Q: Describe some miscellaneous MF cameras

Baby rolleis are an example of one unusual MF camera by today's standards. These cameras provided 4cmx4cm images on 127 film. One particular advantage of this format is the ability to mount and use these superslides in most regular 35mm slide projectors.

Another odd currently available format is the 6cmx8cm Fuji GX680III series. You have probably noted that medium format covers many formats, and covered even more in the past with sundry discontinued film formats.

Alpa offers some unusual MF cameras in their Alpa 12 SW and Alpa 12 SWA models. These cameras feature many formats (6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8 or 6x9 cm) and a unique perspective control with wide angle lens design.

Noblex 135 camera can photograph 136 degrees - essentially duplicating what you can see in a single panoramic photograph. Noble history is also quite interesting.

You will find a number of unusual panoramic cameras, including both fixed and swinging lens variants. Some cameras rotate 360 degrees, in a complete circle taking in the entire scene (cf. Roundshot 360). Other cameras use very wide angle lenses such as the 100 degree coverage of the Plaubel Veriwide, which is also unusual as a 6x10cm camera. The Horizon 202 series camera is a swinging lens camera that makes a 24x56mm image on regular 35mm film. So you need a medium format enlarger to make prints, but you can use 35mm film in the camera.

Besides the cameras cited here, there are lots of cameras which are unusual and often collectible cameras. There are over 30,000 cameras of interest to collectors (see McKeown's price guide to collectible cameras). While we can't cover all the older cameras here, we do have a few tricks you can play with recycling some of the older models. For example, we have a Postcard Panoramic Camera built from an old Kodak #2A folder using obsolete #616 film (hint - they're cheap!). We breathe new life into the camera, thanks in part to a simple 120 rollfilm adapter. You can also find more ideas on rollfilm adapters for older cameras at our Obsolete Films and Adapters pages. Enjoy!

From: Graham Warrellow graham@oakside.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Subject: Re: Astrophotography with a medium format camera body
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000

Matthew Zenkar wiyosaya@-remove.this.spam.blocker.to.reply-rochester.rr.com writes

>Chrish@easynet.co.uk (Chris Heapy)
>wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>
>>Well for one thing, you can barely get 35mm full frame without
>>vignetting, and that's at f/10. Drop to f/6.3 and vignetting is
>>definitely a problem - I know because I tried it. Exposure times at
>>f/10 will be very long for fainter objects. On that basis alone your
>>medium format camera is a waste of film.
>
>Seems others disagree with you on this.

Matthew,

I think you'll find that Chris is right on this one! Although you CAN use MF with the 12" LX200 you will suffer from vignetting problems. These can be processed out afterwards so it all depends what you are aiming for. It's a feat for some of the high-end 'scopes to cover a medium format frame without vignetting. I think you'll find that the image circle isn't big enough to cover medium format no matter how big the opening at the back of the OTA.

For comparison, Philip Perkins discusses vignetting with 35mm film using a f10 10" LX200 with a GEG in different modes:

http://www.astrocruise.com/geg.htm

Philip produces superb MF work with an AP155 (4" focuser) but I am not aware of him using his Pentax 67 with the LX200.

A few other points which might be worth bearing in mind; it's well recognised that the 12" LX200 OTA is considerably more limited than the 10" OTA with regard to the fork obstruction. It's also acknowledged that the 12" is less stable than the 10", especially when mounted on the superwedge, which is presumably your requirement if you are seeking to produce deepsky images. Check out Doc G's site which is full of info on the LX200 mechanics, etc.

http://www.mailbag.com/users/ragreiner

I think that you would find some useful information on Ed Stewart's Meade Topical Archives:

http://www.mapug.com

http://www.mapug.com/AstroDesigns/MAPUG/ArhvList.htm

or by subscribing to MAPUG to get alternative feedback from Meade users, if you don't already do so.

IMHO I would suggest that the addition of a medium format camera would be pointless with ANY LX200, unless you want to do piggyback work :)

But, YMMV!

Hope this helps,

Graham

From: Chrish@easynet.co.uk (Chris Heapy)
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Subject: Re: Astrophotography with a medium format camera body
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000

....

