Woodsy buys a box of big paper

[Woodsy]

Let's get one thing clear straight away; I'm blaming @RaglanSurf surf for this!

In essence, Nick's thread about 'stuff you don't need but you want anyway' a few weeks back prompted a memory of Ian Ruhter and his Van camera, and ever since I've had a faint yet ever present desire to own a huge camera. I find the notion of making huge images with mind boggling depths of detail quite appealing. For many years I’ve ignored this notion and, in all fairness, I have been and continue to be very content with 5x4 LF. The reality is for what I am using it for, after the fact, 5x4 provides image quality* that surpasses my requirements. 5x4 also has good film availability etc etc, but the main reason I shoot LF in general is that I enjoy the process, the pace, and the connection I feel personally to the image, while maintaining a relatively small and portable kit.

Why go any larger then, I hear you ask? This is not so definite in my mind quite yet, but the initial reasons are as follows:

1) It's an itch I want scratching, however it turns out.

2) I would like images I have to frame. I know this one sounds daft, especially given that Nikki and I own an A3 photo printer; but even then, we rarely print the images we take (with a few exceptions).

3a) I want a long term project that is rooted in a hobby that I enjoy, that involves some degree of problem solving and planning, and that also involves making something by hand - probably out of wood... mostly. Having something unique helps as well, as then it, and the process, are something to be proud of once complete.
3b) I want something collaborative to work on. One thing I am missing during this situation we find ourselves in, especially from a work perspective, is working on something big in a collaborative environment / way. In thinking of the initial idea, I've been bending @nikki_s 's ear - almost the point of amputation - with constant talk of how I might execute certain parts of the build. I miss reaching out to people and discussing ideas or solving problems, as well as absorbing some of their wisdom that came as a result of the same process - and possibly asking a few small favours along the way . (The truth is actually that @nikki_s has had some really rather good ideas on the design so far, which shall be incorporated, and she insists that it's not bending her ear!)

--- / ---

In light of all of the above, I want to design and build my own 11x14 inch camera, and with it shoot direct positive paper. This is almost as far as I have gotten with it, so I want this thread to be a place to document the progress towards a design and the build as it happens.

--- / ---

An 11x14 inch camera is not an arbitrary size that I picked out of nowhere; there are some reasons for settling on this size. Firstly, I wanted something big so as to satisfy the itch, but while still maintaining some degree of portability. Granted, I'm not going up Mont Blanc with this thing - or at least I have no plans to at this stage, nor is it likely I'll ever be fit enough to lug the final product up it either . As soon as one goes to 14x17, or 16x20, it just becomes so big that carrying it in some form of bag / rucksack becomes unreasonable. My initial musings in sketchup (doogle ketchup) 'should' be small enough to carry... He says. Further, I didn't want to go 10x8. Not because there is anything wrong with 10x8, it's just that it's more common because it's accessible (intrepid), it's not 'that' big in a frame on the wall, and for me it's just not enough of a step up from 5x4 to justify it. I understand that it's about 4x the surface area of 5x4, but if that's the argument, then 11x14 is nearly twice that of 10x8, and nearly 8 times that of 5x4, so that's a sufficiently large step up for me.

Secondly, 11x14 is an image ratio that's very close to 5x4. I really get on with the 1:1.25 ratio, and 10x12 (which was suggested on another forum) is just a little too square for my taste.

Thirdly, 11x14 is a really nice size in a frame. Again, I know 10x8 is also very frame worthy, but having printed a couple of A3 prints on the printer, this for me is essentially as small as I'd like to go when standing a few meters away from the frame on the wall.

Now of course, there are drawbacks, and there are quite a few of them! I've tried to consider these where possible and, I suppose for completeness, I shall outline them here:

Lack of film availability. Basically I'll be limited to B&W film and paper. Colour film at this size is either point blank unavailable, or prohibitively expensive (for me). This is fine though, as direct positive B&W is about £5 per frame, so that's an amount I am comfortable with.

Lack of flatbed scanners to scan 11x14 natively. This is more a problem for film, rather than DP paper, but nonetheless, it means if I do want to digitise anything, I have to scan in parts and stitch in software, or photograph the photograph .

Nothing is cheap:
Lens expense. It has become very apparent that once you go above 10x8, lenses are much more rare and much more expensive if you want a modern design and in a copal-style shutter. 360-450mm lenses are approximately the 'normal' lenses for this film size, and the cheapest lens I can find in this range, in a copal 3 shutter, is about £600-700. Ouchy. Now granted, I'm getting around this in the first instance with a lens that comes in an iris unit only - so no mechanical timing of exposure time - but it's yet to be ordered. Luckily this Harman paper has an ISO of about 2, so exposure times are considerably longer, and in most instances, will be easily timed with simply removing and replacing the lens cap. In time though, I'll likely invest in a shuttered lens and think about puppies and wildflower meadows while I'm paying for it! Commercially made film holders are £LOL. Bellows are not cheap and I don't fancy doing this part myself. The risk of leaks in doing it myself is too high, so this is a cost I'm just going to have to swallow. The price of wood is not huge, but for a build this big, it'll add up to a non-negligible amount. I'm going to mitigate this by buying from the Southampton Wood Recycling Project where possible, but even then... we'll see.

So there we have it, the brain dump of things so far. I really want to complete this project, but it will take time. I'll aim to post up design ideas, scale drawings from CAD, build progress and so on at the appropriate time in order to keep the thread going. I welcome constructive feedback, so please do let me know if you have any input . To kick things off, I bought a box of paper** Got to see it through now!

The box next to an FM with 35mm F/2 for scale:


The actual sheet of film, with a 5x4 sized piece of paper for scale



* Here I mean things like resolution (both resolving power, or detail if you will, as well as tonal graduation, 'cropability'... essentially anything that is quantifiable, and not aesthetic or subjective, like the 'look and feel'.
** I decided to burn a sheet as it meant I could take actual measurements of it, get a feel for how malleable it is, how thick it is, and to test the film holder once it's made in the daylight. It's a fiver gone, but I'll survive!

 

[Stephen L]

Coo-er!

 

[RaglanSurf]

What a fantastic project. I shall follow this with much interest Mr Woods and look forward to seeing your first shots.

in terms of the size and weight and moving it around have you considered this option?

 

[Woodsy]

Haha, I like it

 

[Asha]

SuperbProject and I take my hat off to you for giving it a go.

For all the reasons that have been mentioned and more besides, I have, for the moment ( never say never) accepted that 10x8 is going to be my limit.

If I was ever to go ULF then it would be the whole Hogg and be either 20x16 or 20x24 inch format with a view to contact printing ( sod the scanning and probable stitching lark )

I don't think you have tried the Intrepid 5x4 enlarger kit, have you?
The 10x8 version is due to be released later this year.

Is that not an easier, cheaper and lighter option for you to obtain mammoth prints or are you set on a challenge?
( Not that I can blame you, if I had limitless funds, a vehicle and better health, then i wouldn't hesitate)

I know darkroom etc is a faff for some people but given the potential workload with this proposed project, a darkroom and wet printing would be a doddle by comparison.

I'm not trying to put you off the idea, far from it....I'd love to see it progress.
I'm just mentioning another possible option although I suspect that you have already considered all this anyway.

 

[Woodsy]

I see what you're saying, and yes, a 10x8 camera and an enlarger adapter for it would enable me to make frankly huge images, easily, cheaply and with minimal effort, but this for me misses the majority of the point.

I want the workload! The project is a hard one to do, and I want to do it precisely because it's hard. Photography is a huge part of my life, but if I wanted easy, yes, I'd just go out and buy an intrepid 10x8 and be done with it. There would be nothing wrong with this, and I have huge admiration for intrepid cameras, but this would be boring, and as said, not worth it over 5x4 IMO. On top of it being hard, I want to learn new things about wood working and this is a perfect opportunity to do that. I've found in the past that if you want to learn something new, it makes all the difference having a purpose for doing so that is rooted in something else that means a lot to you - or however you want to interpret that. Learning to code is dry and dull, but if it means you can program your own home monitoring system because you believe deeply in becoming self sufficient or carbon zero or something like that, this deeper meaning will help hugely with motivation. I've wanted a huge camera for ages now, and I want to learn more about working with wood, so this is a perfect opportunity.

 

[stevelmx5]

Looks like an awesome project mate, and one that’s going to keep your mind (and patience!) busy :0)

I’ll have a look at the design you’ve sent over for the holder. As you’re building the camera from scratch, you can build it around the holder dimensions (mainly film plane), which means you’re not juggling available material thicknesses to match existing ISO standards.

 

[Woodsy]

Much appreciated fella, and yes, I couldn’t agree more about the price sensitivity to standard thicknesses. That being said, building a film holder is hardly trivial. In any case I’m more than happy to absorb any wisdom you can offer!

 

[StephenM]

May I suggest a compromise? Build the 11x14, and then add a reducing back for 10x8. That would make it possible to either scan or wet print if you didn't want to use 11x14 film - or couldn't get enough film. I imagine it's a once a year order, with a high capital cost.

How are you intending to develop the sheets of direct positive? Dish with red safelight?

 

[Woodsy]

May I suggest a compromise? Build the 11x14, and then add a reducing back for 10x8. That would make it possible to either scan or wet print if you didn't want to use 11x14 film - or couldn't get enough film. I imagine it's a once a year order, with a high capital cost.

How are you intending to develop the sheets of direct positive? Dish with red safelight?

So this had already occurred to me, and yes I completely agree. It’s something I’ll probably look into if after giving the paper a good go I find I don’t get on with it.

I take your point though, If I were to shoot film with it, while I would prefer to shoot delta 100, HP5 and FP4+ are also stocked on the harman website in 11x14.

Yep, exactly that. Nearer the time, I’m probably going to look to get a big sheet of plywood to go over the bath, then black out the window and door frame. Crucially though, no enlarger required. It’s not that I don’t want an enlarger, it’s more that I don’t have any room to store one

 

[StephenM]

If the Intrepid 10x8 enlarger is a scaled up version of the 5x4, it will be very compact and no problem storing. If you have a camera that would take it.

 

[Woodsy]

If the Intrepid 10x8 enlarger is a scaled up version of the 5x4, it will be very compact and no problem storing. If you have a camera that would take it.

Given that @Asha only mentioned that a few posts ago, I'm surprised I didn't put two and two together before you explicitly reminded me! Very good point.

 

[Woodsy]

This is revision one of the film holder. In essence, it's a large sheet of something rigid and light proof, onto which layers of something - probably acrylic - will be laminated such that they for channels for the film and dark slide to sit within.

I've omitted the flippy flap thinger that the fidelity film holders have, as initially I felt I could never reliably light seal this if making the parts solely myself. In layers 3/5 and 5/5, the notches cut out are designed to simply let the film slide into the bottom rail before replacing the dark slide.

Since sending this to Steve, I've naturally thought of a few issues that I simply couldn't have thought of before sending it to someone for critical review. The first is that the film could warp upwards at this end potentially causing a focusing issue. Given how the paper has curled both in the box, and the sheet I have outside the box, I'm not too worried about this. I am however worried about the second point, which is that the dark slide loads at the same end as the film, increasing the chance that the dark slide could be loaded under the film, not over it, if the film does decide to warp unfavourably. I think I'll swap the ends of these cutouts, that should mitigate this a little.

Open to any observations and thoughts

Light sealing around the darkslide, both in the rails, and at the loading end I've not thought about yet...

 

[Asha]

A possible consideration
How about attaching the paper or film directly flat on the surface of the holder using this tape:


https://www.findtape.com/3M-Scotch-928-ATG-Tape/p398/

The film/ paper holds securely in place , remains flat and when removed, the tape remains attached to the holder for subsequent uses and leaves no residue on the film.

I haven’t used it myself but I have it on very good authority that it works and has been used with 10x8 film in holders where the guide rails had been removed.

Only requirement is to wear gloves when loading film to avoid fingerprints on the emulsion.

