# Help me build...



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 5, 2012)

... one of these.


After watching these guys take over €300 in less than 4 hours today I'm thinking 'fuck the sketching' 

Theirs uses an old 170mm lens which relies heavily on good light. I want to bild one to use on Mirador de San Nicolas in Granada that will have a deep enough depth of field to capture the Alhambra behind portraits.

See 'Itinerant' thread in Travel forum for more info'.

I am thinking keep it dead simple. Basically mounting a 35mm SLR on the front of the box with the focal plane moved a good 30cm backwards. Retain shutter and aperture control with the camera body (minus the back) using a very small aperture.

Any reason why this won't work?

I have a couple of old mechanical SLR's to rip apart and experiment with when I get back to Granada. Very simple box with curtains, built in focusing screen and chemical tanks with a standard SLR stuck to the front and disguised as very, very old school.


Also...

Anyone tried contact printing with paper from flash? I have ideas for doing this at night also. I'm gonna be rich


----------



## IC3D (Jul 5, 2012)

Its quite a good idea, how much did they charge, can you make a nice looking camera body, get the vignetting and look like a hippie?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 5, 2012)

Yeah. I can do that.

I think the look of the camera is very important. The more authentic and bigger it is the better. You need space in the box for the chemicals. I think most people would be clueless about the fact that an 80's SLR disguised as a lump of wood was the main mechanics.

Need to find myself an attractive hippie chic who's good with people mind. An assistant is essential for many reasons.

The vignetting is easily achieved with a dab of caustic soda in the right places. They charge €10 a go. Paper and chemicals probably works out at about 30 Centimos a go. Takes about 5 minutes to produce a negative and then copy that for the positive print.

I want to go further with spectacular old skool powder flash for night portraits


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2012)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Yeah. I can do that.
> 
> I think the look of the camera is very important. The more authentic and bigger it is the better. You need space in the box for the chemicals. I think most people would be clueless about the fact that an 80's SLR disguised as a lump of wood was the main mechanics.
> 
> ...


 
Be careful with the magnesium powder, Stan. A mate managed to flash-fry his beard 'n' tache, hair and eyebrows with it. 

Can't see why you want to use an old slr, though. You're just introducing complexity into the chain, having to process the film and then print an enlargement. The old tintype carts that used to do the rounds on promenades 100+ years ago used to expose straight onto treated half-plate or full-plate-sized paper, then just develop that. Okay, it means having loads of darkslides loaded with photographic paper, but it's more authentic, man!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2012)

IC3D said:


> Its quite a good idea, how much did they charge, can you make a nice looking camera body, get the vignetting and look like a hippie?


 
Body is really easy, it's just a "sliding box", with the front closely fitting into the back, allowing you to shift in and out to get the best focus.
Cool use of a wheelchair, too.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Be careful with the magnesium powder, Stan. A mate managed to flash-fry his beard 'n' tache, hair and eyebrows with it.
> 
> Can't see why you want to use an old slr, though. You're just introducing complexity into the chain, having to process the film and then print an enlargement. The old tintype carts that used to do the rounds on promenades 100+ years ago used to expose straight onto treated half-plate or full-plate-sized paper, then just develop that. Okay, it means having loads of darkslides loaded with photographic paper, but it's more authentic, man!


Could he rig up a pin hole camera with the right appearance?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Could he rig up a pin hole camera with the right appearance?


 
He could, or he could pick up one of the thousands of Victorian era no-name large format lenses that litter the flea-markets of the world, and use one of them. Most of them are optically-true enough to give sharp pictures even when printing to modern papers.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> ...
> 
> Can't see why you want to use an old slr, though...


 
You misunderstood, or perhaps I didn't explain myself.

I'm thinking remove the back from an old 35mm SLR and stick it to a big box. Effectively moving the focal plane to wherever in the box whilst retaining aperture and shutter control in the SLR. No film - simply using the camera as an all in 1 lens and shutter to capture images on paper in the box.

I'm thinking 2 focus screens/focal planes in the box. 1 for negative capture, the other for copying the negative on to a 10"x8" paper for positive. I think with a standard 50mm lens on a 2.5" negative would retain a decent enough depth of field at f16 to keep the Alhambra in focus behind the portrait subjects. Grain is not likley to be an issue as it's 'old skool' anyway.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2012)

Stanley Edwards said:


> You misunderstood, or perhaps I didn't explain myself.
> 
> I'm thinking remove the back from an old 35mm SLR and stick it to a big box. Effectively moving the focal plane to wherever in the box whilst retaining aperture and shutter control in the SLR. No film - simply using the camera as an all in 1 lens and shutter to capture images on paper in the box.
> 
> I'm thinking 2 focus screens/focal planes in the box. 1 for negative capture, the other for copying the negative on to a 10"x8" paper for positive. I think with a standard 50mm lens on a 2.5" negative would retain a decent enough depth of field at f16 to keep the Alhambra in focus behind the portrait subjects. Grain is not likley to be an issue as it's 'old skool' anyway.