>>Well for one thing, you can barely get 35mm full frame without
>>vignetting, and that's at f/10. Drop to f/6.3 and vignetting is
>>definitely a problem - I know because I tried it. Exposure times at
>>f/10 will be very long for fainter objects. On that basis alone your
>>medium format camera is a waste of film.
>
>Seems others disagree with you on this.

They are welcome to disagree.

Let me clarify: if you dump the plate adapter and buy a Lumicon GEG with 80mm focal reducer (not a cheap option) this will give you the best field coverage possible (about a 50mm circle). The limiting factor will be the i.d. of the primary baffle tube.

You could do worse than go to Doc G's website and read about it:

http://www.mailbag.com/users/ragreiner/

>>Guiding the big 12" Meade for
>>extended periods can be difficult because the mirror is heavy and
>>tends to flop around a bit, a Lumicon GEG with an ST4 is the classic
>>answer to that problem.
>
>Well, maybe it's me; however, I can't see how using a GEG and the ST4
>will compensate for mirror flop.

Yep, it's you. The off-axis port allows the guider to compensate for any mirror shift because the guider will track on a star image from the pick-off prism - which is looking at the same field as the camera.

Chris Heapy

[Ed. note: africa travel reading?...]
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000
From: "Bob Shell" bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] OT:Skunk Anansie

You should definitely read it. My old friend Ivan Sanderson first told me about it a long time ago. Ivan had been a field collector for the British Museum of Natural History in SE Asia and Africa, and loved the book as a storehouse of rare information. Generally, the book has been dismissed as being a mixture of fact and folklore, but Ivan said that those dismissing it as such were "armchair naturalists" who had never spent any time in the back country.

If you decide to read Trader Horn, be aware that the most readily available versions, over here at least, are much shortened "expurgated" versions. It took me some time to find the full length one, which is about three inches thick, but I eventually turned one up at a used book store.

Bob

From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Photographs on Grass

We used to have some apple trees and one of the things I played with was making photos on apples. If you tape a negative to an apple before it is ripe, as it ripens it will only take on color where light strikes it, so you wait for the apple to be nice and red and then remove the negative and there is your image on the apple. After attaching the negative it is a good idea to put a clear plastic bag over the branch and apple to keep rain off.

Bob

> From: muchan muchan@promikra.si
> Organization: ProMikra d.o.o., Ljubljana
> Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 
> Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Photographs on Grass
>
> "Golvala, Charez (London)" wrote:
>>
>> Reasons for reading photo magazines include learning that some people have
>> been taking photographs on grass.  Yes, your ordinary living carpet is
>> photo-sensitive (not surprising if you think about it) and with a long-life
>> variety can keep the image (in a darkened room) for up to 8 months.  The
>> "grassograph" (?? my words) is made by projecting a picture onto the grass
>> for many days, (snip...)
>
> Photograss. Photograssy.  (my words  ;)
> muchan

From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001
From: dupadi1@excite.com
Subject: Home made shutter release cable for Minolta AF SLR

For those who are also familiar with electronic hobby. It's made from a connecter cable of the computer sound card with a switch. I only use it for the "bulb" shutter. But you can made your self a small box with 3 switches as in the commercial cable.

http://www.geocities.com/minoltacamera/tip/0006.html

From: pburian@aol.com (PBurian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Date: 22 Dec 2000
Subject: Re: wildlife and nature articles

Since July of this year (2000) I've had 41,062 hits with 22,472 unique visitors.

41,000 hits in five months? http://www.naturephotographers.net gets that many (or more) in one week.

And according to Neilsen Ratings, http://www.photopoint.com gets 600,000 Unique Visits per month.

Peter Burian

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001
From: "Paul Bolam" Paul@bolam67.freeserve.co.uk
Subject: [Leica] Was Large format advice, now 6x9 camera

Hi Logan,

I've down-sized my medium and large format gear over the last two years, as a result of back problems. I had Mamiya RZ67 and Sinar kit but have consolidated to a Silvestri T30 architectural camera.

http://www.silvestricamera.com/

This is a modular system primarily designed for 6x7 and 6x9 format but with specific film holders it can also do 6x12 and 4x5. You can use either Schneider or Rodenstock lenses from 35mm up to 180mm.

