to fit my sinar 4x5 back to my Horseman 8x10.
Design the rear of the camera for the largest size and allow for replacing
backs based on film size. 1. Make one that will fit my removable 8x10
horseman back. 2, Then make them for different sizes, 11x14, 16 x 20 and
maybe 20x24.
These super-sizes I would custom make so that the ground glass distance
would fit the holders I would also make. These are such unusual sizes that
you won't ever need to or be abel to, rent a bunch of holders for a big job.
I figure that once you figure out one holder, you can make six.
will
---William Nettles
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nettles Photo / Imaging Site http://www.wgn.net/~nettles
Find out what's happening in Echo Park:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 12:07:20 -0600
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #491 - 6 msgs
Hello out there...
I am in the process of trying to build a light weight 20x24 camera
along with 12 single film carriers.. The initial stage is to build the
film carriers so that the ground glass can be positioned accurately.. I have
a idea for a New design for the film carrier which I will share with
everyone in the near future . It is amazingly simple {if it works}, will
be cheap to build and will have several serious advantages over a
conventional film carriers. I am still trying to figure things out at this
point.. There seems to be nothing new under the sun so maybe this will
end up not being a fresh idea after all...
I intend to make the film carriers and camera out of
Alloonneeyyuumm
My biggest obstacle at this moment is that I am hung up on the
design of the light trap for the dark slideAt $10 per sheet of film I
would like to come up with a fool proof design..
Are there any publications on making film carriers?
Presently I am also trying to decide on the material used for the dark
slide( I was thinking of using either black Formica or black rigid
Sintra which is a expanded PVC product.. see below ) Does any one have any
other suggestions as far as dark slide material or experience with this
Sintra? . I believe it is also manufactured under the name Komatex, and
Celtec... This material is very light and seems to be quite durable..
Sintra : ( written by a distributor)
Sintra is a closed-cell, expanded plastic that has high strength-to-weight
ratio for superior workability. The material is so easy to work with, you
can build your displays, exhibits, and signage in half the time. That means
half the labor and fabrication costs.
Sintra material is made to stay flat. But it has the formability to take on
any design. And its edges cut clean with uniform color throughout. No
fraying or unattractive inner core. Plus sintra is tough enough to be used
over and over again. So you can use your display, exhibit or sign year after
year.
This material can be fabricated using conventional wood tools. Saw it. Drill
it. Glue it. Die cut it. Nail it. Silk screen it. Truly a versatile material
for state-of-the-art displays, exhibits and signs. Plus it;s a UL-recognized
component with a 94VO fire rating for low flame spread.
Available in White, Black, and colors and comes in very thin 1/16 inch to
over 3/4 inch in thick...
Regards,
John Cremati
___
Cameramakers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] RE: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #485 - 2 msgs
How are you going about this set up -- I'm curious myself? What are you doing about the flicker issue which the power supply and design of the Kino Flo handles? Most commercial flourescent equipment flickers and light output is uneven and inconsistent. Paul Message: 2 Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 19:41:13 -0700 From: filmpro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Cameramakers] CHEAP BALL SOCKET?? Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi! I'm building some flourescent lighting like kino Flo. I'm trying to figure an inexpensive way to connect the light unit, to a repurposed broken tripod (no head). A ball socket which could be locked at a specific angle would be great. So, where can i find such a thing cheaply. Or even make one. I will need 6-8 so price does become a factor. Also, Any ideas on cheap light stands? Need to be transportable. luckily I kept this broken tripod:-) Mac --__--__-- ___ 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
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #474 - 7 msgs
On 04-Sep-2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for the advice on the center filter for the Metrogon. I actually had a different problem in mind. As I understand it a piece of flat glass adds spherical aberration. Someone in this group reported that the Metrogon was calculated with this in mind by including compensating aberration of the opposite sign so optimum resolution would be reached when one of the center filters was in place. I assume that the center filter is used in front of the Metrogon? If so, then, for the photography of distant objects, the mere fact of having a flat uniform thickness filter in front of the lens does NOT introduce spherical abberation. For distant objects, the arriving light rays are very close to parallel -- the effect of a flat uniform thickness piece of glass on parallel light rays is to slightly shift the rays in a parallel manner -- with an object at infinity this isn't noticeable. Conversely, if a flat uniform thickness piece of glass is inserted into a beam of convergent rays, spherical abberation will be created. This would be the case for a filter behind a lens, or a filter in front of a lens when the lens is focused on a close object. If you are doing closeups or using a filter behind a lens, you should focus with the filter in place -- it changes the apparent distance. Compared to other filters, a center filter has some complicated effect on abberations. If you a lens without a center filter, the light rays that reach the film have arrived with equal probability over the front of the lens (at least the part of the glass used at the taking aperture). If you use a center filter, then the light rays at the edge have a higher probability of reaching the film. If the abberations contributed by the outer radii are different from the inner, then the mean abberation will be changed. I don't think there is any simple way to predict this effect. For a really wide-angle lens, the improvement in exposure uniformity due to using a center filter is likely to be more important. --Michael ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #473 - 13 msgs
Marv, That was where I looked before. As I said, it does not list the 655 or 690 film that you mentioned. I know nothing about these films. That is why I asked if the 3.25 x 4.25 films could be used. If not what is the correct size? Kenith Ryan Try looking here: http://www.polaroid.com/products/product_list.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=3736 47ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=18071bmLocale=en_USbmUID=1031049269115PRDREG=PO L I saw 6 or eight off the bat under business. Regards, Marv ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
Re: [Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #473 - 13 msgs
Kenith Ryan wrote: Marv, That was where I looked before. As I said, it does not list the 655 or 690 film that you mentioned. I know nothing about these films. That is why I asked if the 3.25 x 4.25 films could be used. If not what is the correct size? Kenith Ryan Try looking here: http://www.polaroid.com/products/product_list.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=3736 47ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=18071bmLocale=en_USbmUID=1031049269115PRDREG=PO L I saw 6 or eight off the bat under business. Regards, Marv ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers My error - the 690 has been replaced by the 400 film, the p/n film should have been labelled 655: Polapan PN Type 665 3.25 x 4.25 Black and White Pack Film Polapan PN Type 665 3.25 x 4.25 Black and White Pack Film is a medium-speed, medium-contrast, fine-grain film that produces high quality black and white prints and negatives suitable for enlarging. The negative possesses a wide tonal range and is capable of producing beautifully subtle images on conventional printing papers. Learn More Regards, Marv ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #449 - 7 msgs
Testing can be done (by Contact printing) (by enlargement) on Bromide enlarging paper to find out the 'Exact' light loss. BarrieB. At 04:08 am 11/08/02, you wrote: 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: Surplus Military lenses?? (Robert Mueller) 2. Re: Surplus Military lenses?? (Robert Mueller) 3. Re: Surplus Military lenses?? (filmpro) 4. Re: Printing on non-silver emulsions of low sensitivity (George Arndt) 5. Re: Re: Printing on non-silver emulsions of low sensitivity (Robert Mueller) 6. High Resolution film (Black and White) (Robert Mueller) --__--__-- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 21:26:04 +0200 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Robert Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Surplus Military lenses?? Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? A proper lens takes the light coming from the object (the film in this case) and projects it in a way such that all light coming from a single point, whatever its direction of travel, will end up at a single point on the image (the fabric). Assumed is that the system is correctly focused. Wandering of the sun does not change this; a single point on the source will be projected to a single point in the image throughout the wandering of the sun. However, there is a different trouble; rather quickly the sunlight through a given point will not hit the lens so that point in the image will go dark. The nicest solution is what I believe is called a heliostat. This has a mirror which tracks the sun's motion in a way so the light is cast in the direction of the lens a the sun wanders through the sky. You could do it by hand until you determine whether making a real tracking machine is worth the bother. Please note, the sunlight comes from a constant direction when this device is in use, no matter where the sun actually is (if not below the horizon or behind a cloud!) There is a different problem as well. You more or less need a condenser unless the lens is bigger than the film. Sunlight travels as a nearly parallel bundle of rays. Only light passing through a circle the size of the lens but lying in the plane of the negative actually passes through the lens. You can move this circle over the film but only this much negative is being exposed at any time. Without a condenser you will have to scan the film by passing the light from various directions through the lens so the whole film is roughly equally sampled. I suggest adding apiece of heat absorbing glass if you can find one in the right size; for a 2x2 negative it should be relatively easy. Bigger will be harder and more expensive. Bob At 08:49 09.08.02 -0700, you wrote: Another thought... If you are exposing for a long period of time the position of the sun may play a huge factor on your enlargement with out a condenser. Take a flash light and move it 25 degrees across film and see what it does to the final image on the wall... A guess would be that the image will move right along with the light thus ruining your print... John I thought about that, but there would be a piece of diffused glass between the sun and neg. ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers --__--__-- Message: 2 Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 21:28:50 +0200 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Robert Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Surplus Military lenses?? Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Diffusion glass will do the job as well but with the cost of considerable light loss, which might be important when exposures are getting to look like hours. Bob At 08:49 09.08.02 -0700, you wrote: Another thought... If you are exposing for a long period of time the position of the sun may play a huge factor on your enlargement with out a condenser. Take a flash light and move it 25 degrees across film and see what it does to the final image on the wall... A guess would be that the image will move right along with the light thus ruining your print... John I thought about that, but there would be a piece of diffused glass between the sun and neg. ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers --__--__-- Message: 3 Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Surplus Military lenses?? Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 12:44:53 -0700 From: filmpro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Diffusion glass will do the job as well
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #430 - 5 msgs
