Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,986   Posts: 1,523,992   Online: 801
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 44
  1. #21
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,625
    Images
    14
    Ryan

    I will consider trading a 8x10 enlarger for your 11x14 Camera, I have 3 8x10s and 1 11x14 enlarger and would consider dropping one 8x10 for a workable 11x14 camera.
    Shipping would be a problem but if you are interested give me a pm.

    Bob

  2. #22
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    I haven't used 11x14", but I've decided 12x16" (30x40cm) is definitely too big to be useful. So I've settled for 9.5x12" (24x30cm) as my ULF-size. Most of what I do will continue to be 5x7".
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  3. #23
    Dave Wooten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Vegas/mysterious mohave co. az, Big Pine Key Fla.
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    2,713
    Images
    20
    Ryan,

    1. What is the weight of the 11 x 14?

    2. It seems like everything involved with the format is what is concerning you, i.e. size and weight, the set up and management, and the care and feeding of the beast....you are correct in your observations, 11 x 14 is more than a little larger then 8 x 10! Accordingly, the approach and set up with the camera is different than with the 8 x 10 ( which to me I like more that 4 x 5 because I can see better with 8 x 10!) often on the larger cameras I compose my photograph, looking out of the camera,

    a. Identify my composition looking over the camera and then

    b. identify my boundary corners on the ground glass, check center focus and corner focus lock down and fire.....don t spend a lot of time ooing and ahing on the ground glass...

    3. The Ries tripod is a classic, however, for me, an apprentice geezer beyond my prime, a tripod with geared center post rise and geared forward tilt is a needed blessing. Using a majestic, I give the legs an exaggerated spread to hold the weight and prevent tipping at extensions, then the camera, which is in the car with the tripod head already attached, is lowered onto the post, in this low position. locked and then raised to my comfortable eye level...

    4. I have seen your 8 x 10 work up close and personal, it is lovely, probably you have been in your comfort zone for a while. Your studio shots and nudes are excellent....would love to see some of that work in 11 x 14!

    Keep the camera and continue studio nudes and still lifes with it and get a nice 8 x 10 for your field work....

    just a suggestion Ryan....in any case keep up your good work!

    Dave in Vegas

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    360
    Ryan, I am really enjoying my 7 x 17 - while not 'small' , I do think it is manageable and it is a different visual with the panoramic. Have you thought of the panoramic format as a 'change'? I did pick up an 8 x 10 Wehman and find it VERY nice in the field, light and steady too. I am enjoying it, but I must admit that I am finding I take the 7 x 17 out more often. Scott

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Peters
    Ryan, I am really enjoying my 7 x 17 - while not 'small' , I do think it is manageable and it is a different visual with the panoramic. Have you thought of the panoramic format as a 'change'? I did pick up an 8 x 10 Wehman and find it VERY nice in the field, light and steady too. I am enjoying it, but I must admit that I am finding I take the 7 x 17 out more often. Scott
    Scott,

    Yes, I remember seeing your 7x17 camera while working with Michael and Paula in Sedona. It was VERY light and quick to use, more then other ULF cameras I've seen. Latly, I find myself shooting in the panoramic format more, and been shooting 5x14's on my 11x14 camera.

    I think if I had a ULF camera that was lighter and more simple to use, I might not be wanting to move back down to 8x10. However, with the cost of lightweight ULF cameras...no way I could afford anything!

    The Wehman cameras are very nice and its probably first on my list for an 8x10 camera. I believe your 7x17 is a custom made Wehman, right?

  6. #26
    Dave Wooten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Vegas/mysterious mohave co. az, Big Pine Key Fla.
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    2,713
    Images
    20
    Ryan,

    My 7 x 17 Wisner tech...weighs less than my Wista double extension 8 x 10 (Wista a little less than 12 lbs)....also a 5 x 7 back is sweet on a 7 x 17, also 7 x 11 film works and is a nice format and easier on the pocketbook....I have seen the Wehman and am very impressed with it, I did not know he built 7 x 17 cameras, Richard Ritter has a nice one that looks good...haven t seen it in person but on his website the photo shows a very practical and well thought out camera.

    just checked his web site...the 7 x 17 camera is 10 lbs, has 34 inches of bellows and all movements...

  7. #27
    jimgalli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Tonopah Nevada
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,401
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    155
    Hi Ryan. Just some random thoughts. No matter the size, I have to like the camera. To some that may sound really foolish. I get teased a lot, and rightly so. I've had mountains of equipment moving in and out of Tonopah Nevada since I discovered EBAY 5 or 6 years ago. (I'm personally keeping the USPS & UPS solvent in Tonopah NV.) Oddly, my list of cameras I DON'T like is pretty short. I don't like Cambo 8X10's, I don't like Agfa 8X10's although I tried twice, and I'm afraid the venerable Burke & James is on the short list. They're just too clunky I guess. Unwieldly? It's not a class issue with me. Honest. I'm having a love affair with the homeliest of Kodak 2D 8X10's. It's light, balanced, well engineered, and frankly because of the Packard inside, it doubles as THE field camera for most of the "portable" portrait lenses. Nobody's impressed when they see it, but a few folks have been impressed with what it does.

    So thinking out loud, I'm wondering if the problem is the camera more than the format. A couple of evenings ago I bought a lovely Seneca 11X14. It's lighter than my Deardorff 8X10 and it's elegant both to look at and in use.

    I just figure with EBAY it's fairly easy to have lots of things coming and then going again if they don't seem to hit my 'like' button. The worst you can do is lose a couple of bucks. Usually with a bath and a proper ad, I end up with a small profit instead of a loss. So keep those holders and buy something pretty.
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep..to gain that which he cannot lose. Jim Elliot, 1949

    http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    1,298
    Jim,

    You are totally correct. The Burke and James 11x14 is VERY large and clunky and it's very slow to use. I'm sure if I could afford a lightweight, compact ULF camera, I would be loving it alot more!

    After seeing this B&J's camera, I've determined that the camera was not built or designed by a working photographer. There is many things on the camera that WORK, and work PERFECTLY WELL, but they are a pain in the butt to use! Things such as the rear movements on the camera, where you need to remove the whole back to move it into a different grove to use tilt, or how you need to remove 4 screws and 3 knobs to use the rear swings or shift.

    Don't get me wrong, It's a VERY well made camera and is built like a tank, however its not very user friendly when working in the field.

    Its funny you mention you dislike CAMBO 8x10 cameras, since my 8x10 is a Cambo/calumet monorail camera! Yes, its a pain to use and is made for the studio, but I find it simple to use and is built very strong. However, I know there is several better 8x10 cameras to be using.

  9. #29
    roteague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,672
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by jimgalli
    Oddly, my list of cameras I DON'T like is pretty short. I don't like Cambo 8X10's, I don't like Agfa 8X10's although I tried twice, and I'm afraid the venerable Burke & James is on the short list. They're just too clunky I guess. Unwieldly? It's not a class issue with me.
    I don't like any camera that I can't get Fuji Velvia for.
    Last edited by roteague; 06-10-2006 at 11:53 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Robert M. Teague
    www.visionlandscapes.com
    www.apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=2235

    "A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist" -- Louis Nizer

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    360
    Ryan, the 7 x 17 is actually a Phillips and it is a fantastic camera. It is lightweight and 'manageable' in the field. Really fun to use.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin