6 x 17 cm panoramic shots with an 8x10

<p>Hi!<br>

I shoot panorama's of 6 by 17 cm with a Fuji GX 617.<br>

17 cm is 6.6 inches.<br>

The Fuji is a medium format roll film camera.<br>

I 'd like to shoot panoramic shots of Macro, (1:1 enlargement) and would also like to have tilt, shift and swing for architecture and landscapes, which is not possible with the Fuji.<br>

I enlarge big, I've gotten shots printed 7 foot long, and I'm planning a 14 foot print.<br>

I'd like to get into large format because my panoramic shots are such a success, mainly for architecture and for landscape, and I'd like to get into 8 by 10 as I want to print big.<br />A 4 by 5 isn't sufficient for my panoramic format.<br>

I don't really mind about weight of the camera, but it has to be transportable.<br>

I still have to decide what 8 by 10 camera I want, there's lots of info about it on this forum.<br>

My question is: Can I get a rollfilm back for an 8 by 10, that takes panoramic 6 by 17 cm format ?<br>

My second question is:<br />I have a Cullmann Titan 4 tripod. It's a very sturdy tripod in my opinion. Is i t good enough for 8 by 10? Or do I have to buy something heavier?<br /><br />Thank you,<br>

Dirk.<br /> </p>

<p>You can easily do what you want. A friend of mine bought this rig (go to fleabay and look at this auction). I was surprised he could fit it on a 4x5 camera, but it makes sense. It is pretty well built and well priced too. I would probably mount it on a Wista or Linhof camera.</p>

<p>Would it make sense maybe to use 8x10 film and crop to the area equivalent to a 6 x 17 cm format. With a 4x5 camera also you could make exposures on two sheets of film by shifting the back left and right with a 90mm or 75mm with a large image circle, and keeping the front standard with the lens in a fixed position. This will give you a very expansive panoramic image once you combine the images.</p>

<p>I have a vintage mask set for 4x5, that replaces the conventional dark slide. It allows 2 exposures per sheet, each of which is a little smaller than 2.5x4. Obviously the orientation is different, for them to fit on the 4x5 sheet. Why not construct or have made something similar to get 2 4x10 exposures on an 8x10 sheet? That works out to a workable dimension of roughly 9x24cm, enough for the most avid of panoramic shooters. All you need is a decent camera and the patience to work the movements of the camera according to the frame you're shooting on; most field cameras should do this easily. You could even do a triple mask set for 3 exposures of 6x24 each if you were so inclined.</p>

<p>A double mask can be constructed with a single spare dark slide, cutting out the desired shape on one side and flipping it to get your top-and-bottom shots. A triple would require 2, one for the top and bottom, and one for the center shot. Come to think of it, I think I'm going to try this myself on my 4x5 with a spare dark slide. 5x12.5 cm is a nice proportion, I think...?</p>

<p>Here is a 4x10 Panorama holder for any 8x10 camera - perfect and cheap solution to get your panoramic shots.</p>

<p>https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=3082</p>

<p>First of all, I haven't seen anything that will connect a roll film holder to an 8x10--except with a 4x5 reducing back. I don't think I have ever seen a 6x17 roll film back either--I have a 6x12, but that is the biggest I remember seeing.</p>

<p>I tried the masking thing, cutting up a darkslide, and it didn't work. The edge of the cut pulled caught on the felt in the holder and pulled it right out--ruined the holder. I thought I had it all deburred and such, and maybe it could work if done better.</p>

<p>The other possibility is to create an interior mask. I had some success doing this. I created an inlay where I would insert the film holder, pull the back off and put a mask in the back in front of the film. On the camera I used, this stayed in place pretty well as I changed holders, so you could probably put it in place, compose, insert the film holder and shoot. Of course, there are complications with remembering what side you shot, if you bracket or shoot back up, before you go to the next shot and use the other half of the film--reversing the mask.</p>

<p>As I remember, they have made 8x20 cameras over the years. You may be able to find one out there, in fact, I think someone still makes them--or something in that range. I remember going to one of the MFG's websites and seeing them.</p>

<p>Just looking around I found this, which might be the best solution for you: www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=3029</p>

<p>I also looked up the 6x17 roll film adapter for other 4x5 cameras and haven't gotten anything yet--yes it is made, but no specs found yet. The issue I see with it is that it is a recessed "tunnel". This would still allow some movements, but would limit those movements because of the cut off the recessed area would cause--less movement than a normal view camera would have.</p>

<p>This actually looks a bit better than I thought, but may still have some early cut off over the camera above:<br>

http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=123</p>

<p>I thought a panoramic shot was one that had a wide angle of view. Kodak Panoram cameras shoot somewhere from 110 degree to 150 degree wide views in the long direction (depending on the model). Similarly for the Widelux 35mm cameras. What you're doing here is just getting the normal angular width of the camer lens, and then truncating the shot in the other direction. You get a high aspect ratio print (like a panoramic camera would give), but it's not a panoramic view.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>17 cm is 6.6 inches.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I still have to decide what 8 by 10 camera I want</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wouldn't a 5"x7" camera be easier?</p>

<p>Steve beat me to it; wouldn't a 5x7 be easier? You haven't mentioned budget but Badger carries both Canham and Ebony 5x7 view cameras that accommodate 6x17 roll film holders. Canham has its own proprietary 6x17 roll film holder while Ebony utilizes a Horseman 6x17 roll film holder. I've seen them both and, budget notwithstanding, think you would be happy with either set up. </p>