Anyone have any references on 'pulsed xenon' lamp sources for large format enlargers? Ansel Adams mentions this in one of his Basic books, and I ran into someone's website once that built an enlarger with this source. I may have access to this technology thru work and want to start the learning curve to see if it's compatible with enlargment. Thanks Murray - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 2:07 PM Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #430 - 5 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: Making a Spring Back (Philip willarney) 2. Re: Rule of Thumb for determining bellows size? (Robert Stoddard) 3. 8x10 enlarger (Philip J. McCourt) 4. Re: 8x10 enlarger (scl) 5. Re: Project Completed! (Terry) --__--__-- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:36:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Philip willarney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Making a Spring Back To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A question about making spring backs http://home.online.no/~gjon/gg4x5.htm to be I've been working on building a 4x5 spring back myself, and the web site you list seems to have one of the prettier designs. If you can find a copy of Build Your Own View Camera!: An Easy and Inexpensive Passport to the Professional World of Photography for the Hobbyist by Bert West it's got plans for a simpler 4x5 back that should be easy to construct (I've got one mostly built from this one and am still looking for suitable springs). You can build this one with some thin plywood, some small wood stock, and very simple hand tools (say, a saw, a drill, and an exacto knife). Or, you can sometimes find just a 4x5 back -- I found one, a portion of an old view camera, for $10 at a camera show this spring: I'll probably cut it down to fit an old speed 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 I've got so I can use 4x5 film in it. Oddly enough, I've seen a few speed graphic backs on ebay -- but they wind up going for more than you paid for your camera... -- Philip -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com --__--__-- Message: 2 From: Robert Stoddard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Rule of Thumb for determining bellows size? Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 20:25:09 + Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there a rule-of-thumb when it comes to determing the size of the bellows to be used with any given format? I have recently started thinking about modifying my Toyo 23G so I can occasionally shoot 4x5 sheetfilm with it and while there is enough space between the the rear standard uprights to accept a 4x5 back, the opening in the rear standard is only ~4.5 square and the opening in the bag bellows mounting plate is just under 4 square. One way to minimize problems when adapting a larger back to a smaller camera is to provide that the back be spaced somewhat further away from (behind) the position of the normal-size back. This works to minimize image cutoff and reflections, because the light coming from the lens is in the shape of a cone, and a 4.5 inch aperture won't intercept the cone of light if the image plane and 4.5 inch aperture are separated a bit. RKS _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx --__--__-- Message: 3 Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 17:45:40 -0400 From: Philip J. McCourt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Cameramakers] 8x10 enlarger Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I finally have some of the 8x10 enlarger built. I have posted info and some photos of it on my website. Keep in mind that this is a work in progress and changes will be made as I complete the building process. I have tried projecting a negative on a movie screen and the results look very promising. Any comments would me welcomed! http://www.philsan.com/8x10_enlarger.htm Phil McCourt --__--__-- Message: 4 Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 20:13:47 -0400 (EDT) From: scl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] 8x10 enlarger Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Philip J. McCourt wrote: I finally have some of the 8x10 enlarger built. I have posted info and some photos of it on my website. Keep
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #429 - 4 msgs
Fabulous camera Don. Great job. I'd be consumed in jealously if I wasn't so busy following all your weblinks! Thanks you're not only a great camera builder but a terrific asset to the rest of us. ---William Nettles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nettles Photo / Imaging Site http://www.wgn.net/~nettles Find out what's happening in Echo Park: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:11:45 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #429 - 4 msgs For shameless self-promotion, I've put up a website displaying a 4x5 field camera I've just finished building. The site is at www.duckproductions.com Don Feinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #414 - 5 msgs
Not a blast Marty. We're with you. Having worked with 'famous artists' (registered trademark goes here) who hang in museums and have bookoo bucks it all comes down to an idea or a vision and pursuing it. All real artists continue to try new things, seek their own path, would make art with mud and sticks if nothing else was available. The saddest guy in the world is the millionaire artist who hasn't tried anything new in ten years. Eugene Atget wandered around Paris streets using completely obsolete technology making photographs that are cherished and will continue to be so. Marvel a generation older than Atget using state of the art (for the 1860s) technology made technically superior photographs to those Atget would begin making years later. Yet his are historical records, Atget's are works of art. H is hand is in every print, his passion in every mistake, scratch chemical stain, blurry bit. The only thing I can suggest is to make sure the pursuit of the widget doesn't derail the persuit of the image. We male photographers are all too easily seduced by the next wonder-widget. Now if I only had that cheap zoom lens I could shoot a dull slide of a squirrel in the park just like the one I saw in Popular Photography magazine. . . . But whether you are Rebecca Blake asking her assistant to adjust and focus her camera to capture the image she has in her head or one of us guys whittling a scrap of wood into a blackbox keep in mind what it is you are trying to accomplish--and then stay open to being able to recognize what it is that we have actually accomplished and build on that. My proof sheets bore me to tears. My prints are even duller. Often even after I have toned them they leave me wondering 'why am I doing this?' Often it takes six months of walking past them every couple of days-ignoring them to realize which are good and which not. And even then there is the next step of learning from what I already know and applying to the next stage. IT took me twenty years to realize I never did want to be Ansel Adams. Here in Cameramakers we have the added situation where we often spend a day or a week making some widget or alteration and then realizing it is no good. Just part of the process. Mistakes are rewards. Dead ends signposts to the new way. Failures blessings. Success transitory and a warning to push on immediately. Will ---William Nettles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nettles Photo / Imaging Site http://www.wgn.net/~nettles Find out what's happening in Echo Park: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 12:07:09 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #414 - 5 msgs I suppose I'll get flamed for this, but what the hell . . . You guys who make your own stuff do great things, but you should not look down your noses at other people who have to do things differently. There are lots of people who do not have the means to buy the tools necessary to do what you do, nor do they they have the time or the education or experience necessary. Someone who saves his pennies for a year from his miserable job shoveling elephant dung in a zoo to buy a 40 year old Ciroflex TLR has as much right to be proud of his photos as someone who built a Wisner lookalike. Blast away. Marty ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
Re: [Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #408 - 1 msg
On Mon, 27 May 2002, John wrote: Just curious but why does the header show Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #408 - 1 msg when this message is obviously not a digest ? The size of a digest depends on the amount of list traffic. Some decision has to be made about how often a digest of messages is generated. For this list the server issues a digest whenever it accumulates 30 kBytes of e-mail or once each day, whichever comes first. Since there was only one message posted on Saturday, that meant the system created a one message digest. (It probably wouldn't be too useful to wait a few weeks until there was enough e-mail to create a big digest.) - Wayde, List Maintainer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
Re: [Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #408 - 1 msg
Just curious but why does the header show Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #408
- 1 msg when this message is obviously not a digest ?
Regards
John S. Douglas, Photographer
http://www.darkroompro.net
On Sun, 26 May 2002 16:31:18 -0500, you wrote:
Try your request on the Large Format Page and watch ebay. I just bought
several from C.W.Dean on ebay. Paid $7.50 for the last ones, then again I
paid $12.50 another time depending on the bidding. He has a link somewhere
on the large format page also.
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 17:59:17 -0700
From: Ted Burford [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Cameramakers] Re: A Pair of Useful Lens/Shutter Combinations
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(4) Shoot a f128 and use the lens cap and your wristwatch (put the
Packard
inthe bottom of a drawer). Not an attempt at humor on my part, many
people
do this, just do some reading reciprococity failure.
Well this lens only goes to f22 ;-{).
Where can I get the hose and bulb for this shutter?
Ted
_
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.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
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #400 - 2 msgs
When building a softbox from PVC what do you use foer the diffuser over the front? I downloaded and read the Tinker Tubes PDF file but am still unclear on this point. The easiest thing I can think of is a clear frosted vinyl shower curtain. Rip Stop Nylon works very good. You can get it at a fabric store. Ted ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
Re: [Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #390 - 2 msgs
Of course something weird will happen! A great picture taken with a bunch of stuff never intend by their makers to function together! Gene - Original Message - From: Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 3:25 PM Subject: [Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #390 - 2 msgs Hello Gene: I would prefer to mount it right at the back of the lens, but I was afraid something weird would happen...I have no idea what, though. Murray - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 2:07 PM Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #390 - 2 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. focal plane spacing, Fairchild shutter question (Uptown Gallery) 2. Re: focal plane spacing, Fairchild shutter question (Gene Johnson) --__--__-- Message: 1 From: Uptown Gallery [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 00:57:54 -0400 Subject: [Cameramakers] focal plane spacing, Fairchild shutter question Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello: Can anyone tell me how close a focal plane shutter is placed to the film? Also, looking for any information on operation of the old Fairchild Aviation or Fairchild Camera Instrument shutters, patent numbers, etc. Thank you Murray --__--__-- Message: 2 From: Gene Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] focal plane spacing, Fairchild shutter question Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 07:37:57 -0700 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Murray, In theory, you want it as close as possible. The farther away you get from the film, the less efficient the shutter becomes. The other way to go is use the fp shutter as close as possible to the back of your lens. I guess you just call it a shutter then. For us giant lens guys that could be a neat way to use barrel lenses on really large format. Gene - Original Message - From: Uptown Gallery [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 9:57 PM Subject: [Cameramakers] focal plane spacing, Fairchild shutter question Hello: Can anyone tell me how close a focal plane shutter is placed to the film? Also, looking for any information on operation of the old Fairchild Aviation or Fairchild Camera Instrument shutters, patent numbers, etc. Thank you Murray ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers --__--__-- ___ 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 ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #380 - 1 msg
How about just placing some neutral density filtration over the strobes. No modification is then necessary. R From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 12:07:07 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #380 - 1 msg 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. Strobe Modifications (Dave Schneider) --__--__-- Message: 1 From: Dave Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 11:40:54 -0500 Subject: [Cameramakers] Strobe Modifications Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] A little off the beaten path of camera building, but I know many of you are do-it-yourselfers on other issues. I am looking for some assistance on modifiying a Speedotron Brownline system to get a greater range of power adjustment. When using a digital camera to proof setups I need less light than when shooting the final shot with my 4x5. The Brownline offers 2 stops adjustment but I would like to get 3 or 4 if possible. Does anyone have a source for schematics on these power supplies? My second option would be to modify the heads with a 1 or 2 stop adjustment similar to what Novatron does on their heads. I have left a message with Speedotron but not gotten a reply to my request for a schematic. Before the replys about the danger of working on strobes start let me say, yes I know. I am aware of the danger but know how to deal with this type of low voltage equipment, I spent the first 20 years out of school working on 7500 volt equipment. --__--__-- ___ 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
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #367 - 5 msgs
Ah Soft boxes. I remember them well. My fingers still tingle with burns from the glue gun and I can still smell the smoke from the burning one in the studio on St Sacrement in Old Montreal. . . . Tungsten soft boxes are a risky animal due to the heat. Sheet aluminum is light and reasonable easy to work. I shoot mostly tungsten and never use 'em. Instead I just stretch some translucent Gridcloth between poles on C-stands. But I make my own .032 aluminum reflector boxes. Flash/strobe light boxes on the other hand are easy and very workable. I basically make them out of the 3/16 foam core. and cut an opening for the light head in the back --and a couple of vent holes-above and below the light position for convection flow. The Tungsten modleing lights will, as our narrow box did in Vieux Montreal, set fire to foam core. One critical factor is that the white foamcore really isn't all that good a reflector, and a completely open back will lose a lot of light. It's best there for to design them with a keystone shape to bounce the light toward the front. It is also very good to buy a roll of pebbled silver reflector material from Roscoe gels (or order from Mole Richardson or Calumet). I used rubber cement though spray mount will work as well, and cover the inside of the box with the silver reflector material. This will give you maybe two additional stops. I use the pebbled surface because tinfoil or a mylar would through uneven spectral reflections on the front of the box. The face of the box I use Roscoe Grid cloth. It has the small ripstop grid incorporated (just like your winter parka) and won't shred like the pure plastic translume and such. I just gaffer tape them to the front. That's about it. They aren't as easy to store as the roll up ones but you can create individual light boxes for specifc shoots. ---William Nettles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nettles Photo / Imaging Site http://www.wgn.net/~nettles Find out what's happening in Echo Park: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:07:44 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #367 - 5 msgs Dear colegues, this question is not directly connected to camera making. I would like to make a Soft box and I am looking for some help. Can someone give me a hint, where to find more information? Regards, Janez ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #364 - 4 msgs
Ah, a great question. I couldn't resist... Last fall, after a few months of just thinking it through, I finally did my Graflex SLR conversion. It works wonderfully. First, everything said in previous mssgs was pretty much born out in my experience. The graflex FP shutters do move at pretty constant rate due to a dynamic balance of changing forces. Late model speed graphic (pacemakers) FP shutters even have a governor that engages to slow half of the speeds down. For my SLR shutter, I used the original shutter mech, modified to run twice as far as normal. While this does offer the advantage of allowing the shutter to reach terminal velocity before actually opening, a more critical advantage is allowing the aperture to be completely wound up on the take-up roller before the shutter jerks to a stop. I snapped the ribbons (outside edges of curtain at the aperture) a few times before making this mod. The aperture is huge: 4.75X4.75 to allow rotating the back with 4x5 film. Still, a cursory test showed 100 film exposing pretty correctly at f/11 in February sun. That's pretty good for full flash sync. Flash is triggered by brushes contacting the metal stiffener of the leading edge of the aperture. The mirror light-seals were completely redone to allow winding the shutter without the dark slide. This would be a real annoyance on a camera without a mirror, and is one reason I haven't bothered to modify my speed graphic FP shutters for full flash sync. The other major Modification is an adjustable automatic diaphragm system coupled to mirror movement. The mirror is sprung closed, and pulled open gently by a cable system actuated by a giant clothes pin to make the exposure. Low vibration and it all happens in a fraction of a second. Perhaps the most valuable information I have to offer is that the best adhesive I found for the shutter curtain is Automotive Goop thinned with Naptha. Not much else sticks to that rubberized surface and remains flexible. Roger Stevens ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #351 - 6 msgs
General shortcomings of stage lighting for photography. 1. Generally stage lighting is less expensive-especially the tight spots. (just kidding this is not a shortcoming) 2. Some of the tight spots and focused stage sources have rainbow edges due to prism affect of the lenses. This is generally not a problem with fresnels. 3. It's important to get your replacement flash head in the same position as the tungsten bulb due to the concave reflector at the back end of the fresnel fixture. the biggest problem I see in flashheads with modeling lights that are keylight (as opposed to soft boxes, umbrellas etc...) is that the flashed light is of a different quality than the modeling light. Let us know how your experiment goes. Maybe I'll drag out my old Mole Richardson 2 K and do something with it. 4. A general shortcoming of fresnel fixtures in general I find that they are not very efficient. A higher percetnage of light from my MoleRichardson 2K goes to heating up the housing. 2K of light out of my Lowell DPs are much much brighter. As a hack I quickly got bored with the Mole and now use my Lowells barndoors diffusion, where I would use the MoleRichardson. Will ---William Nettles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nettles Photo / Imaging Site http://www.wgn.net/~nettles Find out what's happening in Echo Park: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:07:26 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #351 - 6 msgs A little off topic of the home built camera but let's have a go! I am wondering if anyone has any experience adapting stage lighting equipment to use in the phot studio? Specifically I am looking at adapting a small, perhaps 3, fresnel stage light for use with a strobe. I can get a new 3 fresnel stage light for less than $100. I have a spare Speedotron head that I bought used and never use. I wonder what I might encounter replacing the tungsten lamp in the stage light with the strobe head? I would appreicate any experience from someone who has done this or any thoughts. My goal would be a fresnel light at lower cost that the $700 that Speedotron charges for a modifier Lowel fresnel. ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
RE: [Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #351 - 6 msgs
William, Thanks for the helpful response. How critical is the small parabolic reflector right behind the bulb? There is also a large flat reflector around the parabola on the Altman 65Q that I have. I thought perhaps I could eliminate the small parabola and just use the large flat reflector. I guess this really gets to the design question, are fresnel lights trying to create a large light source inside the housingwhich is then focused by the fresnel or is it really trying to create a point light source which is focused by the internal reflectors and fresnel lens? If the former it would be relatively easy to light a large reflector at the back of the housing. The other option means that a modeling light may not be practical since I could not get the modeling light and the flash tube at the same point. I would appreciate your insight. Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: William Nettles To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 2/28/02 10:35 AM Subject: [Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #351 - 6 msgs General shortcomings of stage lighting for photography. 1. Generally stage lighting is less expensive-especially the tight spots. (just kidding this is not a shortcoming) 2. Some of the tight spots and focused stage sources have rainbow edges due to prism affect of the lenses. This is generally not a problem with fresnels. 3. It's important to get your replacement flash head in the same position as the tungsten bulb due to the concave reflector at the back end of the fresnel fixture. the biggest problem I see in flashheads with modeling lights that are keylight (as opposed to soft boxes, umbrellas etc...) is that the flashed light is of a different quality than the modeling light. Let us know how your experiment goes. Maybe I'll drag out my old Mole Richardson 2 K and do something with it. 4. A general shortcoming of fresnel fixtures in general I find that they are not very efficient. A higher percetnage of light from my MoleRichardson 2K goes to heating up the housing. 2K of light out of my Lowell DPs are much much brighter. As a hack I quickly got bored with the Mole and now use my Lowells barndoors diffusion, where I would use the MoleRichardson. Will ---William Nettles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nettles Photo / Imaging Site http://www.wgn.net/~nettles Find out what's happening in Echo Park: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:07:26 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #351 - 6 msgs A little off topic of the home built camera but let's have a go! I am wondering if anyone has any experience adapting stage lighting equipment to use in the phot studio? Specifically I am looking at adapting a small, perhaps 3, fresnel stage light for use with a strobe. I can get a new 3 fresnel stage light for less than $100. I have a spare Speedotron head that I bought used and never use. I wonder what I might encounter replacing the tungsten lamp in the stage light with the strobe head? I would appreicate any experience from someone who has done this or any thoughts. My goal would be a fresnel light at lower cost that the $700 that Speedotron charges for a modifier Lowel fresnel. ___ 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:Proposal for headers [Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #346 - 3 msgs
To any and all, I favor using the original header for these messages, provided it describes the main content. But does Cameramakers Digest . really give any clue ? Bob At 21:22 20.02.02 -0800, you wrote: Very interesting. Could you send me an image of the lights adapted as an enlarger light source. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:07:09 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #346 - 3 msgs To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Cameramakers] Copier/Enlarger lenses Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Are all the copier lenses plastic? I'm sure they are worth a couple of bucks, but they can't be very sharp. At some point what reason is there for shooting 8x10? Also on the enlarger lamp subject. I've been building snoots and reflectors for my Lowell Lights. I recently need to have two lights on the floor pointing at the ceiling for bounce light. Instead of the using the Lowell DPs which spill light all over the place for $10 each I bought 3200 k blbs for my Home Depot work-lights and quickly cobbled together a couple of sheet metal snoots. Worked fine. I now plan to make a 250/500 watt enlarger head out of the smaller Home Depot lights and sheet metal. By making a diffusion source almost all of the heat is kept off the neg stage. (the two wattages would be from using two lights. They would be hooked up to different timers. I have some negs from China that are really dense and print with 150 watts at 3 minutes. I may be 'welding with light' but careful design and distance should allow light without too much heat.) What do you mean by diffusion source? I found that using .032 aluminium sheets instead of the thin .010 rolls of roof flashing I can make much more durable housings. Also because I have a 135mm lens for my 4x5 negs I plan to get a thinker sheet of translucent plex and sand down the edges to counter light fall off caused by the slieght wide angle of the lens. Will ---William Nettles ___ 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] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #346 - 3 msgs
Very interesting. Could you send me an image of the lights adapted as an enlarger light source. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:07:09 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #346 - 3 msgs To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Cameramakers] Copier/Enlarger lenses Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Are all the copier lenses plastic? I'm sure they are worth a couple of bucks, but they can't be very sharp. At some point what reason is there for shooting 8x10? Also on the enlarger lamp subject. I've been building snoots and reflectors for my Lowell Lights. I recently need to have two lights on the floor pointing at the ceiling for bounce light. Instead of the using the Lowell DPs which spill light all over the place for $10 each I bought 3200 k blbs for my Home Depot work-lights and quickly cobbled together a couple of sheet metal snoots. Worked fine. I now plan to make a 250/500 watt enlarger head out of the smaller Home Depot lights and sheet metal. By making a diffusion source almost all of the heat is kept off the neg stage. (the two wattages would be from using two lights. They would be hooked up to different timers. I have some negs from China that are really dense and print with 150 watts at 3 minutes. I may be 'welding with light' but careful design and distance should allow light without too much heat.) What do you mean by diffusion source? I found that using .032 aluminium sheets instead of the thin .010 rolls of roof flashing I can make much more durable housings. Also because I have a 135mm lens for my 4x5 negs I plan to get a thinker sheet of translucent plex and sand down the edges to counter light fall off caused by the slieght wide angle of the lens. Will ---William Nettles ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #345 - 4 msgs
