Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,878   Posts: 1,520,317   Online: 1202
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26
  1. #11
    Jim Fitzgerald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Ventura, Ca
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,778
    Images
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by jimgalli
    I've thought about this problem some. So far I've limited my verticals to 7X17 because the Folmer 717 is simply tough enough and small enough to handle the strains well. I use an old Davis and Sanford tripod for doing these that has the most generous table of any of my tripods. It also tilts past 90 degrees which helps in weight distribution some. But since I will likely be using the older ricketier Korona's and Folmers for the rest of my life I've been thinking of building a dedicated table for verticals. 3/16" aluminum plate would be plenty strong enough. It would support the camera in a couple of vulnerable points and the cameras tripod thread would only need to 'locate' the camera to the table. Here's a very rough 2D sketch.
    Jim, I like this idea. Would the design limit the bellows draw? Or does it slide somehow.

    Stay Focused....or Soft Focused!!

    Jim

  2. #12
    jp80874's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Bath, OH 44210 USA
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,390
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Kadillak
    After giving this some further thought, the problem could be solved quite easily with the following accessory.

    I have a Ries A250 head. Bolt a lightweight square base the same size of the Ries head into the base of the camera that uses both receiving holes. Recess these screw holes so the base will fit flat on the top of the tripod head. On one side of the base camera plate put a ridge lip that will acept the side of the A250 head and act as a further deterent for rotation. On the bottom of this camera plate will be a 3/8" receiving screw so this can be attached to the A250 tripod head. The ridge lip should be utilized on the on the top side of the head to provide weight support of the attachment screws and prevent rotation of the camera.
    Michael,

    If I understand you correctly we are solving two different problems. You will still have the weight of the camera-lens-film holder flopped over on its side. What I suggested keeps the weight over dead center when the camera is in the vertical position. I am uncomfortable with this imbalance.

    I discussed this with Dick Phillips. He agreed that this was a problem, but said that he had never worked on a solution such as Lotus shows. He thought it would be a workable solution. He only made fourteen 7x17s plus the 11x14s, and he clearly stated that they should only be considered for vertical shooting 2% of the time. If the customer wanted a higher percentage he should consider another camera.

    A local friend Robert Puckett has an 8x20 Wisner. He shoots nudes using the vertical format. My understanding is that he had Ron Wisner make an entirely new front standard, bellows and rear frame. I’m not sure I have this completely right, but I believe he has almost two complete cameras less the bed and rear standard. Correct me Robert if I have gotten this wrong.

    I guess it is all a matter of how much stress you and the camera can take.

    John Powers

  3. #13
    jimgalli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Tonopah Nevada
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,401
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Fitzgerald
    Jim, I like this idea. Would the design limit the bellows draw? Or does it slide somehow.

    Stay Focused....or Soft Focused!!

    Jim
    The design as sketched would limit the bellows somewhat. For 8X20 I would design it around my 19" focused at closer than infinity. The 1220 and 820 would use a common table. Maybe you could design in a 'step' for 14" lenses to land on. A 14" and 19" would give me 99% of anything I would ever use. YMMV
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep..to gain that which he cannot lose. Jim Elliot, 1949

    http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com

  4. #14
    Jim Fitzgerald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Ventura, Ca
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,778
    Images
    107
    There is a picture of William Corey on the MAMUT ULF home page with a Korona 8x20 in vertical orientation and I can't figure out how it is supported! Does anyone know William? I will try to ask over at the MAMUT site.

    Stay Focused....or Soft Focused!!

    Jim

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    621
    Quote Originally Posted by SAShruby
    I am using combination of Ries tripod, Gitzo head. if you need 1/4 and 3/8 inch screw at the same time, you can by 1/4 to 3/8 adapter for couple bucks on ebay. I use custom screw which is regular 1/4 screw long 1 1/2 inch and two bolts and little wrench to tighten it. My top of tripod head is coverered by rubber, so if I tightened screw wery well, it holds camera still, no tilts or falling down.

    BTW, I like the idea of doing vertical mount adapter, look great and it gives you full movements on tripod head. I think I am going to call my machinist to make one for me.
    Help me out here. It seems to me that having support at the rear and front of the camera while it is in the verticle orientation surely accomplishes the objective but does it not inhibit variable bellows length and also place weight on the front standard when my camera needs to be capable of performing a front shift (front tilt for focusing)?

    My feeling is that if there were a way to use this camera vertically, there would be more than 2% of the photographs being made because I feel that this is an inhibiting condition the way it is as we speak. William Corey uses this orientation regularly in his work and I feel that when he had his Korona camera re-worked he probably added structural support members to it for this purpose.

