DIY 6x9 or 6x12 or even 6x17

[Ezzie]

Since I started hanging out here, I´ve let myself be enticed, not by large format in general, but by some of the cameras involved. I really like fine machinery, watches and cameras especially. View and field cameras are not my cup of tea, but medium/large format panoramic cameras really look the piece. And when I came across some really wicked pictures by Colin Prior taken with a Fuji GX617, ooooooh was I hooked. I´m in the slippery slope now it would seem. This not being a cheap sport, and me being in no small part Scottish (i.e. mean), I thought I´d build my own.

Just won the bidding for a Fuji SW 90mm f8 on the ebay for a not so princely sum of $180. Looking for a suitable 120 film roll back to build a panoramic camera of sorts. Will be getting a helicoid, as I´d like to zone focus and not have to use GGin the field, or be bound to using a removable roll film insert. As I see it I´ve got two options: The easiest route would be adapting a 6x9 for 35mm use, even if removing the film will require a film changing bag, 24x90mm is certainly panoramic. and 35mm film being much easer to get processed (no I´ll not be spending time in the dark room), I´m a digital convert remember. 120/220 on 612/614/617 would be nice too - only time will tell what I end up with. the 6x9/35mm route might win out if I can find a way of modifying the back to handle both 6x9 and 35mm - not just one or the other.

This project will not be moving forward at a rate of knots, so do not expect progress reports before you see them. I´ve been scouring the net for weeks now and a lot of DIY cameras have been built, and still are. Most resource sites however have gone dead a long time ago. Razzledog´s Obsession cameras however do really stand out. They look better and probably are better built then many a pro camera. Others I´ve seen not so hot. Mine. I hope, will be somewhere in between.

A few questions.
- The back focusing for the lens is from the shutter flange to the film plane? (I plan on constructing a jig with the lens mounted on the helicoid set to infinity to be able to set the distance correctly).
- Anyone know what the back focus for the Fuji 90/f8 is?
- The Mamiya Press 6x9 roll film backs are often used for such purposes. I´ve seen such conversions quoted as 6x12. I can´t see that there ever was a 6x12 Mamiya back. I´ve seen notes that the pressure plates have been moved back, but I can´t quite see there´s enough room/depth to add another 3cm to the frame width?

[pagpow]

Couple of ways forward --

1) people working with the Mamiya backs would chose the knob kind with different windows for the different formats and some have used a nibbler to expand the 6X9 to 6x12 (or close) -- i say close cuz I've never done it and the posts I have read did not specify exactly how much was nibbled out

2) the 616 Kodak Monitor gives a frame approx 110-112 mm wide (I don't have it in front of me). A simple narrowing of the vertical gate to support 120 film would provide a relatively simple solution to get you to 6x12

3) remember that 6x12 nominal is often 56x112 real

4) the Mosculon (google it) provides a simple framework to get to what you want in 6x9 w. a 65mm lens -- something you could then apply to 6x12 w. a 90 mm lens

5) can't help you with measurements

6) good luck -- I'll be really interested to see what you do.

[kuzano]

With this idea (tested and used) you could yield 4 panoramas per double sheet film holder, loaded with 2 sheets of film.

It may be difficult to envision, but use a standard 4X5 camera. Don't worry about movements, so a simple Crown or Pacemaker would work. It would be nice to have a Graflok back, but not necessarily for this exercise.

Mark the ground glass in half lengthwise. On the ground glass, you will then have two frames of 2X5 inches. Equivalent would be 5cm x 12.7cm. (actual 12cm panoramas are usually 55mm x 112mm)

Now take a dark slide and cut a 2X5 inch hole (rectangle) on half the dark slide, corresponding to one of the frame lines on the ground glass. Depending on how the dark slide is inserted, you will either be exposing the upper or the lower half of the film sheet. You need two dark slides, a full one and the one with the exposure area cut out.

Now, the process for exposing the film:
1) Do your ground glass focus for the panorama you want to shoot first (upper or lower) Use front rise or fall to center the lens to the panorama frame chosen.
2) focused and locked, insert a double sheet holder.
3) Pull the dark slide
4) insert the custom dark slide with the hole on top or bottom, depending on which side of the film you focused for the shot.
5) Snap the shutter
6) Pull the custom dark slide and Re-insert the full dark slide, noting which side (upper/lower) is exposed.
7) Taking the next shot is the same, but focus on the other frame (if you first did the upper, next do the lower, and insert the custom dark slide accordingly)

Now this system works very well, and is a great way to shoot 12cm panoramas.

There are some unique considerations for marking the exposed sections as "exposed", so a worksheet or journal is in order here.

Also, all other considerations of working with large format, focusing, loading and changing film, etc, come into play here.

But, it's a great way to achieve panoramas with normal LF lenses and standard LF camera's. Also a great way to reduce cost per images and NOT waste film.