Local hospital told me they do both digital and film...film is more secure in the event of technical difficulties, but digital is able to do more - color, digital signal processing, etc. Murray - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 2:07 PM Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #345 - 4 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. missile lens (Murray) 2. 11x14 film holders (Frank Earl) 3. Re: missile lens (Robert Mueller) 4. Re: missile lens (Gene Johnson) --__--__-- Message: 1 From: Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 18:45:16 -0500 Subject: [Cameramakers] missile lens Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is one on eBay right now...the seller is in E. Michigan. Is there a consensus on the lenses that have barium (or whatever) glass that emits alpha and beta radiation? Avoid, or just store in the back yard in a bunker? Murray --__--__-- Message: 2 Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 23:29:31 -0800 (PST) From: Frank Earl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Cameramakers] 11x14 film holders Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have been told that film holders for x-rays will work as 11x14 film holders in standard cameras of that format (if there is such a thing). I thought I would let members of this list know. I would assume that many hospitals are going to digital and surplus sales of these could get someone started on a nice project. If anybody knows for sure, would you please post a response. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com --__--__-- Message: 3 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 11:11:02 +0100 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Robert Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] missile lens Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think that if some element is a problem, it is thorium. It has been used, but is not exactly a common component in glass, though some military optics are easily available with thorium. I cannot find any radioactive isotope in a table showing what is in natural barium. The element is often used internally (in people) as a contrast agent during X-ray investigations; that does not say it is definitely not radioactive but it does say it is pretty un-threatening! Unless an element of the lens is facing the outside, any alphas or betas will not reach film or the user as long as the lens stays assembled. Some of these radiations would get out if the thorium bearing element is an outer element. Even then, any alphas would not reach film unless the lens has a focal length shorter than about 100 mm (actually, the back element would have to be closer than 100 mm or so for alphas to reach thj4e film, which is not quite the same thing.) Somewhat more threatening would be any gamma emitters, whether from the thorium itself (I did not check whether it also emits gammas) or from any daughters in the decay chain. These can escape even through glass and go a long way in air but they are also less damaging than alphas, which are nasty (If one hits you it WILL stop in your tissue; in contrast, a gamma might pass right through you (depending on its energy and probability); thus a few gammas are little cause for worry.) (Do you know YOU are radioactive and if you were not you would almost surely be DEAD already. Potassium 40 is weakly radioactive and yet your body would not function without it. In addition, carbon in living tissue is partly C14(radioactive with a half-life around 5000 years), and NO known living organism gets along without carbon. In addition, we all harbor some stray radioisotopes which do only a little harm, just as the K40 and C14 do only a little harm while potassium and carbon do immense good!) In short, don't panic but don't sleep with your Aero Ektars. Bob At 18:45 18.02.02 -0500, you wrote: There is one on eBay right now...the seller is in E. Michigan. Is there a consensus on the lenses that have barium (or whatever) glass that emits alpha and beta radiation? Avoid, or just store in the back yard in a bunker? Murray ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers --__--__-- Message: 4 From: Gene Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] missile lens Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:04:01 -0800 Reply-To:
Re: [Cameramakers] RE: Cameramakers
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Barry Young wrote: ... good info snipped ... The definition is up to the Bureau of National Standards and the American National Standards Institute, they are the final authorities) Basically yes ... however there is no longer an agency named the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). In 1988 the name was changed by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/faqs/qnbs.htm http://www.nist.gov/ - Wayde ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ISART 2002 International Symposium on Advanced Radio Technologies http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/meetings/art/index.html ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
Re: [Cameramakers] RE: Cameramakers
Hello Sandy and Ken: Sorry, but mil does not mean military, and I have built military hardware for many years from torpedoes to cruise missiles and every fighter jet introduced within the last 30 years. Mil is a prefix meaning one one thousandth. One mil equals one thousandth of an inch. Where the confusion comes in is when people who use metric a lot have a tendency to shorten millimeter (one thousandth of a meter) to Mil for convenience. So when metric speaking people say one mil, they are incorrectly saying one millimeter or .03937 inch. One inch equals 25.4 millimeters (The official definition of one inch since 1884 with the passage of the Mendenhall Act). Yes, the US has had a metric standard of measurements for more than 100 years. The technical definition of a mil is one one thousandth of an inch or .0254 millimeter. As a side note, the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers adheres to the standard, they do not define it. The definition is up to the Bureau of National Standards and the American National Standards Institute, they are the final authorities) Barry young Journeyman Machinist ,Shop Theory Instructor, National Tooling and Machining Association --- ken watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . For example, how ..thick in thousandths of an inch is a piece of plastic stated to be 10 ..mil thick? Or, looking at it the other way around, how thick in mils ..is a plastic stated to be .003 thick? .. ..Sandy King Sandy, As established a mill is a thousandth of and inch. The way 0.001 inch became associated with mill is that it was almost exclusively the military requiring things to fit and be machined to within a 0.001 inch. Thus anything that was dimensioned to this accuracy was military or mil toleranced. .. ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers __ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #317 - 6 msgs
Good idea, but the 30mm Kiev lens is pretty heavy and is a bayonet type of mount. If you cut the center of the rear lens cap out, you can leave a ring maybe 5-6mm around the outside and put some screws through this into the lens board and you've got a perfect mount that should be in reasonable alignment. Plus, if you want to use any of the other Kiev 88 lenses, you can easily mount them... too many ideas and no time to do them! R From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:07:12 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #317 - 6 msgs From: Robert Stoddard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #316 - 2 msgs Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 22:15:27 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm looking for another rear lens cap so that I can mount this lens on a lens board and try this for myself. This would, in my opinion, make a very cheap and effective camera for still or guided astronomical images. Ron, I have had some success mounting an occasional odd lens for 4 X 5 use by making the mounting hole in a wooden lens board (Anniversary S.G. type) just a little too small and then using a sharp knife to hand-fit the lens. It's a little tedious but not too much so if the hole is almost large enough. You end up with a slight interference fit which is more than secure enough as long as you aren't repeatedly removing and replacing the lens. I did this with the lens head from a 90mm Leitz Elmar, and got some wonderful images on a rollfilm adapter some years ago. RKS ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] RE: Cameramakers
. For example, how ..thick in thousandths of an inch is a piece of plastic stated to be 10 ..mil thick? Or, looking at it the other way around, how thick in mils ..is a plastic stated to be .003 thick? .. ..Sandy King Sandy, As established a mill is a thousandth of and inch. The way 0.001 inch became associated with mill is that it was almost exclusively the military requiring things to fit and be machined to within a 0.001 inch. Thus anything that was dimensioned to this accuracy was military or mil toleranced. .. ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
Re: [Cameramakers] RE: Cameramakers
I have a few doubt about this explanation. The thousands of inch, is a simple mixte of common sense metric system applied to good old standard SAE. Mil is simply coming form the same roots as milli wich from french or latin (origin of the metric system) simply means thousand. In french we simly say un millieme de pouce Robert The French Canadian n 1/22/02 3:17 PM, ken watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . For example, how ..thick in thousandths of an inch is a piece of plastic stated to be 10 ..mil thick? Or, looking at it the other way around, how thick in mils ..is a plastic stated to be .003 thick? .. ..Sandy King Sandy, As established a mill is a thousandth of and inch. The way 0.001 inch became associated with mill is that it was almost exclusively the military requiring things to fit and be machined to within a 0.001 inch. Thus anything that was dimensioned to this accuracy was military or mil toleranced. .. ___ 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] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #316 - 2 msgs
Lars: Good to hear from you. That night in the desert near Alamo, NV was among the most memorable of astronomical experiences I've ever had. That was truly a once in a lifetime experience. I did not expect anything so spectacular, so I probably did not take the whole exercise as seriously as I should have. Also, I did not expect such good images in spite of my lack of preparation. For my meteor images, I used a Kiev 88 camera with the incredible 30mm. lens. For those of you in this group, Lars got me this lens while visiting Germany. I think the cost was something like $200 and it is the main reason I keep putting up with the Kiev 88 body which in general is a piece of crap. I have seen some efforts to mount this lens on a 4X5 camera. The images are interesting and almost reach 4 round on the film plane. I'm looking for another rear lens cap so that I can mount this lens on a lens board and try this for myself. This would, in my opinion, make a very cheap and effective camera for still or guided astronomical images. I got several polar images or 1-2 hours long with this 30mm, all with meteors. A few of the constellation Orion (1/2 hour) also show meteors. The mistake I made was that I shot Provia at 100. I should have used Provia 400 and pushed it to at least 6400 like Lars did. I think that with the widefield this lens offers, I would have captured many many more meteors. I also did a few shots with the very excellent 80mm f2.8 lens on the Kiev 88. Using a normal lens for a format shows the meteors to have longer trails because they see a smaller part of the sky. If you are lucky enough to get one in the field of you image, you will get a fatter, brighter looking meteor trail. Another lens I used was a Nikkor 15mm. on an FM back. Again, the images were pretty spectacular. What would I do next time? I would use some Fuji ASA 800 print film with the FM/15mm combination. I saw some images a guy shot from Red Rock Canyon up the street from where I live with this combination and I am impressed. Also, I would adapt the 30mm Ruskie lens to my 4X5 and shoot Provia at 6400. And I would buy another 30mm. to use on my Hasselcrap (Kiev 88)! If any one is interested in a Kiev 88/30mm polar image with a few good meteors, I can e-mail it to you. I don't think images are permissable to post on this newslist. R From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] meteor Camera I had the opportunity to photograph the 200 Leonids on November 18 2001 at a dark spot in Nevada. (Thanks again Ron!) Only the very brightest meteors created an image on film, and I shot at ISO 6400 (Provia 400F pushed 4 stops - pushing 2 stops was not enough) at f/2.8 for 30 seconds each, using a 15mm fisheye and 17-35mm zoom. I had less than two handful photogaphs showing meteors out of 70 exposures. Two of them show one bright meteor plus two faint ones each. My recommendation is to use the fastest wide-angle lens that you have (or can borrow). A great idea is to point at the northstar, and expose for 1 or 2 hours. This will get your nice startrails, and hopefully a couple meteors. Lars -- Lars Michael[EMAIL PROTECTED] 87GT http://www.larsmichael.com/ ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