 

[stevelmx5]

View attachment 282791

This is revision one of the film holder. In essence, it's a large sheet of something rigid and light proof, onto which layers of something - probably acrylic - will be laminated such that they for channels for the film and dark slide to sit within.

I've omitted the flippy flap thinger that the fidelity film holders have, as initially I felt I could never reliably light seal this if making the parts solely myself. In layers 3/5 and 5/5, the notches cut out are designed to simply let the film slide into the bottom rail before replacing the dark slide.

Since sending this to Steve, I've naturally thought of a few issues that I simply couldn't have thought of before sending it to someone for critical review. The first is that the film could warp upwards at this end potentially causing a focusing issue. Given how the paper has curled both in the box, and the sheet I have outside the box, I'm not too worried about this. I am however worried about the second point, which is that the dark slide loads at the same end as the film, increasing the chance that the dark slide could be loaded under the film, not over it, if the film does decide to warp unfavourably. I think I'll swap the ends of these cutouts, that should mitigate this a little.

Open to any observations and thoughts

Light sealing around the darkslide, both in the rails, and at the loading end I've not thought about yet...

Don’t forget you’ll need a retaining rib on the face of the holder, to act as a light seal and to stop you pulling the holder back out when you remove the dark slide [emoji1303]

 

[steveo_mcg]

Don’t forget you’ll need a retaining rib on the face of the holder, to act as a light seal and to stop you pulling the holder back out when you remove the dark slide [emoji1303]

Here, I think he might have done this before.

 

[stevelmx5]

Here, I think he might have done this before.

Once or twice [emoji23]

 

[Woodsy]

Don’t forget you’ll need a retaining rib on the face of the holder, to act as a light seal and to stop you pulling the holder back out when you remove the dark slide [emoji1303]

Good point!

I'm not sure I'm going to go down the same route for mounting the film holder to the camera. Where the film holder will be so big, I'm not sure it'll be as rigid as fidelity holders, so I've been trying to think of some other methods for mounting it. That's not to say I'll come up with a better method as such, but it's worth a think about. In any case, whatever method I go for, some form of mechanism for stopping the film holder sliding out with the dark slide is definitely a must have .

 

[Asha]

Good point!

I'm not sure I'm going to go down the same route for mounting the film holder to the camera. Where the film holder will be so big, I'm not sure it'll be as rigid as fidelity holders, so I've been trying to think of some other methods for mounting it. That's not to say I'll come up with a better method as such, but it's worth a think about. In any case, whatever method I go for, some form of mechanism for stopping the film holder sliding out with the dark slide is definitely a must have .

Back in the dark ages with mahogany & brass style cameras, the plate holders had no ridges like is evident on fidelity or TOYO types .
There would be a simple brass catch of some description attached to the rear standard that could be swung across the end of the holder to ensure it remained in place when the dark slide was opened.
I would think a similar idea would be easy enough to implement in your construction.

 

[Nomad Z]

Here's how it's done on my Marion whole plate camera...



The little brass retainer rotates on its fixing screw. I didn't actually realise what it's for until reading this thread because there's decent friction between the plate holder and the rear standard anyway. It also doesn't overlap properly because this plate holder isn't original to the camera and sticks out enough to get in the way. (Nothing a bit of judicious cutting with a sharp thing can't remedy, though...)

The light sealing is done with a vertical strip of velvet at each end, embedded into the rear standard. At the far end from that shown in the photo, the velvet coincides with the end frame of the plate holder. The outer surface of the dark slide is flush with the surrounding surface of the plate holder, so at this end, the velvet seals across both surfaces when the dark slide is pulled out (they don't come out all the way - there is always a flush surface at the velvet strip at this end.

 

[Woodsy]

Thanks for the input chaps, it's much appreciated. I'm liking the idea of the fabric strip for light sealing. Thinking about it, my Ebony has something like this also, so I'm thinking this is something to integrate into the design.

I have the rough outline of a front and rear standard in CAD now, but I'm hung up on whether to go down the rail camera route - which would certainly be simpler to design - or the field camera, flat bed style route, which imo would look nicer.