The same procedure applied to 5X7 would yield a frame a bit fuller than 60X170mm, or 6X17CM (Two 6X17 panoramas per sheet of 5X7). The custom dark slide in this case would have a hole cut 2.5X7 inches, or a bit less on the short side, like 2.3X7)

This could even be done on an 8X10 to acquire frames of 4X10.

You might ask about the lens centering on the frame, and that would be taken care of by adjusting rise and fall on the front standard.

This does work.

[marlowe]

you might find this interesting. A working photographer builds his own cameras. Note that he build the body by machining a 55lb block of aluminium :-)
www.kippwettstein.com
He does take commissions, but they ain't cheap.

[rickp]

although more of a shift than a panorama camera, i've always thought the corefield camera was technically interesting, and may give you some design tips for your project. super angulon lens on a shifting lens mount on the front; mamiya roll film holder on the rear, and a plate to hold the two together.
good luck
rick

[Debusti Paolo]

Originally Posted by rickp

although more of a shift than a panorama camera, i've always thought the corefield camera was technically interesting, and may give you some design tips for your project. super angulon lens on a shifting lens mount on the front; mamiya roll film holder on the rear, and a plate to hold the two together.
good luck
rick

how much does it costs?can be used handheld???

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Debusti Paolo

how much does it costs?can be used handheld???

They're expensive and out of production, but yes, they can be used hand held. That was exactly why Sir Kenneth designed them: for fast use, phtographing churches and the like from the middle of the road. Try to contact Gandolfi to see if they can make one up if you don't mind the price: they had a spare body or two, last time I asked (a long time ago).

Cheers,

R.

[hans voralberg]

Kuzano, with your method you could move the camera in between two halves, then cut the 2 halves out in scanning and merge them as a very wide panorama as well right?

[kuzano]

Originally Posted by hans voralberg

Kuzano, with your method you could move the camera in between two halves, then cut the 2 halves out in scanning and merge them as a very wide panorama as well right?

That's certainly a possibility. Get's a bit complex in tracking the images. But with the right tripod, you could use rotation to endo the image frames. Plus as I think about it, you could use the vertical movement (center stalk) of the tripod and use a 2 inch spacer cut out on one side to slide on sideways. Then you could expose the bottom half of the frame, pull the spacer and drop the camera two inches, then rotate to overlap the images. This would be if your goal is to get close to a 6X20cm panorama. Overlap about 20% and shoot.

Develop, scan, separate the halves in Photoshop, or before, and then stitch. I'd be tempted to develop the frame as a whole since it was exposed and shot at the same place and exposure. Then use Photoshop to separate and stitch. There is so much software, however, to choose from for these operations.

I actually do something a bit different for panoramas from roll film. I use a $500 Fuji G690 and a tripod that has a level bubble on the rotation platform. Then I can shoot 2-3 frames at 6X9 with overlap and stitch them for up to 6X20 or thereabout. You have to make sure the rotation is level on the tripod by leg adjustment. This saves spending $300 to $500 for very expensive Panorama heads... totally un-necessary.

In fact, I find Photoshop Elements from version 6 up to be quite capable of performing well blended stitches as long as care is taken to match exposure (work fast before light changes) and leveling the camera AND the rotation portion of the tripod.

[Roger Hicks]

Chop up two 6x9 cameras and butt them end to end for a 617. See Hicks & Schultz Medium and Large Format Photography David & Charles/Amphoto 2001 Appendix 2. There's also a module with the webmaster on the same subject but it hasn't happened yet.

Incidentally: Corfield, not corefield. The camera is the WA67. Or look at Alpa (www.alpa.ch)

Cheers,

R.

[Ezzie]

Thanks folks. I've not concluded which method of approach will prevail. But I appreciate you taking your time to respond.

Will get back to you when my mind starts to settle on a single train of thought.

[Roger Hicks]

How to make a 'Longfellow'...

[Roger Hicks]

More steps in the 'Longfellow'

Cheers,

R.

[oftheherd]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

More steps in the 'Longfellow'

Cheers,

R.

Mr. Hicks, that is just a neat looking conversion. Also looks like something a competent machinist could help with. Thanks for showing this.

[rickp]

thanks roger. the alpa site is full of beautiful cameras, and the longfellow looks like a winner too.
cheers
rick

[hans voralberg]

Roger the cone is custom made right? How do one go about designing it? You know the numbers, angle and such

[Roger Hicks]

The prototype was made with a wooden box on the front, rather than a (custom cast light alloy) cone. The thickness of the cone will depend on the focal length of the lens. Establish infinity focus by focusing the sun on something white and non-flammable, and make the box/cone thinner to allow the use of a focusing helical.

Dr. Wright, who invented the Longfellow, nicked the helical off an old aerial camera, or you could try to find an enlarger with a light-tight helical. He had about a dozen cones cast: this was 10-15 years ago, and once one had been made, more didn't cost much. He had a fair amount of trouble with bubbles in the castings, though: as far as I recall, one or two were rejects and some others had to have the holes filled with epoxy mixed with black pigment. As far as I recall it was a 90/8 SA on his camera.

Cheers,

R.

[pagpow]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

The prototype was made with a wooden box on the front, rather than a (custom cast light alloy) cone. The thickness of the cone will depend on the focal length of the lens. Establish infinity focus by focusing the sun on something white and non-flammable, and make the box/cone thinner to allow the use of a focusing helical.

Dr. Wright, who invented the Longfellow, nicked the helical off an old aerial camera, or you could try to find an enlarger with a light-tight helical. He had about a dozen cones cast: this was 10-15 years ago, and once one had been made, more didn't cost much. He had a fair amount of trouble with bubbles in the castings, though: as far as I recall, one or two were rejects and some others had to have the holes filled with epoxy mixed with black pigment. As far as I recall it was a 90/8 SA on his camera.

Cheers,

R.

You're right about the focal length, Roger -- both from your book and from my memory which was picqued when I read your book as it supported an earlier article in shutterbug that took the same general approach but claimed using a 90 6.8 Angulon (not Super) would cover at 16 -- though the specs say/suggest otherwise.

Can try to chase earlier article down if there is interest.

Giorgio

[pagpow]

Oops, actually Roger, you were the author of the Shutterbug article (January 1997) also on the Longfellow (ah, the failure of memory -- apologies). This shows a 90 SA on the front page of the article but explicitly references the fact that a 90 6.8 will work in practice.

It strikes me that, in addition to being inexpensive (relatively) this has the advantage of being lighter than the competition -- particularly if one goes w. the Angulon and hyperfocal positioning at f16 (ie gives up a focusing mount). True?

Giorgio

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Giorgio,

I'm pretty sure I'd have said that about the Angulon on the strength of advice from Dr. Wright, but I'm afraid that at this remove -- effectively 13 years -- I just don't remember. I'm also pretty sure that if I'd not been told it would cover, I'd simply have avoided the subject!

Probably hyperfocal would be OK at 16 but 22 might be a better bet. The late Colin Glanfield made a couple of wooden LF box cameras (the 'Glandolfis') with fixed hyperfocal lenses but again my memory fails on what the lenses were: Colin died in 1999, after all. A 121/8 SA will cover 8x10 at f/22 or so for interiors but I don't know about infinity.

Sorry I can't be more help.

Cheers,

R.

[pagpow]

Right you are, Roger, I stand corrected on the aperture. Quoting from your article..

"Believe it or not, a 90mm f6.8 Angulon works quite adequately on 617 at f/22, though the corners are soft and a Super Angulon is better.' p216

"The negative diagonal is 180mm, so this is the minimum you'll need; the 90mm Angulon nominally covers only 150m, but in practice it seems to work. The 90mm Super Angulon, with its 210mm circle of coverage, is more than you need." p217

Both from the Jan 1997 issue of Shutterbug, "The Longfellow", Roger W. Hicks

if there is a concern with the corners, the length can be shortened to 14 or 15 (6x14 or 6X150. and, if that size is sufficient for the OP, then one can adapt a Kodak 3A body by narrowing the film gate. This avoids teh major surgery to create a 6x17.

Giorgio

[Ezzie]

Thanks guys, good reading.

[ChrisN]

Also check out the Razzle Obsession 617 - plenty of food for thought there!

I don't think Dean will mind me linking one of his photos here - he is a member here (albeit a rarely active member).

[Ezzie]

Yes, I mentioned Deans creations in my original posting. Very nice indeed.

I've mulled over different options, from building everything from scratch, to chopping two Mamiya 6x7 of 6x9 backs (I like the Longfellow, but I know I could not bring myself to chop up two venerable folders). However, I think I'm going to settle on building a 4x5 rear frame/standard, add a 4x5 slide on adapter to allow any form of 4x5 international backs, be they 4x5, 6x7, 6x9 or 6x12. To the standard I,ll add a cone/lens adapter without movement (which might be added later). I won't be getting a 1:2.8 panoramic ratio, but the flexibility! Now to start shopping.

[pagpow]

Sounds like a plan, Ezzie.

If you go that way, you might want to be aware of a couple of other possibilities to piggy-back on that plan.

1) The Shutterbug article on the Longfellow also featured a 6x17 back for a 4x5. It works on a graphic, say,because it moves the film plane back -- works w/o vignetting w. a 90mm -- which I think is what you were playing with.

2) Appreciate your thoughts about not massacring two folders, but you can find non-usable folders -- this would mean you are putting photo equipment back in service, not disfiguring working photo equipment.

3) Possible to consider one of the 6x17 Chines backs as an alternative.