Re: [Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #316 - 2 msgs
I'm looking for another rear lens cap so that I can mount this lens on a lens board and try this for myself. This would, in my opinion, make a very cheap and effective camera for still or guided astronomical images. Ron, I have had some success mounting an occasional odd lens for 4 X 5 use by making the mounting hole in a wooden lens board (Anniversary S.G. type) just a little too small and then using a sharp knife to hand-fit the lens. It's a little tedious but not too much so if the hole is almost large enough. You end up with a slight interference fit which is more than secure enough as long as you aren't repeatedly removing and replacing the lens. I did this with the lens head from a 90mm Leitz Elmar, and got some wonderful images on a rollfilm adapter some years ago. RKS _ Join the worldÂ’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
Re: [Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #306 - 9 msgs
On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:51:34 -0800, you wrote: Why not buy one of those cheap laser pointer key chains. SNIP Wayyy too much work ! Regards, John S. Douglas Photographer Webmaster Website --- http://www.darkroom-pro.com Formulas,Facts and Info on the Photographic Process === ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #295 - 2 msgs
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. ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #279 - 14 msgs
I think Joe's got a good understanding. For holding the paper, you might consider magnetic strip material from the hardware store. Your easel wall would be a sheet of sheet metal. thin rolled galvanzied would work just fin. I've shot a lot of works on paper, held horizontally on a wall. A couple small pencil marks or tape marking the upper corners is sufficient for good repeatable positioning. A vertically held 8x10 neg is not going to sag as it might in a horizontal holder. Heat buckling is always an issue. Might use heat dispersing glass between the lamp and the diffuser. Using the diffuser also allows you to put a computer fan on the light mixing chamber to take away heat. As for the $5 fluorescent light diffuser. These are good light diffusers. I keep one around that I lay over 2 or 4 4' flourescent tubes when I have a large number of slides to sort. However on an enlarger I think you'll find that they may not be even. The test for this is to focus a neg, remove it and then make a light gray exposure on a sheet of paper. Ideally it should be dead even corner to corner. If you own a Bessler enlarger with condensers, as I do. Do this test. Like me I think you'll be throughly disgusted with the results. My 4x5X enlarger made really ugly uneven concentric donuts. A small bug that got in the condenser also left his shadow. When you print you mostly don't notice this, but it is there degrading your print. I redesigned my whole head--making a better source out of a tunafish can and a surplus quartz lamp. For horizontal tracking you might try using 1x1 angle iron with 4 iron gate wheels. They can support any weight. attaching the angle to the floor perpendicular to the easel wall will make a very solid highly movable enlarger. They're inexpensive too. Get them at hardware storess, or a metal supply. ---William Nettles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nettles Photo / Imaging Site http://www.wgn.net/~nettles From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 12:07:10 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #279 - 14 msgs True, but you might also want to consider the paper. How will it be supported... Vacuum easel? Otherwise I'd go to horizontal. I've used horizontal 10x10 enlargers with glass carriers and have never had a problem. Either way the larger formats will have different issues to resolve that smaller ones don't... There are pros and cons of both... Footprint vs. Ceiling height might make the decision for you. joe ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #273 - 12 msgs
The neon shop sounds like a cool idea, yuk,yuk. Would the spectrum of the light from neon or for that matter, fluorescent lights interfere with multicontrast filtration? Ron From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 10:27:01 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #273 - 12 msgs Phill, I have built a number of enlargers and tried several light box strategies including multi-lamps and single quartz lamps. If you don't want to go the cold-light route the indirect quartz light is by far the best. I used an old hair dryer mounted on the wall and ducted to the lamp head. You will be saving yourself a lot of grief in the weight and mass department by going for a foam core and duct tape lamp house. You will want anti-newton ring glass for the neg carrier and 3/16 plex, milk white difuser material available here: http://www.fpointinc.com/index3.htm btw I have had cold light lamps built for me at neon shops. They make a 8 x 10 (or two 4 x 10) tight, zig zag patterned lamp from 8mm white glass. If you run across a broken neon beer sign grab it up for later use as the transformer for the cold-light. AZ ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
Re: [Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #273 - 12 msgs
Hi Ron Neon is what cold lights are made of. The nice thing is they can be formed in just about any shape and the colors are adjustable. Ron Baker www.ronbakerphotography.com - Original Message - From: Ron Levandoski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 6:37 PM Subject: [Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #273 - 12 msgs The neon shop sounds like a cool idea, yuk,yuk. Would the spectrum of the light from neon or for that matter, fluorescent lights interfere with multicontrast filtration? Ron From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 10:27:01 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #273 - 12 msgs Phill, I have built a number of enlargers and tried several light box strategies including multi-lamps and single quartz lamps. If you don't want to go the cold-light route the indirect quartz light is by far the best. I used an old hair dryer mounted on the wall and ducted to the lamp head. You will be saving yourself a lot of grief in the weight and mass department by going for a foam core and duct tape lamp house. You will want anti-newton ring glass for the neg carrier and 3/16 plex, milk white difuser material available here: http://www.fpointinc.com/index3.htm btw I have had cold light lamps built for me at neon shops. They make a 8 x 10 (or two 4 x 10) tight, zig zag patterned lamp from 8mm white glass. If you run across a broken neon beer sign grab it up for later use as the transformer for the cold-light. 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] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #273 - 12 msgs
At 04:37 PM 12/3/01 -0800, you wrote: The neon shop sounds like a cool idea, yuk,yuk. Would the spectrum of the light from neon or for that matter, fluorescent lights interfere with multicontrast filtration? Ron Ron, The neon tube comes with different phosphors just like real Aristo Cool Lights. One can print with VC filters same as always. I had a pair of green and blue phosphor lamps built to do multi-contrast printing - it was a royal pain and not worth my trouble. Don't forget that you will need a shutter below the lamp. You can't turn fluorescent lamps off and on (without a pre-heated cathode which is too much fuss for most) to print because the light output keeps changing as the lamp heats up. And how do you do that you may ask. It's quite easy but requires a picture and a lot of hand waving. If you get that far I'll do my best to explain. 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
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #274 - 1 msg
re: Enlarger diffusion Use translucent plexiglas that is used for light tables. It comes in many thicknesses from 1/16 on up to probably 1 They all transmit the same amount of light. Thicker will probably mix better. For my modified Bessler enlarger lamp I simply removed their awful condensors, the light socket. I built my own light set up with a 200 watt quartz bulb--which isn't going to discolor as it ages as will all those 60 watt bulbs. the inside of the condenser housing I simply spray painted with High heat white paint. If I were to modify the light (or get as motivated as you obviously are) and build an 8x10 enlarger, than I will use one or two of the $10 250 watt quartz work lights you can find at Home depot. What I learned from poking around in my Bessler color head is that all you need for even light is a piece of that plex on the bottom of as large a box as you can manage painted white on the inside. If the light bounces around enough and exits via the translucent plex it'll be even. For diffusion I use a circle of the translucent plex. Works fine. Has edge to edge evenness of 1/10 or 2/10s of a stop--(a lens will have fall off greater than that). I wouldn't consider using anything else. I would recomend against 60 watt bulbs. btw your multiple socket pattern sounds like the set-up Ansel Adams wrote about. He had each bulb individually switched thinking that it would help burn and dodge. As I remember he found it didn't work. This translucent plex can be bought from any place selling plexi or through a glass shop. Let them cut it--especially if it is a circle. btw I use the 1/16th inch in above my negs and below a contrast mask. They work great until they scratch. Good luck. ---William Nettles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nettles Photo / Imaging Site http://www.wgn.net/~nettles ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #265 - 5 msgs
Mole-Richardson.com sells Black Duvateen for about $5-$6 a yard 54 wide. It's heavy black cotton fabric--a little too heavy for bellows IMHO. It is lighttight. It's coated with a fire retardant as required by fire code. Being a one man studio I first run it through the washing machine to remove it. I've never seen anything even close to it in a fabric store. I put it over windows to block out sunlight. If it works in Southern California it is definitely light tight. Will ---William Nettles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nettles Photo / Imaging Site http://www.wgn.net/~nettles From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 12:07:11 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #265 - 5 msgs I might have to opt for the darkroom cloth. I can get 5 yards for $70. Wish I could find smaller than that to fool around with. Dwight ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #257 - 1 msg
I tried this stuff for a project once. It is make out of aluminum foil and it leaks light like crazy. It also will shed pain in the form of chips that will stick like big magnets to your film when you pull out the dark slide. Tried the dryer stuff too. Same problems. There is no real cheap substitute for old fashioned bellows. R From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:07:06 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #257 - 1 msg 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. bellows replacement material (Frank Earl) --__--__-- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 10:47:14 -0800 (PST) From: Frank Earl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Cameramakers] bellows replacement material Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] in addition to the dryer vent material - they make a duct material that comes in 6, 8 and 12 inch sizes. A 2 foot length will compress down to an inch. Heating contractors have it and will let you have a foot or two for free usually. Shiny inside, but could be flare-proofed with flat black paint. Very light. __ Do You Yahoo!? Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals http://personals.yahoo.com --__--__-- ___ 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
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #247 - 9 msgs
Take any gear and have a piece of spring wire, or even plastic drag on the teeth. It'll only go in one direction. The 'spring' should drag tangentally to a slightly smaller diameter than the gear diameter to get some tension aginst the gear teeth. ---William Nettles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nettles Photo / Imaging Site http://www.wgn.net/~nettles From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:07:08 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #247 - 9 msgs I got online last night trying to find ratchet gears, but couldn't. I tried Berg and Global Devices, and someone else, but no luck. Seems like they should be sort of common. ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #238 - 11 msgs
