travis m Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 I think not. <a href="http://www.fotoart.gr/photography/history/historyphotos/onephotoonestory/thelargestcamera.htm">LINK</a>? Whoa nelly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 Depends on how "deep"your pocket is! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mskovacs Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 Don't they realize that they should be using a lens shade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis m Posted April 26, 2005 Author Share Posted April 26, 2005 Too bad they did not show what the result was. bet that was fun developing :! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew in Austin Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 Does anyone care to help me lift a glass plate negative? Best Regards - Andrew in Austin, TX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdcarma Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 Does it come with the "correct" wrist strap?..;-] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandeha Lynch Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 Hmm. Now that gives me an idea, but I'm gonna need some really big wheels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis m Posted April 26, 2005 Author Share Posted April 26, 2005 Better link with why........ <a href="http://www.rtpnet.org/robroy/lawrence/mammoth.html">LINK</a>? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis m Posted April 26, 2005 Author Share Posted April 26, 2005 hmm not working.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis m Posted April 26, 2005 Author Share Posted April 26, 2005 Glass plates 8 x 4? ft in size. Can you see teh lens cap under his arm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennybee Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 The camera was never a commercial success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis m Posted April 26, 2005 Author Share Posted April 26, 2005 Last one.... This guy had a craving for large format. <a href="http://www.rtpnet.org/robroy/lawrence/Images/tripod.jpg">LINK</a>? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennybee Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 HaHa, LOL Travis! This guy'd better save up for a sturdier tripod! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis m Posted April 26, 2005 Author Share Posted April 26, 2005 Yikes! Look at his flash. Behind him. Hope he is wearing leather or somehting flame resistant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene m Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 I think I have one of those somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn_thoreson Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Though it may be redundant, I have articles from the '40s describing these cameras in detail around here somewhere. The first one is a very interesting camera built by an even more interesting gentleman. If I remember correctly though, it did not take glass plates, but sheet film, which I have the details on. Even though the camera took something like ten or so men to operate it, plates would still be next to impossible to handle. I'll try to find my resource and get back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis m Posted April 27, 2005 Author Share Posted April 27, 2005 My earlier link was not right here is the story and why. <a href="http://www.rtpnet.org/robroy/lawrence/mammoth.html">LINK</a>? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn_thoreson Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 The article I have is in The Complete Photographer, issue 34, volume 6, pages 2217 thru 2221. Lawrence was a very interesting fellow. The mammoth camera did indeed take glass plates - 4 1/2 X 8 feet, in a holder 10 X 6 feet. Plates cost 1,800.00 dollars a dozen (in 1900 dollars). Lenses were a 5 1/2 foot wide angle and a 11 foot Rapid Telescopic Rectilinear. Front and rear rise and swing. The focus screen was a semi transparent celluloid, which is why my faded memory remembered the use of sheet film. Doh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted May 1, 2005 Share Posted May 1, 2005 Take an old cargo van and turn it into a huge pinhole camera? Heyyyyy Hmmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted May 1, 2005 Share Posted May 1, 2005 In Process cameras; there is the Goertz REd Dot Artar in 70 inch focal length; it is F16 wide open. It covers a 42x48" plate a 1:10; and 72 x80" plate at 1:1. This lens was 3625 dollars in 1971; when minimum was about 1 to 1.25 bucks. There was a lower distortion variant that cost more bucks; with 0.005% distortion only. A VW bug was about 1999 bucks in 1971. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sl attanapola Posted May 1, 2005 Share Posted May 1, 2005 Wow! That redefines the meaning of "large format" ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now