 

[StephenM]

On the assumption that you'll be carrying it somewhere to use - even if only a few feet from a car - which design would be easier to transport? And if you're contemplating a back pack, which would let you use a back pack smaller than one designed to carry all your food and equipment for a month in the wilderness?

 

[Asha]

On the assumption that you'll be carrying it somewhere to use - even if only a few feet from a car - which design would be easier to transport?

Better to address that question to the mule no ??!!

 

[ChrisR]

Thanks for the input chaps, it's much appreciated. I'm liking the idea of the fabric strip for light sealing. Thinking about it, my Ebony has something like this also, so I'm thinking this is something to integrate into the design.

I have the rough outline of a front and rear standard in CAD now, but I'm hung up on whether to go down the rail camera route - which would certainly be simpler to design - or the field camera, flat bed style route, which imo would look nicer.

With a thing this big, surely functionality has to win over looks? So things like weight, rigidity, simplicity of design, practicality in use, availability of movements, etc? I don't know whether this favours rail or field cameras, though! My gut feeling is that a rail camera would allow you to build it in a more modular way; a field camera is more of a piece, so if one piece gets stuffed/doesn't work well, a lot of bits might need to be re-made...

One thing I haven't seen mentioned, though you've probably dealt with this already since you've opened the paper box, is a larger dark bag!

 

[stevelmx5]

My gut feeling is that a rail camera would allow you to build it in a more modular way; a field camera is more of a piece, so if one piece gets stuffed/doesn't work well, a lot of bits might need to be re-made...

Field cameras can be built in a modular way, with three main sections (focusing bed, front standard, rear standard). That allows pretty much the same flexibility as a rail camera then.

 

[Woodsy]

Indeed. I'm putting together a design for each. The field camera is shaping up to be almost half rail, half flat bed anyway, so I'm going to entertain both options. The underlying idea however would be that, if I do end up making a field camera-esq design, it'll maintain a modular nature to it. I've veering sharply away from a folder design. At this size, a folder wouldn't really offer a huge advantage imo.

As for the dark bag, you're quite right @ChrisR ! I struggled to get that one sheet out of the box, let along load it into my currently fictitious film holder

 

[ChrisR]

Indeed. I'm putting together a design for each. The field camera is shaping up to be almost half rail, half flat bed anyway, so I'm going to entertain both options. The underlying idea however would be that, if I do end up making a field camera-esq design, it'll maintain a modular nature to it. I've veering sharply away from a folder design. At this size, a folder wouldn't really offer a huge advantage imo.

As for the dark bag, you're quite right @ChrisR ! I struggled to get that one sheet out of the box, let along load it into my currently fictitious film holder

You're going to need a dark room, even if not a full-on darkroom. But since it's paper and ISO 2, and (presumably, probably) not red sensitive, that shouldn't be too hard to organise?

Definitely looking forward to seeing some sketchups! Best of luck, Jonathan...

 

[StephenM]

4 words. Harrison Jumbo changing tent.

Don't stay home without one.

Oops, sorry, that should be "don't leave home without one"

 

[Woodsy]

Shut the front door! They aren't cheap are they! :/

 

[Woodsy]

Morning all!

Having made moderate progress on the camera design so far, I thought it'd be good to show some of the angles. As mentioned before, I entertained the notion of a rail camera, but then also thought it best to throw together a basic field camera esq design and see which I gravitate towards more. Well, the short answer is that once I started the flatbed design, I didn't really go back to the rail designs at all, so I feel that has answered my question.

In any case, I still want the camera to be dismantlable into the three main components, so I've tried to put the basic components together in a way that at least means they are detachable from one another. I have also tried to put the camera together in a way that maintains the four key movements: Front center tilt, front rise/fall, front swing and some degree of relative shift. I appreciate these are not comprehensive, but they'll do for the time being.