1. Plus X with an expiration date of 2002 doesn't mean the film will be ruined on that date. I'm sure we all know this. What I'd like to add is that when I was s college film maker I bought some film that was 7 years out of date--or maybe it was 17. It had been in cold storage. I even think a lot of it was Plus X. I pushed it one stop (reversal processing) and it looked like tri X. In anycase there was nothing wrong with it-even several years after expiration. Just yesterday I printed on some Ilford Galerie paper that has to be at several years old. I put a little orthozite in the developer. Orthozite slows down the speed slightly but eliminates fog from age. With negative film this is even less a problem. I only fear age in film for color (at least a year), fast films iso 400 (again a year) and transparency film (1-2 years max, 1 year for color critical extachrome). 2. re: Aerial cameras I defer to Gene's more inforamative posting. I have seen a couple of aerial cameras without glass over the film plane. I think Gene's point is that the Air Force has decided that vacuum backs are better solution than glass in front of the film. In useing glass contact printers, scanners, slide sheets, loupes, eyeglasses and thin plex dividers between negs and masks none of them are scratch proof, all of them collect dust all have short life expectancies. THe only short coming with vacuum backs I see are 1. Vibrating the camera or film. Air force cameras are very sturdy. and 2. Keeping the vacuum up during a long exposure. ---William Nettles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nettles Photo / Imaging Site http://www.wgn.net/~nettles From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 22:07:03 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #238 - 11 msgs Hello all, Would anyone be interested in going halves on 1000ft. of 5 inch plus x? There's an auction on eBay right now and I'd like to get it but 1000ft is a lot of film. It expires in August 2002. Gene From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 12:07:13 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #237 - 8 msgs William and George, I don't have any direct knowledge of any nine inch roll film cameras, but the 5 inch cameras I know of all have vacuum film platens. The KS-87b, KA-93,KA-90,KA-95,KA-96, and KS-127 all use vacuum with the spec being 1-8 inches of Hg, at a min of .25 cfm airflow. These cameras typically operate in the 65-85 lp/mm resolution range with Kodak plus-x aero film. Gene Johnson ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #233 - 8 msgs
Anaheim Motion Control sells stepper motors and controllers. Reid sells the gears you will need. You'll need a good book on how to build a stepper motor control circuit or you'll have to purchase the dingus. My main beef with commercially available panorama cameras is their inability to operate at shutter speeds below one second. re: glass panels at the film plane. I think we're all wasting our time on this one. Even Air Force 9 roll film aerial cameras don't use it. If you have roll film a little tension in the two spools will keep it within tolerances. ---William Nettles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nettles Photo / Imaging Site http://www.wgn.net/~nettles From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:02:13 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #233 - 8 msgs essage: 3 Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:55:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Frank Earl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Cameramakers] Stepper motor Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regarding a stepper motor, I believe that computer printers employ a stepper motor. Used computer printers are nearly free at thrift stores. They also have a built in controller but some adaptation would be necessary for your needs. Sounds like a fun project ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #234 - 13 msgs
Good point Wayde, Bernoulli effect. Blow down on a piece of film on a table and it will rise. I'm working my way towards a 16x20 camera. I thought rather than spend $500 for holders, why not construct my own. And while I'm at it why not make them thincker and more stable. The film plane distance has to match the graound glass distance. Follow the industry standard or make up my own. With a thicker hoilder I thought how about a supported void inbetween film planes. Micro holes into the film plate (behind the film), attach a small tube with a plunger and just before exposing pull on the plunger evacuating any air behind the film and then shoot. ---William Nettles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nettles Photo / Imaging Site http://www.wgn.net/~nettles From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 10:17:02 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #234 - 13 msgs 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. ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
Re: [Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #233 - 8 msgs
Finally said, thanks William! George - Original Message - From: William Nettles [EMAIL PROTECTED] re: glass panels at the film plane. I think we're all wasting our time on this one. Even Air Force 9 roll film aerial cameras don't use it. If you have roll film a little tension in the two spools will keep it within tolerances. ---William Nettles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nettles Photo / Imaging Site http://www.wgn.net/~nettles ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #224 - 2nd msg Rbaker
Hi Ron, I am very impressed with your cameras and the technique of your focusing mechanisms. You have given me some great ideas. If you want, check out my site. I will be posting some new pics soon of my camera's. http://www.geocities.com/mpc1968us/MPCPhotography.html Thanks for your help Ron. Always nice to find others with the same love for photography. Monte - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 11:07 Monte Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #224 - 2 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: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #223 - 1 msg (Monte Collard) 2. Re: Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #223 - 1 msg (Ron Baker) --__--__-- Message: 1 From: Monte Collard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 20:15:33 -0700 Subject: [Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #223 - 1 msg Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, I also have just subscibed to this list and I am also building a Wide angle camera. I am considering a number of options that you might consider: 1. using a variety of stacked lensboards to achieve a variety of depths of field for a fixed lens camera. 2. Using an antique Goerz helicoid focusing unit adapted by taking out the original elements and f/stop diaphram and mounting a shnieder angulon lens and shutter into the helicoid somehow . These Helicoids can be found for pretty cheap on a number of old camera's. These are primarily low cost alternatives and I am sure there are better methods. However, I am on a budget. As always.lol Hope this might help. Monte - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 11:07 Monte Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #223 - 1 msg 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. Lens extension for a 47mm Super Angulon (Brian Swale) -- __--__-- Message: 1 From: Brian Swale [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 23:34:34 +1300 Subject: [Cameramakers] Lens extension for a 47mm Super Angulon Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, I've just subscribed to this list. I am a little way into making a 6x9 or 6x12 camera using a Schneider Super Angulon 47mm f/5.6 lens which is currently in a Linhof board. I am aware of the work of Claudio Bottari, and of Bob Hutchinson. It looks as though finance will, for the moment at least, stall going the PaqPro way, and I will in the interim at least make a wooden camera. Claudio Bottari seems to just stop his lens down to get depth of field, but I have been wondering just how much lens extension is required to focus down to 3 feet? From previous postings to this group, it looks as though it might be 0.1958 inch = 4.973mm. I've also just realised that an opposing-sliding-wedges system between lens and body could provide the desired movement without the need to construct a helicoid mount that maintained lens top at top. Anyone care to comment? Brian Swale -- Brian Swale e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] 140 Panorama Road URL = http://www.caverock.net.nz/~bj/ Christchurch 8008 New Zealand tel. +64 3 326-7447 Computer protected by AVG Anti-virus system http://www.grisoft.com This program is free, easy to obtain, easy to install and update. -- __--__-- ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers End of Cameramakers Digest --__--__-- Message: 2 From: Ron Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #223 - 1 msg Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 21:42:56 -0500 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Monte Go to my web site and click on cameras then go to the bottom of the page and check out the 120 view camera and the focusing arrangement I used. www.ronbakerphotography.com Ron - Original Message - From: Monte Collard
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #223 - 1 msg
Hi, I also have just subscibed to this list and I am also building a Wide angle camera. I am considering a number of options that you might consider: 1. using a variety of stacked lensboards to achieve a variety of depths of field for a fixed lens camera. 2. Using an antique Goerz helicoid focusing unit adapted by taking out the original elements and f/stop diaphram and mounting a shnieder angulon lens and shutter into the helicoid somehow . These Helicoids can be found for pretty cheap on a number of old camera's. These are primarily low cost alternatives and I am sure there are better methods. However, I am on a budget. As always.lol Hope this might help. Monte - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 11:07 Monte Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #223 - 1 msg 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. Lens extension for a 47mm Super Angulon (Brian Swale) --__--__-- Message: 1 From: Brian Swale [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 23:34:34 +1300 Subject: [Cameramakers] Lens extension for a 47mm Super Angulon Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, I've just subscribed to this list. I am a little way into making a 6x9 or 6x12 camera using a Schneider Super Angulon 47mm f/5.6 lens which is currently in a Linhof board. I am aware of the work of Claudio Bottari, and of Bob Hutchinson. It looks as though finance will, for the moment at least, stall going the PaqPro way, and I will in the interim at least make a wooden camera. Claudio Bottari seems to just stop his lens down to get depth of field, but I have been wondering just how much lens extension is required to focus down to 3 feet? From previous postings to this group, it looks as though it might be 0.1958 inch = 4.973mm. I've also just realised that an opposing-sliding-wedges system between lens and body could provide the desired movement without the need to construct a helicoid mount that maintained lens top at top. Anyone care to comment? Brian Swale -- Brian Swale e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] 140 Panorama Road URL = http://www.caverock.net.nz/~bj/ Christchurch 8008 New Zealand tel. +64 3 326-7447 Computer protected by AVG Anti-virus system http://www.grisoft.com This program is free, easy to obtain, easy to install and update. --__--__-- ___ 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
Re: [Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #223 - 1 msg
Hi Monte Go to my web site and click on cameras then go to the bottom of the page and check out the 120 view camera and the focusing arrangement I used. www.ronbakerphotography.com Ron - Original Message - From: Monte Collard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 10:15 PM Subject: [Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #223 - 1 msg Hi, I also have just subscibed to this list and I am also building a Wide angle camera. I am considering a number of options that you might consider: 1. using a variety of stacked lensboards to achieve a variety of depths of field for a fixed lens camera. 2. Using an antique Goerz helicoid focusing unit adapted by taking out the original elements and f/stop diaphram and mounting a shnieder angulon lens and shutter into the helicoid somehow . These Helicoids can be found for pretty cheap on a number of old camera's. These are primarily low cost alternatives and I am sure there are better methods. However, I am on a budget. As always.lol Hope this might help. Monte - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 11:07 Monte Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #223 - 1 msg 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. Lens extension for a 47mm Super Angulon (Brian Swale) --__--__-- Message: 1 From: Brian Swale [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 23:34:34 +1300 Subject: [Cameramakers] Lens extension for a 47mm Super Angulon Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, I've just subscribed to this list. I am a little way into making a 6x9 or 6x12 camera using a Schneider Super Angulon 47mm f/5.6 lens which is currently in a Linhof board. I am aware of the work of Claudio Bottari, and of Bob Hutchinson. It looks as though finance will, for the moment at least, stall going the PaqPro way, and I will in the interim at least make a wooden camera. Claudio Bottari seems to just stop his lens down to get depth of field, but I have been wondering just how much lens extension is required to focus down to 3 feet? From previous postings to this group, it looks as though it might be 0.1958 inch = 4.973mm. I've also just realised that an opposing-sliding-wedges system between lens and body could provide the desired movement without the need to construct a helicoid mount that maintained lens top at top. Anyone care to comment? Brian Swale -- Brian Swale e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] 140 Panorama Road URL = http://www.caverock.net.nz/~bj/ Christchurch 8008 New Zealand tel. +64 3 326-7447 Computer protected by AVG Anti-virus system http://www.grisoft.com This program is free, easy to obtain, easy to install and update. --__--__-- ___ 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 ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #217 - 4 msgs
