Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,483   Posts: 1,571,226   Online: 1119
      
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 64
  1. #31
    RobertP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,130
    Images
    8
    Sal, I am trying to come to some resolve with the manufacturer. At the moment they neither want to fix the filmgate issue or refund my money. If this continues I will be posting the name of the manufacturer complete with pictures on every photo forum on the net. I will also be sending photos and letters to every camera manufacturer in the world, alarming them of the quality and the service I have received. cp goerz, deepening the groove in the camera back will not solve this problem. But keep in mind I paid for custom built holders plus sent them my camera- back so they could be built to fit. I hardly consider being able to slide four sheets of film into one side of a holder "close enough" and paying for custom built holders and supplying them with my camera-back, having to remill my back shouldn't even be an issue. Robert
    Last edited by RobertP; 01-11-2008 at 02:21 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard T Ritter View Post
    There is a ULF standard that the manufacturers are now using. It is the older holders and the few that decide to make up their own that cause the problems. If a camera is made right the S & S, Lotus, ABW holders will all work. This probably will be address in the article in View Camera. If you are not sure you should have the camera back and the holders checked.

    The light leak is where the dark slide goes in the holder this can be a problem on any size holder. Best to lay the dark slide or drape the dark cloth over the top when doing vertical with the light source over head.
    Richard,

    Perhaps this would be a good time to post, once and for all, the definitive ULF standard to which you refer. Not everyone will see it in the magazine. Are you referring to the standard set by Canham, which S&S claims to follow? If so, Canham's list is not quite complete (as far as I have been able to determine), as it omits 16X20 and 20X24. And then there is the oddball, 14X17, which seems to be the ANSI version. Chamonix lists some of their holders as Lotus-like, or Phillips-like, or just plain Chamonix.

    I would love to see a definitive standard that manufacturers plan to use from now on.

  3. #33
    RobertP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,130
    Images
    8
    If I don't get any resolve from this soon maybe I will submit my own" buyer beware article" complete with photos to Mr Simmons at View Camera. I would hate to see others have to go through this.

  4. #34
    RobertP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,130
    Images
    8
    Dear Apug community, I just received my last and final email from the filmholder manufacturer. Earlier today he had offered to take the filmholders back but only to reimburse me for 75 % of my money. I just received this email a few moments ago. I quote. " Robert, I am not obligated to give back your money at all. You can keep the holders. I do not want your business at all with you. I did my part giving you the best in holder design with the Wisner holder you gave me for outside dimensional accuracy. I will however cut the riblock handle so your holders will fit flush in your camera back! Have a nice day! Alan" unquote. Not only did I provide Mr. Brubaker with a Wisner holder but I also supplied him with the camera back. Now I will be posting pics of the entire filmholder and the shoddy workmanship this man has given me. I paid this man over 2000.00 for custom made filmholders and this is the kind of service I get in return. In the pictures (I will post soon) you will see that a AWB holder has an inner riblock and a top rib that is suppose to snap over the top of the camera back. Even if he milled the top rib to clear the camera back he would mill right through the rib plate mounting screws. This fix would obviously not work. For those who claim that his filmgates are the closest tolerances, all I can say is take a look at the pics I posted showing 4 sheets of film inserted into one side of his holders. I realize that I am not buying as many holders as say the Ebony Company or other large buyers but I would have least expected the same customer service that anyone else would receive. 10 hours ago he was willing to reimburse 75% of my money, now that has changed. He won't make right on the filmgate slop because he knows he would have to rebuild the holders and that would cost him time and money. He doesn't care if his cutomers are satisfied with the quality they receive or not. He claims that all of his holders have the same tolerance as mine and that is just a downright lie and I wish I could afford to fly to California and call him a liar to his face. I've already compared my holders to other older AWB holders and this claim he makes is absolutely not true. Taking legal action is probably out of the question since I'm not in the state of Ca. I guess I am just out over 2000.00. Robert
    Last edited by RobertP; 01-11-2008 at 05:02 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #35
    RobertP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,130
    Images
    8

    Brubaker top rib

    Here is a picture of the AWB Brubaker holder. These holders have 2 ribs, an inner rib inside the back like most holders plus a top rib that is suppose to snap over the camera back. The next pic is the holder loaded into the camera. Notice if he mills enough away to clear the camera back he will be milling into the screw hole that attaches the rib plate. Obviously this fix wouldn't work. His next move would be to widen the groove in my back an extra 3/16 " then that would require me to have to pull the film holder up that far off the bottom of the back to get it to engage. This is why I paid for custom built holders so I could avoid these kind of fixes. Not to mention the other problems.http://www.apug.org/forums/attachmen...1&d=1200044898
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails DSCN0011_1.jpg   DSCN0004_1.jpg  
    Last edited by RobertP; 01-11-2008 at 05:04 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #36
    RobertP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,130
    Images
    8
    By the top rib not seating over the camera back this is holding the inner rib away somewhat from the groove inside the back, naturally causing light leaks. Robert
    Last edited by RobertP; 01-11-2008 at 05:05 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    62
    Did you send the back to the film holder manufacturer when you ordered the holders? If not, how do you know the problem is with the holders? It looks like you are using a Wisner camera from the photos. Wisner made holders for his camera and the dimensions might not be the same as the current standardized dimensions Richard Ritter talked about.

  8. #38
    RobertP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,130
    Images
    8
    Yes I did. If you go back and read you'll see that I have mentioned numerous times that I sent a Wisner holder and the camera back to him. As an owner of a couple of Wisner cameras I am fully aware of the variables in his camera designs. This is why I paid to have custom built holders. But aside from the rib lock issue the filmgate allows for 4 sheets of film to be loaded on each side of the holder. Sorry everyone if I keep repeating myself. Robert
    Last edited by RobertP; 01-11-2008 at 10:50 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by RobertP View Post
    Yes I did. If you go back and read you'll see that I have mentioned numerous times that I sent a Wisner holder and the camera back to him. As an owner of a couple of Wisner cameras I am fully aware of the variables in his camera designs. This is why I paid to have custom built holders. But aside from the rib lock issue the filmgate allows for 4 sheets of film to be loaded on each side of the holder. Sorry everyone if I keep repeating myself. Robert
    Sorry Robert. I should have read your post more carefully.

    Pete

  10. #40
    RobertP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,130
    Images
    8
    Pete, No problem, I'm just frustrated and disappointed. I waited over a year on these holders. Robert

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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