  6. #16
    jimgalli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Tonopah Nevada
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,401
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Kadillak
    Help me out here. It seems to me that having support at the rear and front of the camera while it is in the verticle orientation surely accomplishes the objective but does it not inhibit variable bellows length and also place weight on the front standard when my camera needs to be capable of performing a front shift (front tilt for focusing)?
    My biggest concern is to remove the stress of a single 1/4-20 screw holding a giant camera at 90 degrees with scary stresses on front and rear standards that are 'iffy' even horizontally. I'm already thinking about the piece that holds the front standard being a seperate slotted piece with a big hand nut that could be moved to compensate for different lens / focus positions. Rear swing would be un-affected and do the schiempflug job. My old cameras mostly have no other movement concerns at the front.
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep..to gain that which he cannot lose. Jim Elliot, 1949

    http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Southern NJ
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    325
    Images
    12
    I've had the same problems in the past. You really need two point to anchor the camera down. This also helps with Horizontal shots to keep the camera from turning there also.

    My first 8x20 was a combination of Karona back on a Rajah 8x10 base. I drilled a through hole in the bottom of the camera base that I would then place a bolt through. Crude , yes but it worked. After I upgraded to my Wisner 8x20 I couldn't bring myself to using the same kind of setup. So no verticals for almost ten years.

    Last winter I got the courage to add two extra 1/4-20 mounts to the focus bed. They don't need to be a second 3/8 as it really only stops the camera from turning on the tripod head. I decided not to use the two mounts that were on the camera, they were too close together to allow the use of the screw for the gear head. I placed two new anchor points on the camera one directly back of the 3/8 hole but offset about 3 inches. The other at 90 degrees to the right of the 3/8 screw position. I use a majestic gear head with the big top. It has a long slot that I have both a 1/4-20 screw and the 3/8 screw attached to. Now I always use both anchor points for Verticals and regular shots. It holds the camera more secure to the tripod head.

    I still find that it is an uncomfortable balancing act to shoot a vertical 8x20 but I don't worry about the camera moving on the tripod head.
    George Losse
    www.georgelosse.com

  8. #18
    SAShruby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    47
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by jimgalli
    My biggest concern is to remove the stress of a single 1/4-20 screw holding a giant camera at 90 degrees with scary stresses on front and rear standards that are 'iffy' even horizontally. I'm already thinking about the piece that holds the front standard being a seperate slotted piece with a big hand nut that could be moved to compensate for different lens / focus positions. Rear swing would be un-affected and do the schiempflug job. My old cameras mostly have no other movement concerns at the front.

    I don't know too much about Koronas or Wisners or Phillips types. I do have 8x20 Dorf without front swings. Front swings are not a problem. Tilts are, I have to tilt bed (or Gitzo head) and compensate it with rear swing, which is actually tilt in vertical position. I would definitely mount light lenses like Nikkor 450M or G-Claron 355. Nothing heavy. I would not do any close - ups for sure. Extending front and rear rail would be disastrous. Dorfs are quite sturdy cameras.

    There are only four alternatives if you don't want to use your camera verticaly:

    1. Do 10x4 and enlarge it. (It is my option. I do have an 10x10 enlarger)
    2. Do 10x4 and enlarge it digitally
    3. Do two 8x10's and compose it ( you will use same lens and raise lens 5 inches from middle like you would 8x20 shoot, do first picture and move camera back up by 10 inches and leave lens in same height and do secon picture as well), scan them and compose the as one picture.
    4. build a new camera or buy one.

    From investment standpoint order is as follows: 3,2,1,4
    Peter Hruby
    LF Silver Photography

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    621
    I feel that my Canham 8x20 fits the billing for doubling as a vertically composing panoramic camera because it is relatively light weight (17#) and has easy and considerable front shift that can double as front tilt in the verticle position. Acquiring a dedicated verticle panoramic camera for me is not an attractive alternative as the increasing price of film relative to silver and energy costs is taking a bite out of the consuming public already. Making our cameras as flexible as possible is a mich more viable alternative if it can be made to work.

    I also have a Wisner Tech Field and at 34# the camera is simply far to heavy to feel comfortable with any camera position other than the standard horizontal offering.

    IMO Koronas and other panoramic cameras with 1/4" base screws would be better served if they had at least a 3/8" base screw. I also find that the A100 tripod with the legs sufficiently spread provide a very solid platform from which to work with in the verticle direction. There has to be a cost effective way to solve this problem that covers the numerous types of cameras and tripod heads that are currently in use.

  10. #20
    resummerfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Alaska
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,270
    Quote Originally Posted by George Losse
    ....Last winter I got the courage to add two extra 1/4-20 mounts to the focus bed. They don't need to be a second 3/8 as it really only stops the camera from turning on the tripod head. I decided not to use the two mounts that were on the camera, they were too close together to allow the use of the screw for the gear head....
    This is what I did with my Canham 7x17. I tapped two additional 1/4x20 threads on the metal Canham plate that already had the 1/4 and 3/8 thread, and then bolted on the Really Right Stuff Multi-Purpose 6-inch Rail. I did not use the existing threads because, like George said, they are too close together. This RRS rail is then attached to my Arca B2 Ballhead. My main objective was to allow me to slide the camera on the ballhead to better balance with a variety of lenses, but it also works well in the vertical format.
    —Eric

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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