<p>Dirk,<br>

<br /><br /><br>

If you wish, you can very easily use 8x10 film and by using an extra dark slide that has been cut approximately in half, get two 3.5x10 panoramas on each sheet. You don't want to cut it perfectly in half due to the potential for a slight light bleed or even image overlap at the edge, so cut it slightly over half so that the open area is about 3.5x10.<br>

<br /><br /><br>

Simply use a felt tip marker to draw a line centered across the ground glass for composition, then once the holder is inserted, remove the regular dark slide and put in the slide that is modified which will then mask the half you don't want to expose. Make that exposure, note which half (top or bottom) has been exposed in your notebook, replace the masked slide with the whole one, and go on to the next scene. <br>

<br /><br /><br>

A simple code system of numbering the holders and noting the position works quite well to avoid double exposures. My holders are numbered as to item and side such as 1 (holder) A or B (side) and then T (top) or B (bottom). The 1-A or B are on the holder and the rest are notations in my pocket field notebook listing the holder and side codes and a T or B according to that composition. If you make the notes at the time of exposure, you make no errors.<br>

<br /><br /><br>

Scanning is easy enough and doing your own printing from these simply involves using a black mask on the negative carrier to block light from the exposure that is not being printed.</p>

<p > </p>

<p>I have done 6x17 in my 5x7 with a half slide and it works well. The concern about the light seal is a concern, although I didn't damage any. I found there was a chance of a slight light leak in the light trap as the open part of the slide went by. I solved the problem by using the dark cloth to shield the holder while moving the dark slide. You can avoid damaging your light seals by tapering the cut in the dark slide so it slices a little as its installed.<br /> <br /> If you use a field camera that allows the back to be installed to load from the left or right, you can setup a mask inside the camera to expose only half the image, top or bottom, and flip the back over to expose the other half. I've used both methods. I eventually ended up using both methods together to control unwanted light bouncing around inside my camera.<br /> <br /> Another method I've used is to cut strips of 120 film to 7 inch lengths and install them in the 5x7 holder. I did this by tucking one edge in the film rail and securing the other edge with double stick tape that I put down the middle of the holder. I initially resorted to this method because the film I wanted to use was no longer available in 5x7. In the end it was very successful. My film lab even liked it. They mounted the film in 4x5 clips with the film bowed and found that they did fine in their film processor. If I was doing a lot of this I would glue a couple rails in a 5x7 holder that placed the film in the center of the holder. This method would become even more viable if you are processing your own film. I envision a drum processor with a stack of 120 carriers, all holding one piece of film on the outside turn.<br /> I used my 90mm Super Angulon with this setup and got great results. If you are shooting 1:1 you might be able to use one of your medium format lenses. I haven't tried it, but I think the 50mm off my Mamiya Press or my 65mm Super Angulon would work for what you're proposing.</p>

<p>Alan,<br>

Question re using 120 film. If I'm understanding your description, it would seem that the side of the 120 film would be resting on the tape and thus elevated from the surface of the film holder, i.e., that that side of the film would be closer to the lens than the opposite side, which would be under/in the film rail. I understand the tape you used may have been pretty thin and/or that the depth of focus may have been sufficient to negate any issue - but did you ever notice any focus issue?<br>

Regards,</p>

<p>R miller, you are correct on all counts. The tape does elevate the film, but only .001 inch or so. Less than the slop in the 5x7 film guide. This was not a problem due to my depth of focus with wide angle lenses. The big focus challenge is making sure your lens and film are perfectly parallel. I was using a Burk & James field camera at the time, so spent quite a bit of time setting up the shot for good focus. I now have a Sinar F2 with a Norma 5x7 back. If I ever do this again it will be a lot easier.</p>

<p>Back in the 1990s there was a 6x17cm format view camera made in St. Louis by a man (now deceased) named Chet Hanchett, it was called the V-Pan. You could shoot wide angle with it macro with it, etc. It can swings and tilts on the front standard and used lens mounted on Linhof Technika boards. I owned two of them and used them with lenses as short as 72mm (way too wide) and a Nikon 620T telephoto.</p>

<p>Keith Canham had a better idea: a 6x17cm back for virtually any 5x7 view camera that had a removable groundglass frame. and he is still making them I believe. You can read about it here: http://www.canhamcameras.com/index.htm , here: http://www.photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/004jcU , and here: http://www.photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/007owR among other places.</p>

<p>I noticed another product on eBay and did a Google search. The DAYI 6x17 Roll Film Back.<br>

http://cgi.ebay.com/DAYI-6x17-Roll-Film-Back-Linhof-Wista-TOYO-4x5-Camera-/270695689592?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item3f06b86d78<br>

http://www.photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/00TJ6r<br>

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/shen-hao-6x17.html<br>

http://www.flickr.com/groups/354354@N23/<br>

It has the advantage of using a 4x5 camera, but takes a camera that can close down pretty short to work with short lenses.</p>

<p>I have a 6x17 back for a 4x5 camera, made by Shen Hao, and works with alll normal 4x5 cameras. The image circle of most 4x5 lenses is enough to allow for some rise or shift. The back extends out behind the 4x5 film plane and it comes with its own groundglass focusing mount. It might not work well with very long lenses, or with 1:1 macro extensions because of the acute angle from 4x5 film edge to the 17cm film edge. Ie. as the light travels straight, it may not cover the full 17cm width of the film if it comes from a lens that is way forward (telecentric) to the film back. It also doen's work well with very short lenses as focusing becomes difficult. Still, it is the easiest way to get 6x17 on a view camera.</p>