 
Just seems like an awkward way to do it, especially as if you were capturing the image on photographic paper rather than film, and using a small aperture, you could easily hand-time the exposure "lenscap off, lenscap on".


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Just seems like an awkward way to do it, especially as if you were capturing the image on photographic paper rather than film, and using a small aperture, you could easily hand-time the exposure "lenscap off, lenscap on".


 
The problem is the DoF.

With an old skool lens of 170mm or more, then It is going to be extremely difficult to control a depth of field great enough to focus on the subjects and retain details of the Alhambra in the background. The guys shooting with the box above rely heavily on ambient light. Judging by the times they use for removing the lens cap I guess the paper ISO is about 25 and they use an aperture of about f8.

Using an SLR body with aperture and shutter control on a standard lens will resolve many issues as well as making exposure much more reliable without being totally dependent on the ambient light available.


----------



## cybertect (Jul 7, 2012)

Stanley Edwards said:


> ... one of these.
> View attachment 20847
> 
> 
> ...



Erm, isn't this going to be exactly the same as sticking a 300mm extension tube on the camera?

You'll only be able to focus on things that are practically touching the surface of the lens and have zero DoF.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 7, 2012)

cybertect said:


> Erm, isn't this going to be exactly the same as sticking a 300mm extension tube on the camera?
> 
> You'll only be able to focus on things that are practically touching the surface of the lens and have  zero DoF.


 
No. I don't think so.

Using the smallest possible aperture and a negative focalplane of about 2.5" Inches, I think the DoF should be sufficient.

I'm not brilliant at these sort of maths , so trial and eror is the only way for me really.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 7, 2012)

Stanley, I get how you could use a partially dismantled slr and lens as the front end but how would you go about developing a print, how long would it take and could you take other pictures while you were developing a previous one?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 7, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Stanley, I get how you could use a partially dismantled slr and lens as the front end but how would you go about developing a print, how long would it take and could you take other pictures while you were developing a previous one?


 
Within the box you have 2 dishes. One for the developer and one for the fix. Develop by time and touch - so, no room for another exposure whilst you develop each print.

My idea is to have 2 focal planes on hinges. The first at the front of the box to take the initial negative print. Develop that then mount it in front of the lens and use the second focal plane/screen to copy to a larger format for the positive print. We're looking at about 5 minutes for each result in good conditions.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 8, 2012)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Within the box you have 2 dishes. One for the developer and one for the fix. Develop by time and touch - so, no room for another exposure whilst you develop each print.


So will you dissapear into it under a black curtain while developing. Fumes might get pretty bad in there.



Stanley Edwards said:


> My idea is to have 2 focal planes on hinges. The first at the front of the box to take the initial negative print. Develop that then mount it in front of the lens and use the second focal plane/screen to copy to a larger format for the positive print. We're looking at about 5 minutes for each result in good conditions.


Oh, Can't say I fully understand, the copy to a larger format and 2 focal planes I don't get but nevermind, if it works it works. 5 minutes per print sounds pretty good, how much will you charge people?


----------



## fogbat (Jul 8, 2012)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Yeah. I can do that.
> 
> I think the look of the camera is very important. The more authentic and bigger it is the better. You need space in the box for the chemicals. I think most people would be clueless about the fact that an 80's SLR disguised as a lump of wood was the main mechanics.
> 
> ...



It all becomes clear..


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 8, 2012)

fogbat said:


> It all becomes clear..


 
Like I need an ulterior motive


----------



## weltweit (Jul 26, 2012)

So come on Stan, are you going to make one or not?

I notice you are currently distracted by post cards.... but large plate cameras do not build themselves!!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 26, 2012)

weltweit said:


> So come on Stan, are you going to make one or not?
> 
> I notice you are currently distracted by post cards.... but large plate cameras do not build themselves!!


 
I will build one when I return to Granada in September, or October, or November, or December...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 26, 2012)

weltweit said:


> So come on Stan, are you going to make one or not?
> 
> I notice you are currently distracted by post cards.... but large plate cameras do not build themselves!!


He'll build one when he learns to make an omelette


----------



## Badgers (Jul 26, 2012)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> He'll build one when he learns to make an omelette



The omelette is nearly done, a moth on the wall distracted him but it will get made. Have faith...


----------