The front of the camera can be shifted by 30mm to eliminate converging lines. The camera is very compact and built like a tank. The rollfilm holder rotates so you can change from landscape to portrait quickly. I normally use it in 6x9 format.

I only have two Schneider lenses; the Super Angulon 5.6/47XL and the APO Symmar 5.6/100. The former is designed for 4x5 and the latter 6x9. So, I can use the 47XL in 4x5 format and it roughly equates to a 14mm (in 35mm film standards). Obviously, this is great for architectural interiors and should I use it with the 6x9 RFH then it equates to a 20mm lens (in 35mm equivalent standard).

Have a look at Silvestri's site and please let me know if you have any further questions.

Cheers,
Paul.

Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 
To: HUG hasselblad@kelvin.net>
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org>
Subject: [HUG] FOP to close.

THE FRIENDS OF PHOTOGRAPHY TO CLOSE

SAN FRANCISCO -- The board of trustees of The Friends of Photography
has announced that the San Francisco-based nonprofit organization and
its popular museum, the Ansel Adams Center, will close its doors
permanently October 31, 2001, and that its programs and assets are
being transferred to other San Francisco Bay Area organizations for the
ongoing benefit of its members and the public.

Founded January 2, 1967, in Carmel, California, by famed photographer
Ansel Adams and several of his colleagues, including Brett Weston,
Morley Baer and Beaumont and Nancy Newhall, The Friends of Photography
is internationally renowned for its success in promoting photography as
a fine art through its extensive publications, exhibitions, awards,
workshops, and education and outreach programs.  Its gallery was one of
the first in the country devoted exclusively and independently to
exhibiting fine art photography.

The Friends moved to San Francisco in 1989, and was the first nonprofit
arts institution to make its home in the now burgeoning South of
Market/Yerba Buena Gardens arts and entertainment district.  In January
2001, the organization moved from Fourth Street into handsome new
facilities at 655 Mission Street, around the corner from SFMOMA. 



Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 
From: Ilja Friedel ilja@its.caltech.edu>
To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu>
Subject: Re: Plaubel Veriwide

Hi Robert,

> yep, the problem with panoramics is output; my major panoramic output
> will probably be limited, for now, to our campus scanners/printers,
> meaning a max of 11 inches wide paper and about 44 inches long on epson.

Our group just got an Epson 2000P. And I have to install it. Well. But we
don't seem to get a medium or large format scanner. So I probably won't
use it.

> (http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/budgetlf.html

I havn't seen that site before, thanks! Of course I have to get a Polaroid
now too. Looks like fun.

I sent the check today to Ralph. So I hope I will have the Veriwide soon.
He told me, that in the past days five people asked him about the
Veriwides. (All of them backpackers as me.) And none did in the past few
years. Strange?

Do you know anything about the PAQ.net lenses for the Graflex XL?
(www.paq.net, www.bigcamera.com) Sounds like they are working on a 6x9
system for less than USD 1500. Nice new lenses, but the Graflex XL is
still too heavy.

Back to the viewfinders. It seems like the 21mm Voigtlander finder is
really hard to find without a lens. Do you know why? It is not even listed
on the www.voigtlaender.de web site. I'm really confused. Some of the
other focal lengths were on sale on some stores. But 21mm? Nada.

Ilja.


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 
From: "KAHN, JEREMY H " jeremy.h.kahn@monsanto.com>
Subject: RE: Shooting computer screens

I've had some experience doing it on film, if it helps.

I set it in Shutter Priority for 1/15 (It's got to be more than 1/60 'cause
otherwise the screen won't show up, as it refreshes 60 times a second) and
use a neutral color balance.

-Jeremy



Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 
From: Oz3D 3d@tpg.com.au
To: Classic 35mm Compacts 
Subject: [Classic 35mm Compacts] Re: XA


I am new to this group, but not new to Olympus XAs.

There were 5 basic models of the XA. These were the original XA, the
XA1, XA2, XA3 and XA4.