In any case, please note that this by no means a polished final version! Knobs, fine focus adjustment mechanism, a proper film holder mounting system, etc are not yet designed or present, nor have I gone to any effort to include any nice aesthetic touches, so it's a bit brutally rectangular at present. I'm planning on sorting this particular part last, but equally I'm happy to listen to any suggestions for features to include



In the last picture I have shown how I envisage the bellows being detachable from the camera. My initial thought is that I wanted the bellows to be removable, and so I felt this was easiest to achieve by attaching the bellows to their own frame at the rear (in the picture) and the front (not included yet). Given the success with which small but strong rare earth magnets have been used, I thought this could be a good method. Likewise, the rotatable film back could also be held in place by magnets as well. Otherwise, I was thinking of simple diagonal sliding metal clips similar to those incorporated on Ebony cameras.

I also thought that by using this dovetail rail and clamps method for attaching/detaching the rear standard, I could omit the added complexity for the front standard, thereby having only rear shift instead of front shift. Unless I'm missing something, rear shift to the left (say) is identical to front shift to the right? I'll wait for @StephenM to confirm on deny this In any case, I envisage that the bolts in the rear facing holes for the rear standard claps will be captive, as will be the thumb screws for locking the clamps.

I've also adopted the sinar lens board standard for the front standard, as this seems to be common on larger field cameras. Converting down to linhof style boards is pretty easy, so I felt this was good to incorporate so as not to impose limits. Coincidentally, it also means that the front dimensions of the bellows are bigger, making a more pleasing expansion ratio (aesthetically) for the bellows front to back.

Lastly, I haven't yet thought too hard about the focusing mechanism. The most common mechanism seems to be the rack and pinion, but if not this, I'll need to have a proper think over a cuppa at some point.

So that's where I am so far. Thoughts and feedback are very welcome!

 

[StephenM]

I'm impressed with the level of detail so far

I also thought that by using this dovetail rail and claps method for attaching/detaching the rear standard, I could omit the added complexity for the front standard, thereby having only rear shift instead of front shift. Unless I'm missing something, rear shift to the left (say) is identical to front shift to the right? I'll wait for @StephenM to confirm on deny this

My thoughts on that point are yes and no. When the rear shifts, all that happens is that the film records a different part of the image projected by the lens. Front shift moves the lens. In practice, imagine you've positioned the camera for a still life with one object directly behind another. Rear shift lets you move this object pair left or right in the frame. Front shift changes the viewpoint, and one object is no longer directly behind the other. I have some example photos somewhere, which I can look out and attach to this post. Obviously, you can achieve the same effect with rear shift only by changing the camera position.

And further thought (in my mind) suggests that if I've gone to the trouble of lining objects up, I won't want to upset that by using front shift.

So I think if front shift is omitted, rear shift with physical movement of the camera will give the same result.

Here's a photo with two objects positioned behind each other:



If I shift on the rear, I can move the paper packet left or right in the frame and maintain the relative positions of clock and paperweight. Shifting the lens changes clock/paperweight relative positions:

 

[Woodsy]

Completely see what you're saying, and thanks for the correction

In the absence of still life objects placed in some specific pattern, and instead thinking about landscapes, would you say that optical difference between front or rear shift would make a tangible difference if the scale of the camera movement is normalised to the scale of the scene?

 

[StephenM]

And as a further thought - you could externalise the front shift by mounting a focus slide under the camera to allow lateral movement, rather than the normal front/back...

 

[StephenM]

Your post appeared while I was typing. For normal landscapes, we're thinking of an inch or two sideways movement, which would be hardly noticeable. I have some example photos of where a sideways movement did make a difference, but this was more in the scale of a pace or two. I think I have them on an old Wordpress site (under my nom de vie, StephenBatey). I'll see if I can add a link here.

And here we are.

It only has a really noticeable effect if a small change in camera position gives a marked change in perspective, an effect magnified as the subject gets closer. Rather akin to the problems of stitching a panorama together if there are objects close to the camera where the change in position will give a relative shift of foreground/background.

 

[Peter B]

Lastly, I haven't yet thought too hard about the focusing mechanism. The most common mechanism seems to be the rack and pinion, but if not this, I'll need to have a proper think over a cuppa at some point.

So that's where I am so far. Thoughts and feedback are very welcome!