re: medium format Stereo cameras One consideration is the actual aiming point of the two lens-this of course affects the configuration of the backs. They theorectically will not be on the same plane. Couple of things I've learned about 3D or stereo. The standard 2 3/8 between the eyes that is quoted in most sources is not usually the best seperation. This is the distance between your eyes, but there are multiple factors in how we perceive depth. At something like 6' or 8' or maybe it is 20' to the subject this seperation doesn't impart any significant information. (This is of course distance between axis) I've found that taking one shot and then moving slightly and taking the second shot is more effective than building a camera or even using any of the available commercial cameras. The one rule is to decide what your vanishing point will be and keeping that centered in each shot. Your eyes in the stereo magnifier will overlap these two points and then every seperation will be perceived as depth information. A more effective 'rig' would be some sort of bracket on a tripod. Limitiations: It's not 'instantaneous' movement cannot be 'stopped' I tried two 35mm camera bodies on a single bracket which worked great, except when I tossed a rock and tried to capture it--there was no way to click both cameras at an effective 'instant'. Birds become annoying flickers. Secondly by varying the seperation distance between the lenses you can enhance the 3D effect. Part of playing with small toys is the depth perception. Your eyes really get a work out with small objects. Distnace between them are easily perceived. It's simple Triginometry. The change in angle is greater the closer you are. I find that close objects about 4' away its best to have no more than about 4 seperation but distant mountains work best yards apart. Foreground scenery becomes a consideration with large seperations. Also you can consider taking multiple exposures at varying seperations and then decide later which you prefer. What I decided is that 3D-stereography is definitely a good thing that is not utilized as much as it should be, and that it was not worth it to me to construct a sepcial camera. At best use two bodies with matching lenses--meaning I would rent the second lens. (Don't try to match a zoom with a prime like a 55mm with a 28-70mm it'll create all kinds of mismatches especially along the edges.) If I could offer advice on 'building' a camera? I would ask how much experience do you have with 3D-have you already done all the experimenting that I have and you've decided you need something better? What types of subjects are you planning to shoot? If it's people, or animals, or crowds or something moving-then you need to sync . (I just had the thought that sports would be a great subject. Two 300mm lenses on a couple of 35mm bodies about two feet apart set up so they 'converge 100 yards away. This would put you right in the pile.) Another point. most of the Double cable releases available are designed for use with bellows. One pin will shut down the lens diaphragm before the second pin clicks the camera. They will never sync two cameras. Also with medium format and two bodies shooting distant objects if you decide you need to cliock them at the same time it might be ok to have one bodie above the other as well as the side to side offset. The vertical displacement probably won't matter. CORRECTION: I posted here a couple of months back about a panorama deguerrotype of San Francisco displayed at the Huntington Gardens. I got the size exactly wrong. Someone else posted a size slightly larger than 4 x6 as being the largest plate size for deguerrotype. I went back and you were correct. Thank you for the information and I apologize for getting it wrong. Also in the NYTimes today Friday 9/28/01 there's a review of the Paltinum prints of Kenro Izu. He shoots a 14 x 20 inch neg. (this is right out of the paper--I'm not familiar with the size). The work is impressive. I don't know what model camera he uses, but the show is at Howard Greenberg Gallery 120 Wooster St SoHo New York City. I've also come up with a few web pages: http://www.pem.org/izu/ http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/dialogs/dialogs_a-m/kenro_izu.html http://www.pem.org/izu/index_intro.html ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #207 - 7 msgs
Tamim, Don't think that many Americans think this way. I'm a physician at St. Vincent's and took care of some of the far too few casualties we received. We know the torture the Afghanis have experienced over the past two decades and don't believe for one second that Osama is Afghani or that they are doing anything to help him. We trust and hope our government understands as well. Our problems don't lie with Osama alone and I don't think we'd be stupid enough to blindly launch cruise missiles again, killing civilians or we are the same as the terrorists. John
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #202 - 5 msgs
I am interested in the enlarger building book. Let me know the details David ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #179 - 2 msgs
Biggest problem I've seen with all manner of ground glass lifter levers is that they either don't lift the back far enough to slide in a film holder and that they require too much force such that you worry that you are knocking the camera out of 'whack'. Suggestions: The Zone VI is the Standard Design-- u-shaped lever, pulling it lifts the back away, but it also tends to de-tensions the spring clips that hold the back (and your film holder). Problem is partly the weak spring. I periodically unscrew the spring bars and bend them back. BUt a sloppy back wont focus on the correct plane and is a ligh leak hazard. My quick n dirty fix was to find some small plastic 'rod caps' that slip over the ends of the metal lever allowing it to more easily slide over the spring. Less jarring of the camera. rollers would be even better. As for the weak spring problem. It's Hook's Law. The farther out you pull any spring the more force is required. More force = more likely to deform the spring. ONE should be able to create a levered back mechanism that is strong enough not to get loose and sloppy bgut not too strong enough to jerk the camera out of alignment. ---William Nettles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nettles Photo / Imaging Site http://www.wgn.net/~nettles From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 12:07:05 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #179 - 2 msgs Has anyone out there designed a homemade lever that lifts the ground glass away from the camera so that film holders are easy to install. I have been working on the idea for my new camera back that I am building. I am starting to settle on a single lever on each side in the middle of the ground glass. Just don't want to over complicate the darn thing. Phil ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #171 - 5 msgs
Robert, You're right: Packard Shutters. I guess I was just being cheap. I did a quick Google search and came up with the Hub Photo page. http://www.hubphoto.com/packard-shutters.htm The shutter sizes go all the way to 8 diameter openings. The prices are reasonable. I couldn't tell what the range of time settings were, flash sync and if they go behind the lens how you adjust and set them? Will ---William Nettles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nettles Photo / Imaging Site http://www.wgn.net/~nettles From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 12:07:02 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #171 - 5 msgs Hi William, Have you considered using one of the old Packard shutters? I question whether even these were made in large enough diameters, but you could try checking eBay. I am very curious about just what sort of internal shutter this lens has that could ever come anywhere near to a speed of 1/300th sec., in view of the large diameter of the lens. I think that the largest diameter studio shutters such as the No. 5 Ilex shutters had a smaller diameter than you need, and still didn't even reach 1/100th sec. as a top speed. (???) RKS ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
Re: [Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #170 - 2 msgs
I saw a couple of those in a real army surplus shop on market st in san fran in '72 for $50. fairchild, right? where and how much was yours? I think it cover 8x10, maybe 11x14. andy --- William Nettles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know exactly what an oscilliscope shutter is, but I have a need for some sort of shutter for a surplus 900m f6 lens I bought. The rear element is about 5 across. I was thinking of trying to make some sort of focal plane shutter. __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #170 - 2 msgs
I don't know exactly what an oscilliscope shutter is, but I have a need for some sort of shutter for a surplus 900m f6 lens I bought. The rear element is about 5 across. I was thinking of trying to make some sort of focal plane shutter. The lens has a shutter in it (with a nice diaphragm) but the shutter is calibrated for 1/150 and 1/300 only. I need something that will work much slower and include a Bulb (time exp) setting. Accuracy is not too important as I'll be doing mostly BW. Any ideas?? Thanks in advance. ---William Nettles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nettles Photo / Imaging Site http://www.wgn.net/~nettles From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 12:07:05 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #170 - 2 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. Oscilloscope camera shutters: (Joe Roseann Meyerson) 2. RE: Oscilloscope camera shutters: (Fox, Bruce) --__--__-- Message: 1 From: Joe Roseann Meyerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 12:38:38 -0400 Subject: [Cameramakers] Oscilloscope camera shutters: Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --=_NextPart_000_0007_01C11699.0F2B7C40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Some of the better '70s - '80s oscilloscope cameras had fairly wide = mouthed shutter assemblies (from which I've stripped the macro lenses).=20 Does anyone know where I can obtain pinouts for these units so I can = mount them somewhere where they'll do some use? I bought some of the = Tectronics manuals on eBay but they don't give enough detail. The = original electronics to power up the solenoids are far too bulky to = adapt...=20 Thanks! Joe Meyerson --=_NextPart_000_0007_01C11699.0F2B7C40 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN HTMLHEAD META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3Dtext/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1 META content=3DMSHTML 6.00.2462.0 name=3DGENERATOR STYLE/STYLE /HEAD BODY bgColor=3D#ff DIVFONT face=3DArial size=3D2Some of the better '70s - '80s = oscilloscope cameras=20 had fairly wide mouthed shutter assemblies (from which I've stripped the = macro=20 lenses). /FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=3DArial size=3D2/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT face=3DArial size=3D2Does anyone know where I can = obtainnbsp;pinouts=20 for these units so I can mount them somewhere where they'll do some use? = I=20 bought some of the Tectronics manuals on eBay but they don't give enough = detail.=20 The original electronics to power up the solenoids are far too bulky to=20 adapt...nbsp;/FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=3DArial size=3D2/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT face=3DArial size=3D2Thanks! Joe = Meyerson/FONT/DIV/BODY/HTML --=_NextPart_000_0007_01C11699.0F2B7C40-- --__--__-- Message: 2 Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 10:05:53 -0700 From: Fox, Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Cameramakers] Oscilloscope camera shutters: To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --Boundary_(ID_h1N/tubupjeW6iTxZB4mJw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hello Joe, and all the other o-scope scavengers. I just took one of those apart and came pretty much to the same conclusion. By the time I either adapted something to actually move that soleniod or got the lens adaped to a mechanical shutter I would have spent more than I would have to just buy a used lens made for the function. It was interesting to see how they put it together, though. As far as the schematic goes, I don't have any source and was about halfway through working out the connector to soleniod pinouts when I figured out the above. Regards, Fox sends. -Original Message- From: Joe Roseann Meyerson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 9:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Cameramakers] Oscilloscope camera shutters: Some of the better '70s - '80s oscilloscope cameras had fairly wide mouthed shutter assemblies (from which I've stripped the macro lenses). Does anyone know where I can obtain pinouts for these units so I can mount them somewhere where they'll do some use? I bought some of the Tectronics manuals on eBay