All XA models are the same basic size and shape.

The original XA is considered by some as being superior to the other
models. I recall seeing a TV show on photography some years ago where
the XA was referred to as the 'Professional's Disposable Camera'. It
was used as a concealed camera by photographers in combat and other
risky or undercover task where cameras were not advisable - the XA
could be quickly disposed of if the photographer looked like getting
into trouble.

The XA1 is at the bottom of the range and is the only XA model that
does not have a battery.


The XA2 is a lovely little program automatic camera with sharp lenses.

The XA3 is an XA2 with DX and the XA4 is an XA3 with a wider angle
lens (28mm rather than 35mm).

In addition to being made in black, the XA2 came in several colours
including blue, green, white and red. Other models only came in black.

I have uploaded a few photos of XA cameras to the Photos section of
this list. URL =
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/classic35mmcompacts/lst
Just click on the XA folder.

Oz


From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 
From: gerald widen gwiden@alliancepartners.org
Subject: RE: Greenspun


I had a few back and fourth email conversations with Philip Greenspun a
few weeks ago concering some of the problems at photo.net specificially
the ratings  and phony accounts people set up. I was surprised to hear
that only 2 or 3 people "work" there on a volenteer basis because he
can't afford to pay employees . He mentioned that some of these people
might have to leave because they need to find income. If someone call in
sick a lot of stuff doesn't happen. There are also expensive server
costs. The site doesn't bring in enough money and he is personally
making up the difference beyond whatever comes in from the camera stores
that advertise and whatever contributions the members make.
Approximately 100,000 subscribe and he is considering having an annual
fee to use the site. He doesn't care if only 10% or so sign up. The
Lucenet/Greenspun forums I believe are related and also supported by
Philip (there is no advertising at all). I don't know who actually keeps
the forums running, but I guess it is the same people at PN. I think PN
is considered more important and whenever at a particular time resources
are limited the forums suffer. I'm not sure this is reason the Leica and
other Greenspun forums sites are frequently down for long periods but
wouldn't be surprised.

chris williams wrote:
> Greenspun seems to go down, then later in the day it's back up.
>
> Chris Williams




Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 
From: Jim Brick jbrick@elesys.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net, hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Permanent Labels?

Daniel Lee wrote:
>I'VE seen lables that allow me to put my logo on and about 3 lines of
>informatin...Dymo etc is too limiting.
>
>
>But thanks anyway...


Go to the Dymo web site and you will discover that their labelers (I have
one) will allow you to use about a hundred different label sizes, put
logos, bar codes, virtually anything on labels, and up to, depending upon
label size, a dozen lines of text, in fifty different fonts.   


And you can epoxy them on your camera gear (even your forehead) so that
they will withstand a torrential rainstorm and hurricane, and cannot be
removed.

Jim 


From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: gigapixel eyes have it... Re: hassy gear going, going..
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 


Brian Ellis wrote:

> I've never read it anywhere and the notion that there is a "standard viewing
> distance" strikes me as very odd since photographs can be viewed in so many
> different contexts and for so many different purposes.  I've taken quite a
> few college level photography and other art courses and I've never
> encountered anything like a "standard viewing distance" anywhere. However,
> if you've seen it in so many books it should be pretty easy for you to point
> me to just one of them . Thanks.

"Standard viewing distances", or rather "correct" viewing distances, pop up
now and again in photo literature in the context of prints, print sizes,
focal lengths of taking lenses and correct perspective. For correct
perspective, a print should be viewed from a distance equal to the focal
length of the taking lens multiplied by the degree of enlargement.
Of course almost noone ever cares to heed this rule. It's quite impractical,
and unnecessary.

Another instance of "standard viewing distances" is found in the ancient,
yet still very much alive, depth of field norm. This instance is far more
pratical, since it acknowledges the actual circumstances in which most
people view most photographs of the most commonly found print sizes.
This "standard viewing distance" is not much different from the "reading
distance", which rears its head now and again too, albeit usually not in a
photographic context.