I'm not sure if these are of any help, but I've just dug out my old wholeplate Kodak to use with paper negatives. You'll see that the focus is by rack and pinion, but the focus rail is hinged and folds up to make the camera more compact, and it's held in place with a press stud at the top. The bottom of the rail has 2 locating pins and a screw whcih secures it accurately in place when folded down

There is a connection rail which attaches to the tripod, and this allows both the rear and front standards to move for focusing. There is also an additional section of focus rail which can be fitted in, but I've never used it. (It came with big wooden lens plates which I've converted with more readily available ones)

#1 camera from side with connection rail at bottom. The Super Angulon 8/120 lens is in place.


#2 camera from front with focus rail folded up


#3 camera with focus rail folded down and locked in position

 

[Woodsy]

Thanks for the replies chaps!

@StephenM thanks for confirming. I think given the ease by which the rear shift may be implemented, I may stick with it for now. Things are changing with the design quite often, and there’s some serious scope creep going on since the original idea, but hey, it’s kind of part of the fun

@Peter B thanks for the images and description I’ll be honest, I’d not though of have the rack and pinion incorporated that way - with the rack being attached to the bed, in effect, rather than the rail part that moves with the front standard. I’ll certainly give this some thought. I like the way that camera folds up really rather well, it’s got me thinking about a folder now... bah! So much scope creep!

 

[Nomad Z]

The design phase is a good time to have scope creep - much better then than once you have a half-built camera. Temper the design with the properties of the materials, and what you can do with your particular facilities.

My antique whole plate camera has a similar rack & pinion focusing mechanism. That's a tailboard, so the rack is split at the hinge, similar to Peter's Kodak. If using that type of setup, make sure the transition between the two bits of rack is tidy, such that the pinion rides smoothly over the join.

Looking at your design so far, the dovetail for the rear shift looks a bit small, especially if it's made of wood. Depending on the choice of wood, it's maybe strong enough for the forces it might experience in normal use, but a knock near the top of the rear standard could quite easily split either the sloping edge of the dovetail or the clamping parts. The clamping parts themselves might split as they're clamped because the male part of the dovetail is trying to wedge them apart.

 

[stevelmx5]

Morning all!

Having made moderate progress on the camera design so far, I thought it'd be good to show some of the angles. As mentioned before, I entertained the notion of a rail camera, but then also thought it best to throw together a basic field camera esq design and see which I gravitate towards more. Well, the short answer is that once I started the flatbed design, I didn't really go back to the rail designs at all, so I feel that has answered my question.

In any case, I still want the camera to be dismantlable into the three main components, so I've tried to put the basic components together in a way that at least means they are detachable from one another. I have also tried to put the camera together in a way that maintains the four key movements: Front center tilt, front rise/fall, front swing and some degree of relative shift. I appreciate these are not comprehensive, but they'll do for the time being.

In any case, please note that this by no means a polished final version! Knobs, fine focus adjustment mechanism, a proper film holder mounting system, etc are not yet designed or present, nor have I gone to any effort to include any nice aesthetic touches, so it's a bit brutally rectangular at present. I'm planning on sorting this particular part last, but equally I'm happy to listen to any suggestions for features to include [emoji4]

View attachment 283359View attachment 283360View attachment 283361View attachment 283362View attachment 283363View attachment 283364

In the last picture I have shown how I envisage the bellows being detachable from the camera. My initial thought is that I wanted the bellows to be removable, and so I felt this was easiest to achieve by attaching the bellows to their own frame at the rear (in the picture) and the front (not included yet). Given the success with which small but strong rare earth magnets have been used, I thought this could be a good method. Likewise, the rotatable film back could also be held in place by magnets as well. Otherwise, I was thinking of simple diagonal sliding metal clips similar to those incorporated on Ebony cameras.

I also thought that by using this dovetail rail and clamps method for attaching/detaching the rear standard, I could omit the added complexity for the front standard, thereby having only rear shift instead of front shift. Unless I'm missing something, rear shift to the left (say) is identical to front shift to the right? I'll wait for @StephenM to confirm on deny this [emoji1] In any case, I envisage that the bolts in the rear facing holes for the rear standard claps will be captive, as will be the thumb screws for locking the clamps.