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #164 - 3 msgs
Clarification: Each thickness of translucent plexiglas is calculated to transfer the same amount of light. There has to be lightloss in the diffusing but it is the same for 1/2 translucent plex as it is for 1/8 (I got this from my Plexi source and gurua of plastics Dick brother Bill at Plastic Mart (in West Los Angeles on Pico just east of the Santa Monica Freeway). Now if you take a 1/2 piece and grind it down to 1/4 you will get some greater amount of light than at the center. It will also be greater than that from a piece of unaltered 1/4 translucent Plex. I don't know how much. I got the idea from Bessler which does this in my old color lamp head (circa 1979). I haven't tried it. ---William Nettles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nettles Photo / Imaging Site http://www.wgn.net/~nettles From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 12:11:41 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #164 - 3 msgs On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, William Nettles wrote: Trans lucent plex for light boxes transmits the same amount of light regardless of the thickness. so use the thickest plex you can afford. Also a trick of the enlarger light manufacturers is to taper the thickness of the diffusion near the edges. OK, I'm confused. The way I read the first sentence it sounds like you are implying that there is basically no loss in the Plexiglass, and that thick Plexiglass transmitts the same amount of light as thinner stock. Then in the next sentence you talk about modifying the thickness of the Plexiglass to adjust the amount of light transmitted. Could you please clarify? ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #164 - 3 msgs
Aligning Enlargers: To align my Bessler 45mx I've done a couple of things. From the factory it is misaligned and I can't see how it could have ever been properly aligned. I made an extended lens board by cutting a pice of hardened masonite to the same size as the lensboard, drilling the appropriate sixed hole and then making a sandwich like this. BEssler lensboard, then squeezed foam weatherstriping and finally the new masonite board with the lens. I connected the three pieces with Three 8/24 or similar small screws going from the bottom board to drilled tapped holes on the aluminum Bessler board. This allows you to adjust the lens board indepent of the enlarger. Next I leveled the enlarger base. Usually not a problem. Then I aligned the enlarger neg stage with a small level (always rotate any level 180 degrees to ensure accuracy) Then I leveled the lens stage with the level on the front of the lens. Like everything this is best accomplished with three hands. ALIGNMENT PATTERNS for USE IN VERT AND HORIZON ENLARGERS: Here's the part that actually applies to Rick's camera based horizontal enlarger: I made a pattern in Adobe Illustrator (though you can use anything from Photoshop to maybe even Kid Pix) The pattern has lots of horizontal and vertical lines and concentric circles. I printed it out to be just smaller than 8x10 on glossy photo paper--for sharness and brightness. Than I took the same pattern and scaled it down to 4x5 size, 6x7 and 35mm and printed these on jet ink Transparency film. When inserted into the enlarger and the easel these patterns should aligned perfectly. If they don't you need to adjust and tweak. A couple of things help. I put numbers in the corners of the pattern and make sure that each number is projected right on top of itself--so that if my printer or computer app has a problem it won't affect the result. Also patterns or just grain or noise in the transparencies are great for focusing. This should work great in a horizontal enlarger which you can only use a level in one dimension. The proof of my cheap and dirty method was my friend John brought over a laser alignment tool and my enlarger was right on the money. Horizontal enlargers are also great for making really large prints. That Rick's starts as a view camera is double plus good because can remove his light source pop on his ground glass and algined everything using a mirror taped to his easel wall. Click ---William Nettles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nettles Photo / Imaging Site http://www.wgn.net/~nettles From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 12:11:41 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #164 - 3 msgs The main advantage to horizontal projection for me was keeping the weight down and being able to disassemble the enlarger to store and move it easily. One difficulty, though, is setting it up to keep the lens plane, negative plane, and image plane all parallel. Use a plum bob to check and adjust the plane of the negative, lens, and projection surface. Project a large half tone pattern as a negative to visually estimate overall sharpness and the square from left to right. ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #165 - 1 msg
Depth of Field Aperature and size of elements. Read Edward Weston's diaries from Mexico if you really want to see that the greats stumble around like the rest of us. Weston had large aperature portrait lenses. Big (macho) glass. He kept trying to stop down to get more and more sharpness and depth of field. Didn't happen. We all know about refraction and optimal aperature (yawn) A big part of Weston's problem was his lenses were too big. large glass, very fast large aperatures. Great for portraits (some even had soft focus widgets) I just shot some paintings for a client I used my 180 Apo Fujinon lens f 9 for the 4x5s and a rented 350 Schneider something or other f5.6 for the 8x10 trans. The Schneider got beat. Not because it is bad, but because there was just too much glass. The Schneider isn't a bad lens, it just isn't designed to do copy work. Very sharp lenses for copying are usually tiny more easily corrected pieces of glass. The small glass reduces internal reflections. Weston tried cutting little pin hole aperatures in paper and inserting them into his lenses. A dentist finally pointed out the problem of too much glass and Weston went out an bought a slow, small and sharper Kodak lens for $15. Modern lens design and coatings eliminate a lot of this. ---William Nettles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nettles Photo / Imaging Site http://www.wgn.net/~nettles ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #162 - 6 msgs
Not sure if this message will make it in the thread 1. Enlarger light source. I used to build 'bank lights'(soft boxes) for studio photography and found that this rule applies to slide viewing light tables. Unless the inside of the box is covered in reflective material you will lose half your light and the light that does reach your diffused face panel will be uneven. darker at the edges. Best stuff is this patterned foil from Roscoe. Tinfoil or mirror will just create spectral bright spots. Enlarger light and lens. The primary reason for the lens focal length is based on the standard light fall off of any lens as you leave the center axis--something to do with the square root of 5. this is also why 90mm and wider lenses are more even with centering filters that drop two stops in the center. For an enlarger light I recommend two things. I used a diffused head with the light shinning through a piece of translucent plex. Use thicker plex, make sure the inside of your diffusion box is white or patterned silvered. Trans lucent plex for light boxes transmits the same amount of light regardless of the thickness. so use the thickest plex you can afford. Also a trick of the enlarger light manufacturers is to taper the thickness of the diffusion near the edges. Test this and then maybe try sanding down the edges. to gain one stop I'm pretty sure you'd halve the thickness. I'd only work on the lamp, not the neg side of the plex and I would make sure I had a sander and polisher to return the plex surface to a smooth original condition. Keep in mind too that the neg may be a particular size but the lens, and your printing paper receives most of the light in a straight line. (This is from Richard Feynman's Quantum Electro Dynamics) It would follow then that the upper portion of the funnel needs to be wider than the neg. to have even coverage. And of course the test is to focus a neg and then remove it from the enlarger and expose an even gray onto a sheet of paper and process it. When I did this with my Bessler 45 I almost threw up it was so bad. I built a better light source with high heat white paint, a little plex a surplus quartz bulb and tuna fish and pineapple cans. BEssler condensors are only useful as paperweights. ---William Nettles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nettles Photo / Imaging Site http://www.wgn.net/~nettles ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
Re: [Cameramakers] RE: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #132: thought on Fluorescents.
..as i was making negs in a copy camera today ( a NuArc18 x 22 bed-- the kind you can get knocked silly in the head by the focusing screen if you aren't careful!), i thought of a possible solution for your flickering problem: a) fluorescent lights like to be on more than not-- they use less energy in the long run (compared to incandescents) when on for long periods of time, provided they don't get switched on/off frequently. they also 'even' themselves out as far as light output, color temp soforth. b) the copy camera i was using has a shutter fitted on the backside of the lens, in the bellows--a relatively simple solenoid type-- that is hooked up to the timer/focus switch. sooo...with this in mind: if you kept your fluorescent lights on while you were printing (provided you have a light baffle, maybe hooked up to an outtake fan like an 8x10 HK enlarger has), and had your timer set up to the shutter, you could have an even, ready supply of light on demand for your negative and paper to bask in. i live in chicago, so there's lotsa photo labs and photo supply places around that are itching to get rid of these huge behemoths of the conventional age, and parts like a shutter solenoid could be fabricated if you couldn't find one... NuArc is still in business, they are at www.nuarc.com. they have a used equiptment listing on their site, and they also have an 800 #-- 1-800-962-8883. i don't know where you are at, but they have a parts warehouse in NJ and CA, not to mention chicago... good luck! joel
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #70 - 4 msgs
Hey, tell us about this. What the heck is a Rodenstock focusing helical mount and what does it cost? R From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:02:08 -0700 (MST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #70 - 4 msgs Darryl, check the focusing helical mount made by Rodenstock. For different focal lens. Your assumption is right. I have made 6x12 camera (Cambo roll film holder) with 135 Rodenstock lens in their foc.hel. mount. Focusing by estimate, works OK. More later, if you want, have no time now. George. ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
Re: [Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #70 - 4 msgs
See my message from 22.03.01 sent at 03:36. I don't remember the cost but I still have my shirt... George. - Original Message - From: "Ron Levandoski" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 3:24 AM Subject: [Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #70 - 4 msgs Hey, tell us about this. What the heck is a Rodenstock focusing helical mount and what does it cost? R From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:02:08 -0700 (MST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #70 - 4 msgs Darryl, check the focusing helical mount made by Rodenstock. For different focal lens. Your assumption is right. I have made 6x12 camera (Cambo roll film holder) with 135 Rodenstock lens in their foc.hel. mount. Focusing by estimate, works OK. More later, if you want, have no time now. George. ___ 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] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #53 - 9 msgs
Here's a suggestion--canabilize an old 2 1/4 film pack adapter, mount the ground glass where the pack would fit, this back should (maybe) fit right under the sliding rails on your revolving back. Mike I have mounted an RB 67 revolving back on a Cambo Lens Board. I need to make a Ground Glass back for it. Can someone tell me the standard size of the actual Ground Glass for 6X7. I want to make it a standard size. Ted _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
[Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #25 - 7 msgs
Message: 3 From: "george jiri loun" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Bellows and movements Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:18:43 +0100 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bradley, if you are REALLY into camera making, why don't you buy yourself a book about a view camera and LEARN all the things you ask about?? Is it easier to employ 50 cameramakers with you discovery of the large format?? Or where do you think all other people got their wisdom from? E-mail answers?? George George Loun, this list does not exist for the purpose of telling people to "BUY A BOOK, STUPID"! If you can not or will not help Bradley or anyone else with questions, simply delete the message. This list exist to HELP subscribers, not to chase them away! Tony Ascrizzi ___ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