I'm surprised you never heard of these two in your photography courses, or
elsewhere. ;-)

Just as DoF is linked to viewing distance, print size, and angular
resolution of the eye, the DPI count, or raster in print, is linked to the
same. Beyond a certain DPI, noone will see any improvement at this (ahum...)
"standard viewing distance", which usually is taken to be the viewing
distance most people 'use' when reading a magazine. It's one of the reasons
why no magazine will even fantasize about printing at, say, 2000 l/mm.


Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: gigapixel eyes have it... Re: hassy gear going, going..


"Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl a ,crit 

> It's quite impractical, and unnecessary.

Without specification of a nominal viewing distance, any discussion of
resolution in the context of photographs intended for viewing by human
beings is moot.  So viewing-distance numbers are both practical and
necessary.


From: Phil Stripling phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What to do with the little plastic containers film comes in?
Date: 04 Aug 2002 


paulcrowder@hotmail.com (paulisme) writes:

> I'm trying to figure out some use for the plastic containers 35mm
> cartridges come in.  I hate to throw them away since they seem to have
> so many potential uses, but I have yet to think of a good one.  So far
>SNIP<

I bought salt and pepper shaker tops for them at a camping supply store.
My wife and I use them for pill containers. Louise keeps rock and seed
samples in them. If you have any tools at all, you can use them for screws,
washers, bolts, nuts, and such sundry small items. They're fairly
watertight and can be used to store strike anywhere matches (which must be
cut down somewhat to size if they're what are called "kitchen matches" in
America). A cannister will hold a AA or smaller battery(ies), again somewhat
watertightly. If you collect enough of them, you could tie them all
together and float down to the Caribbean. I think that may be the best
use. Let me know how many it takes to make a good raft, will you?

--
Philip Stripling


From: "Al Denelsbeck" AL@wading-in.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What to do with the little plastic containers film comes in?
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 

paulisme paulcrowder@hotmail.com wrote...
> I'm trying to figure out some use for the plastic containers 35mm
> cartridges come in.  I hate to throw them away since they seem to have
> so many potential uses, but I have yet to think of a good one.  So far
> all I've done with them is make water bombs to throw at my office
> mates.  I was wondering if anybody has done anything else creative
> with them.


    Okay, there's no way I'm gonna top Steve, so I won't even try.

    I use them for parts for projects, saving the screws when I disassemble
something (including my computer), mixing paint when I used to do a lot of
model work, keeping a small amount of alcohol, distilled water, or other
fluids for cleaning near my desk, and so on.


    I keep a few different varieties of them, some in the camera bag, for
holding shot film that's been pushed, or yanked out of the camera midroll
(using the kind that you can write a frame number on the top). By the way, I
also use a knife to scrape some paint off the actual film cartridge of
pushed rolls, so there's no mistake.

    Best usage, I think, has been punching numerous small holes in several
of them and filling them with dessicant (you know, the moisture-absorbing
granules in those 'Do Not Eat' packages you get with electronics and shoes).
Since the stuff is rechargeable, having a container you can open and seal
again is ideal. When not in use, I keep the loaded dessicant cans in a
ziploc bag.

    And if you're looking for dessicant, check out places that sell copiers.
They get at least one large bag with every copier, and will likely give them
to you for nothing.

        - Al.


From: "Al Denelsbeck" AL@wading-in.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What to do with the little plastic containers film comes in?
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002

Melissa honeybee1959@SPAMhotmail.com wrote
> What do you use the desiccant for?  And how do you recharge the granules?

    Long-term storage of cameras, lenses, negatives, or slides. Storage of
any other electronic item. Anything where humidity might be an issue. Some
photographers shooting in rainy areas keep a couple containers in their
camera bags, but I wonder if the stuff doesn't become 'overloaded' quickly
with so much circulation of humid air.

    In some circumstances where you might have to change temperatures with
your camera and lens abruptly, like coming indoors from near-freezing
weather, condensation can form on your lens very quickly. Putting the lens
in a ziploc bag, especially with a small container, can prevent this. Take
it out once the lens is room temp.

    A few years back, when my camera bag became soaked and had to sit, wet,
for a few hours, I got humidity inside the front element of one of my
lenses. Stuck the lens in a large ziploc with two containers of dessicant,
and set it in the sun for two days. Dried it right out.