I've also adopted the sinar lens board standard for the front standard, as this seems to be common on larger field cameras. Converting down to linhof style boards is pretty easy, so I felt this was good to incorporate so as not to impose limits. Coincidentally, it also means that the front dimensions of the bellows are bigger, making a more pleasing expansion ratio (aesthetically) for the bellows front to back.

Lastly, I haven't yet thought too hard about the focusing mechanism. The most common mechanism seems to be the rack and pinion, but if not this, I'll need to have a proper think over a cuppa at some point.

So that's where I am so far. Thoughts and feedback are very welcome!

The main issue I’d be concerned about is wobble of the rear standard. That’s a lot of weight, and handling loading/unloading film, to be secured on two narrow points attached to sliding rails.

Have you thought about using a u-shaped steel upright instead? I went through a similar early design with Chroma, then switched to the initial acrylic uprights on either side instead. I’ve since moved to aluminium u-frames too. As well as giving a solid base, it also allows me to secure the rear standard further up the sides, which gives a more rigid mount than securing it at the bottom corners.

I know you want to have the rear standard removable, so if you clamp it to whatever focusing rack you use, using thumbscrews, you can easily remove it.

 

[Woodsy]

The design phase is a good time to have scope creep - much better then than once you have a half-built camera. Temper the design with the properties of the materials, and what you can do with your particular facilities.

My antique whole plate camera has a similar rack & pinion focusing mechanism. That's a tailboard, so the rack is split at the hinge, similar to Peter's Kodak. If using that type of setup, make sure the transition between the two bits of rack is tidy, such that the pinion rides smoothly over the join.

Looking at your design so far, the dovetail for the rear shift looks a bit small, especially if it's made of wood. Depending on the choice of wood, it's maybe strong enough for the forces it might experience in normal use, but a knock near the top of the rear standard could quite easily split either the sloping edge of the dovetail or the clamping parts. The clamping parts themselves might split as they're clamped because the male part of the dovetail is trying to wedge them apart.

The main issue I’d be concerned about is wobble of the rear standard. That’s a lot of weight, and handling loading/unloading film, to be secured on two narrow points attached to sliding rails.

Have you thought about using a u-shaped steel upright instead? I went through a similar early design with Chroma, then switched to the initial acrylic uprights on either side instead. I’ve since moved to aluminium u-frames too. As well as giving a solid base, it also allows me to secure the rear standard further up the sides, which gives a more rigid mount than securing it at the bottom corners.

I know you want to have the rear standard removable, so if you clamp it to whatever focusing rack you use, using thumbscrews, you can easily remove it.

Thanks so much for the input chaps, I really appreciate it.

I am inclined to agree with your common point about the rear standard mount being insufficient to hold it firmly and steadily.

To answer the points specifically, I had in mind to get the dovetail rail and clamping parts machined in brass or aluminium, but even then I do agree with your point still, @Nomad Z.

With regard to the U shaped steel upright, I really wanted to avoid something like this. Primarily, I don't have the ability to shape metal in this way to any acceptable degree of accuracy, but it's also because at this rate the camera will essentially start looking like my Ebony just scaled up! Now, I have no problem with a 'larger ebony', in fact the bed already looks very similar, but I suppose I just wanted to make something a little more my own than just end up copying an existing design - even if it is the result of decades of clever design and engineering refinements!

Ok, so a compromise could be to move the relative shift movement to the front standard instead and have all the camera movements on the front standard. This still leaves me with the issue of attaching the rear standard to the focusing rack in a way that's removable but also sturdy. I will have the ability to shape basic metal parts in a CNC, but as far as I recall, this particular CNC won't have the beans to start milling steel. I have a drill press for creating holes, but nothing more. Brass and Aluminium should be very achievable, but I don't (yet) have a huge scope for complex metal part fabrication.

 

[steveo_mcg]

Maybe consider something simple like a sliding box camera even if it doesn't cover all your needs at first it'll get you going.