   For recharging, just spread the granules out on a cookie sheet and bake
them in an oven set for 250 degrees F for a couple hours. To the best of my
knowledge, you can do this as many times as you like - there is supposed to
be no 'active lifespan' for silica gel.

    Cheers!

        - Al.



From: Chris Hutcheson cbh@ideaworldhq.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: View Camera website
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 


Just a quick note.

It is possible within Acrobat's application (not the reader) to password
protect a document at a variety of levels, including openining,
printing, copying, modifying content as well. I do it all the time here
for sample work I send out.

Chris Hutcheson

> RE: PDF... Yes an additional viewer is required.  However the viewer is free
> and you already have a pointer to a download site.
>
> That said the .GIF vs. .PDF has another twist.  I can't directly copy
> (steal) text and individual images from a .GIF.  The veiwer does allow
> copying of text from the document.  Steve has a right himself and perhaps an
> obligtion to his contributers to make copying materials at least a little
> difficult.

--
Cheers!

Chris Hutcheson
chrishutcheson.com


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 
From: "Duncan Staples" gdstaples@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Auto start on photo cd

Taz:

Need to include an autorun.inf at the root. See instructions here:

http://www.trah.co.uk/starterfile/

Duncan
...


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 
From: "Hung2003" hungkh@singmail.com
Subject: Re: Re: Auto start on photo cd

I use shellexe.exe, freeware. See 
http://www.whirlywiryweb.com/q%2Fshellexe.asp

Hung


From: reynolds@panix.com [reynolds@panix.com] 
Sent: Thu 3/27/2003 
To: Monaghan, Robert 
Subject: Re: Monaghan's MF page is down

Robert,

This is kind of old, so I thought I'd reply to you directly.

In article  you write:
>
>To some degree, Google's cache feature is another option. But I have
>nightmares of sites like Mr. Markerink's and yours and others out
>there all disappearing, waking up in a cold sweat ;-) There is a
>Library of Congress system, incidentally, that received a donated
>archive of some terabytes of internet websites archived by one of the
>commercial services for their big corporate clients. I did a website
>for our systems engineering program, and nearly 80% of those pages
>are no longer there just 5 years later - and most were corporate or
>govt sites at NASA etc.

Do you know about the Internet Archive Way Back Machine at
URL:http://www.archive.org/? It has a lot of stuff (including
things besides web pages) and it seems they'll stick around.

By the way, I think the cache and archiving sites exist on the good
will of the information providers. Google and the Internet Archive
have no legal standing to copy my entire web page and provide it to
others. Google (and dejanews before them) has made provisions for
those who did not want their USENET posts archived. They've also
pulled things from their web cache when asked.

--
Brian Reynolds | "But in the new approach, as you know,
reynolds@panix.com | the important thing is to understand
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what you're doing rather than to get
NAR# 54438 | the right answer." -- Tom Lehrer



From: "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" username@qwest.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Clifford Ross R1 camera: highest resolution?
Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 

Hi
In today's Denver Post, page 4A, is an article about
Clifford Ross, his 110-pound R1 camera he built, and the
spectacular "Mountain I" image that is on display in the
Sonnabend Gallery in New York through July 30.
The image is of Mount Sopris, Colorado and, according to
the article, may be onw of the highest resolution images ever
made.

There are no details about the camera except that it is
a "six foot" camera and weights 110 pounds. The photo
with the article shows what looks like an 8x10, or perhaps
11x14 camera on about a 6-foot tripod.

Anyone have info about this guy, his camera, and his images?

Roger Clark


From: john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.technique.nature,comp.periphs.scanners
Subject: Re: scanning large format: to the limit (and beyond)
Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" username@qwest.net wrote:

[...]

Roger - one more thing. Have you considered using the ZoomView feature of
Photoshop (7 and up) to display your web image? That way you can put the
whole image up and we can zoom into segments.

One example: http://arts.winona.edu/i/drake/burwell001.html (probably expired)
And I've one of Brian Caldwell's well known Flat Iron building. (ask for URL)



End of Page